Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEEDER SUPPLY - PDP - PDP130012 - REPORTS - MEMO / P & Z BOARDNo Text • ILI -dda DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO July 16, 2013 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins, Current Planning P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO.80522 Re: PDP1300012 Feeder Supply Project: DDA Comments Ted, DDA staff appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the Feeder Supply project proposed by Lagunitas Company during the PDP review process. Our written comments/questions that correspond to notes on the drawings are as follows: I. Willow Street Improvements in the Ri t of Way: The curb/gutter pattem, sidewalk width, tree grates and street lighting shown on Willow Street appear to match recently "enhanced" installations on Linden Street that were funded by the City/DDA. Is the developer being asked to fund these enhancements which exceed the Larimer County Urban Street Standards? Also, what is the timing of developer funded right-of-way improvements with the overall re -design and construction of improvements on Willow Street? 2. Willow Street Apartments Building Facade (see elevation drawinO: Articulation of fagade surface in the window/balcony areas indicated on the drawing is unclear. Is this a single plane horizontal surface on the second and third floors or is there more articulation of planes? If single plane, to add more visual interest it is suggested that either more articulation in surfaces is designed or a second skin material other than red brick is selectively introduced to offer variety. 3. Linden Street Addition: Facade Comments (see elevation drawing): While the intent of the parapet line on first story appears to mimic lines on historic Feeder Building, due to an increased setback of the addition, it now crowds and blocks the view of the lower half of the second story windows. In an earlier design progress elevation from October 2012 (attached to drawing), the first story of the addition appeared to extend out further toward Linden Street (zero setback). Increasing the setback has forced this parapet feature against the second floor building fagade. Suggest reworking the size and pattern of the parapet line in front of the windows. 4. Indoor Patio Addition: Drawings do not indicate the material selections and type of construction proposed for the new covered patio addition. Can more information be provided? Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Todd Dangerfield Project Manager 19 Old Town Square, Suite 230 1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 1 tel 970-484-2020 1 fax 970-484.2069 1 DowntownFortCollins.org Fort Collins /0"V REVISION Current Planning COMMENT SHEET PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 90522-0580 Fax: 970-224-61.14 DATE: July 5, 2013 TO: Downtown Development Authority PROJECT PLANNER:, Ted Shepard PDP1300012 Feeder Supply PDP Type H 2nd Round of Review PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: July 17, 2013 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems Xproblems or Concems (see below, attached, or DMS) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS —Plat Site _Drainage Report 'Other J9 FLA-Vft—i R►.4�s _Utility --Redline Utility _Landscape Thank you for this opportunity to covey our comments about this project and please feel free to contact us _ with any questions._ _ Regards, � Todd Dangerfield nMattobenalt "` `--PrcjecCManager ''j l " __ _ �utive Director - _ - - I► .Ldda • DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO August 7, 2013 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins, Current Planning P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522 Re: PDP1360012 Feedei Supply Project: DDA Staff Comments Dear Ted, • � u'� `a �J As you know, in July DDA staff was offered the opportunity to comment on the Feeder Supply project proposed by Lagunitas Company during the PDP review process. In addition DDA staff member Todd Dangerfieid attended the City Staff Review Meeting July 17. Several questions were submitted in writing in advance of the meeting that address architectural as well as street improvement requirements on the Willow Street frontage of the property (see attached letter). To date, staff has yet to receive clarity on what level of right-of-way improvements on Willow Street the developer will be required to fund and/or install with this project. The DDA Board has yet to review this project. One role that we play is to work with developers to format projects in anticipation of a future presentation to the Board. We have been meeting and corresponding periodically with Jon Prouty of Lagunitas since October 2012 and are pleased with the progress the proposed designs for both the -historic Feeder Supply and residential apartment buildings have made since the first concept. designs were shared. It is the opinion of staff that Jon has shown a willingness to solicit comments from multiple sources, often incorporating their suggestions into the designs when feasible and appropriate.- This has recently been demonstrated with Jon's integration of a fagade - parapet design suggestion from staff for the mill building addition outlined in the aforementioned letter. Staff has become aware of two architectural design modifications that have been requested of Lagunitas as conditions for project approval: A reduction in the proposed additional glazing on the west side of the historical mill building from three windows_ to one window. 2. Recessing the tower element proposed for the Willow Street fagade of the apartment building behind the building face rather than bumping out the face of the tower two feet beyond the building face as proposed in the design. It is our opinion the requested design modifications are focusing on the interpretation of stylistic or aesthetic features of the buildings and may not be fully taking into account the programing or interior design challenges often encountered with -the adaptive reuse of historical structures or when meeting the City code requirements of multi -family housing projects. Stylistic interpretations may be better left to the project design professionals who can better assess the project as a whole and make decisions accordingly. We have evaluated the design and feel from a typological perspective the tower element; a modern interpretation of a mill building, responds well to its urban context and the internal programming of the building. The additional windows proposed for the west fagade of the historic mill building appear to minimally impact the integrity of the fagade yet will permit additional natural light to infiltrate the building improving the experience for patrons of the proposed restaurant. 19 Old Town Square, Suite 230 1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 1 let 970-484-2020 1 fax 970-484-2069 1 DowntownFortCollins.org JIW7 I AM: MAJ I 1� t *Elf 1 -4 low' 1 SAW hill, lion PF RE — +JIM11F f� I � 1 I Bas Bleu Theatre — Interstate Battery —138' Palmer Building —195' 7,7 r {{I llllij �l jIIII Il�l�hlll nIi!li WIWI 4 xl ?�. :.Ira; r u7 r i CrYL � •• f . �1,•..ffS..'avkrru �rY Y � { \ r l ate• . �. . ........... 20 �l.4IZ�H��SCs �4DDi�f"��U • ��—_� 1 e5 A-D� iL/ oN. _ (W%bw sd-, w M d U Q 1>o N -- TREEGAAj& P.i i ..-•.r.aa. �+V PATIO ; • ' '� , " r "ST0113 VEGETATION TO REAWN HOUS _ MILL a • Z F�P CEL W� ,' CX19T1TREE TO BE i'FtOTECfEO rTECT ,'. • yi , (n ADDITION r EXISTING E30 %/ ccC-SS RIU� ToeRC a FEEDERS SUPPLY L1 J r �~ I ME !3� L-- W O V) U U Q 60 N � �Yarie:+4H w, °NIF C:XIf1',/vy o _ PATIO t y :r � Eal^TU10 VE TA � 0E TION TO REAW N � A"THT CE, � MILL t m.. COMMERC Al_ Kt PARCEL �1 , ,y t; z VINO TREE 10 PROTECTED > • y�) {~T% ADDITION \ ) 30 "Acccs; DRiUE- EMSTtN0TREE �. TO M PROTECTER FEEDERSSUPPLY PRopef�y 20 CI) Summary of Comments Landmark Preservation Committee Second Complimentary Review Feeder Supply Project June 26, 2013 - - Apartment Building - - - - - "Like red brick." "Like glass and steel tower." "Don't recess tower." "Don't diminish tower." "Tower is the major architectural feature of the apartment building -keep it that way." _ "More modern." "Red brick is a nod to other mills in the area." "Elegant" "Touch of Willow Sheet mill/industrial heritage." "Like fourth level setbacks." "Disagree that proposed tower looks like a clock tower." Indoor -Outdoor Patio `Excellent new indoor -outdoor patio design and changes." "Have solved staff -mentioned problem of indoor -outdoor patio." Mill New West Addition "Appreciate Jon's responsiveness to historical people's review and input" "Glass divider between the Mill and the new addition is very impressive." "Simplified West Mill Addition is more appropriate, less omate." "Overall design simpler and subordinate to mill fagade." "Excellent setbacks permitting view of west side of Mill Building." "Three second -level Mill Building windows okay." "Have solved staff -mentioned problem of three windows." "Delete second level window lintels." "Too suburban Iooking, change to storefront glass, too residential, and sills are too clunky." Demo Existing West Addition "Elimination of west additions (deteriorated, non -historic) okay." JP/sjw t F:1DocumcntsTecder SupplyWDP Documcnis�Sununaryof LPC Rcmads.070213.doo 7/3/2013 1227 M provide access to and from the building, mail areas, elevator, stairs, halls and courtyard. Most importantly is that there be a minimum of 10 ft. in front of the elevator door for those waiting with bicycles to use the elevator to gather at and be out of the way_ so that those getting off of the.elevator with bicycles can do so (see - Attachment 8). Recently the City of Fort Collins adopted an ordinance requiring one bicycle storage space per bedroom and 60 percent of bicycle storage space to protected and secure. The way we have chosen to meet this requirement is by providing a "sports equipment alcove" inside every apartment unit. Such "sports. equipment alcove" would have a roll -down door, tile or laminate floor, fiberglass walls and adequate vertical clearance for hanging -bicycles, as welt as -storing skis and -kayaks. All halls and areas where bicycles will be going opposite directions, need a minimum of 5 ft. for convenient passage, including stairs and lobby areas. All doors should be a minimum of 3 ft. wide except for the ground level building entry, which should have two 3-ft. doors, both operable. The minimum size for -the tower/lobby dimensions is 2008 ft..-Recessing the entire tower/lobby, besides being an ugly mistake from a design standpoint, would result in elimination of windows and decks for six apartment units, which is, of course, unacceptable. - There are numerous long buildings both in Old Town and on Willow Street with an average length of 186 feet in Old Town and 204 feet on Willow Street. Most of 4 these buildings have no central element to split the mass (see Attachments 9, 10 and 11). We are proposing splitting mass with a glass and steel tower/lobby which protrudes 2 ft. with a gable roof cupola. There are numerous examples of buildings using a protruding central tower element for essential functional purposes as well as to split _ the mass. a addition the tower, as proposed, emulates classic mill architectural designs both locally and out of town. (see Attachments 12, 13 and 14). An additional advantage of the gable roof cupola is that it provides access from the — interior fourth floor. vaulted ceiling area to -the -elevator top machinery, which - - - otherwise would have to be accessed from ugly alternative rooftop access structures. In conclusion, this new structure, the Apartment Building, is compatible with the historic character of the adjacent historic property, namely the Mill Building and Warehouse Addition. CAUsersVon\Documents\My Docs 071210\Feeders\P & b0arific`ations and Questions memo 086613.doe 48/7i2013 8:25 AM The side -light windows are desirable from the standpoint of safety and being able to see if someone is on the opposite side of the door before you unlock the door (especially, of course, during off hours). As proposed, adding a door with side -light windows is essential for the successful adaptive -reuse of the Warehouse Addition, and has no negative impact on the character defining the features. D. Warehouse Addition Fire Sprinkler Door It is essential for the successful adaptive reuse and of the Mill Building and the Warehouse Addition, and for code requirements, that the building be fully fire sprinklered and related to that, have a fire sprinkler room. The fire sprinkler room is located at the north end of the Warehouse Addition with access steps and an access door on the east side of same. These east steps and door will be well hidden from view by landscaping (see Attachments 5 and 6). An alternative location for this door would be the north end of the mixed -use building, however, this would involve ripping out -about 10 or 12 f1. of original. wall .._ and placing a steel header in such wall in order to adequately recess this alternative entrance from a required 28 ft. drive that it would front on. It would seem like the alternative we have proposed would be preferable in terms of a successful adaptive reuse of the Warehouse Building, because it provides access to the required fire sprinkler room but has much less negative impact on building and because it has no impact on its character -defining features. E. Warehouse Addition's Sliding Door The sliding door is adequate for its current use, which is access to a hay and feed storage warehouse (see Attachment 6). It will not be adequate from a functional standpoint nor will it meet handicap accessibility requirements or energy requirements, when the Warehouse Addition is being adaptively reused as a restaurant. The photos attached showing the substantial gap between the door -and the building, as well as a broken track roller. (see Attachment 7). We would propose that this historic sliding door and historic steps be preserved in their current state, however, be secured and insulated, as code requires, and be maintained as a nonfunctional design attribute of this building (similar to what is planned for the West Mill Building stairs, dock and door). F. Apartment Tower/Lobby It is essential that the Apartment tower/lobby protrude 2 ft. in order for there to be adequate space in the lobby areas, at every floor, to accommodate bicycles and, to CA1JsersUon\Documents\My Docs 071210\Feeders\P & Z\Clafifications and Questions memo 080613.doc 38n12013 8:25 AM The benefit of three windows on the west side is that they will not be street facing but, rather, will face internally into the project (see Attachments 2 and 3). The sizes of the Mill first floor -windows are: two 3WO inches, two 45x80 inches, and two 37x72 inches. The one second -level east -facing window is 44x65 inches and is the Mill's smallest window. It would seem most appropriate that this small sized window would be the size of the three additional new windows we are proposing. - - The original window style -we proposed included a -simple lintel and -sill, however, -in - — response'to an' LPC`fequest, we simplified'the window; eliminating panes, lintels and - sills, and using a fixed glass or casement window. An alternative would be to add the simple detail of a stucco sill. The three windows we have proposed are different than the existing Mill windows but complementary. The three windows proposed are essential for successful adaptive reuse of the second -level as a banquet/conference room and such modifications do not negatively impact the character -defining features of the Mill. " B. Indoor -Outdoor Patio - With regard to the concern about the type of roll -up glass we would be using, attached please find a possible example. Our goal, for the roll -up glass windows, is for them to be entirely transparent, with the exception of minimal hinge fittings. There are many architectural roll -up window choices available today, which accomplish this result -(see Attachment 4). I C. New Warehouse Enhance A new access door is required for fire exit, handicap -access and general access to the building core, which is stairs, elevators and restrooms, and is essential for a successful adaptive reuse of the Mill and the Warehouse Addition. Also it is very important for office users to have access to their premises when the restaurant is - - closed (see attachments-5 and 6). - _ It should be noted that elevator and stairs were moved out of the Warehouse Addition west into the Addition in order to avoid any impact from same on the Warehouse Addition. Door could be storefront glasswith-side-lightwindows, like we have shown. Or it could be storefront glass with no side -light windows. Or it could be a wood or wood -like composite door with half glass and side -light windows. CAUsersUon\Documents\My Docs 071210\Feeders\P & Warifications and Questions memo 080613.doc 28/7/2013' 8.25 AM U�''tel To: P&Z, Ted Shepard, Karen McWilliams, Heather Peterson & Ann McCleave From: Jon Prouty Re: Clarifications and Questions Discussion Date: August 6, 2013 Clarifications P&Z is the decision -maker based on LUC 3.4.7: Modifications to Feeder Building shall provide for preservation and adaptive use [Restaurant] of building and also shall protect and enhance building's historical and architectural value. In addition, new structures (West Addition, Indoor -Outdoor patio and adjacent apartment) must be compatible with the historic character of the Mill Building. Historic Structural Assessment (HSA) specifies „seven character -defining features of The Mill, which are: front faeade; parapet wall; gable roof, cupola, historic windows, historic sliding doors and stucco finish. - - - P&Z makes the decisions based on the foregoing with, but with consideration of the comments from Staff, State, Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and Historic Structural Assessment (HSA). State comments are: "The addition and other alterations [to the Feeder Building] will not negatively affect the designation (contributing building) status of the historic building [ the Feeder Building]. The historic portion would be contributing to the District and the Addition would be noncontributing, even though it's attached." (Heather Peterson) LPC comments are: changes that have been made are very satisfactory. (see Attachment 1) HSA comments are: "...adaptive reuse [of Mill Building]... will require some alterations to the building envelope, i.e., addition of windows and doors (to be kept to a minimum) required for functional adaptations and code enhancement." 2. Design Questions Discussion A. Three second -level west windows. Additional daylight is essential for the second level -to be adaptively reused successfully as a restaurant/banquet/conference room. Five additional windows would be most desirable (two on the east and three on the west, however, three on the west will be adequate. C:\UsersUon\Documems%My Does 071210TeedersT & Z1Clarifications and Questions memo 080613.doc _ 18/72013 8:25 AM Page 1 of Jon Prouty From: Ted Shepard [TSHEPARD@fcgov.coml Sent: Tuesday,, July'23, 2013 2:01 PM 1 ` To: jonj@frii.com; Josh Weinberg Subject: FW: Feeder Bldg and designation This message recently arrived from Heather Peterson at the State. Ted Shepard Chief Planner City of Fort Collins 970-221-6343 From: Karen McWilliams Sent: Tuesday, July 23,, 2013 1:56 PM , To- Ted Shepard I wel , l q 3 Subject: FW: Feeder Bldg and designation f �S From: McCleave - HC, Anne mailto: e.mccleave(astate.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1: PM To: Karen Mc' i iams Cc: Heather Peterson - H Subject: Feeder Bldg ay3d designation pug 04K KAK 1� Hi Karen, I just shared th plans of the Feeder Building with Heather Peterson. She said no, the addition and other alterations will not negatively affect the designation (contributing building) st~ ahis o the historic building. The historic portion would be contributing to the district and the addition would be non-contributing, even though it's attached. As for the new apartment building, she said adding one building like that to the district would not negatively impact the historic district, but adding more and more of this type in the district�vould negatively impact tile district. We both agree that stepping the center lobby in (recessed behind the planes of the apartment wings) would be more appropriate. Thanks for letting us review these.plans. Anne McCleave Historic Preservation Specialist State Historical Fund 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3536 a n ne. mccleaveta').state.co. us Summary of Comments Landmark Preservation Committee Second Complimentary Review Feeder Supply Project June 26, 2013 Apartment Building "Like red brick." "Like glass and steel tower." "Don't recess tower." "Don't diminish tower." "Tower is the major architectural feature of the apartment building — keep it that way." "More modern." "Red brick is a nod to other mills in the area." "Elegant." "Touch of Willow Street mill/industrial heritage." "Like fourth level setbacks." "Disagree that proposed tower looks like a clock tower." Indoor -Outdoor Patio "Excellent new indoor -outdoor patio design and changes" "Have solved staff -mentioned problem of indoor -outdoor patio" Mill New West Addition "Appreciate Jon's responsiveness to historical people's review and input." "Glass divider between the Mill and the new addition is very impressive." "Simplified West Mill Addition is more appropriate, less ornate" "Overall design simpler and subordinate to mill fagade." "Excellent setbacks permitting view of west side of Mill Building." "Three second -level Mill Building windows okay." "Have solved staff -mentioned problem of three windows." "Delete second level window lintels." "Too suburban looking, change to storefront glass, too residential, and sills are too clunky." Demo Existina West Additions "Elimination of west additions (deteriorated, non -historic) okay." JP/sjw F.ADocumtntsTetdet SuppWDP DocumtWSummary orLPC aemw s.070213.doo 7l3/2013 1217 PM To: Ted Shepard V From: Jon Prouty Re: Feeders Supply / Response To P & Z Questions At Work Session Date: August 2, 2013 1 — Landmark Preservation Commission The Landmark Preservation Commission has an advisory role only because the Feeders Supply building is already a designated eligible historic landmark as a result of being in local and national historic districts and also in the state and federal historic building registers. We met twice with LPC for complimentary review of the Feeders Supply project. Also we benefited from the advice and ideas of two LPC designated architects with historic building expertise, as well as from a Historic Structural Assessment funded jointly by ourselves, the city and the state. Attached please see the LPC's comments from our last meeting with them. 2 — State Recommendation Of Approval ,A. State views on Fort Collins development reviews are advisory. B. Relevant issues are i) do proposed Feeder Supply building changes or additions negatively affect the continued eligibility of the Feeder Supply building, and ii) does the apartment building negatively impact the Feeder Supply building or the historic districts. C. The answer is "no" according to Heather Peterson, the State Historic Officer in charge of "eligibility" impact determinations. D. Attached please see Heather Peterson's statement about this. 3 — P & Z Is The Decision -Maker P & Z is the decision -maker local for planning review process in general and for historic review as per LUC 3.4.7, which is "does the building design provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure [Feeders mill and Warehouse Addition]" and are "new structures [west addition, patio addition and apartment] compatible with the historic character of historic property." 4 — P & Z Issues Identified At Work Session A. Number and size of windows of the west side (facing internally into project — not street facing) of Feeder Supply mill building. B. Addition of 2 doors and 2 windows on the East side (Willow facing) of the Warehouse Addition as per proposed plan. Standard #1 (see above) Standard #2 (see above) — See ITS#55, "Retaining Industrial Character in Historic Buildings." See Application 3, where Photo D shows a door in a fixed position and new infill door(s) installed in the opening. 2.D. Warehouse Addition Fire. Sprinkler Door _ - It is possible to install the door on the rear wall (referred to as the north end) and therefore it should be installed on the rear wall. Installing this entrance on the Willow Street elevation would also involve removal of historic material and I -would think require as lintel efc on this elevation - (just as it does on the rear, as explained in the memo). In addition, whethenor ngLIandscaping-is installed, the Willow Street elevation is prominent and visible. Standard 92 (see above). ITS #22, the last sentence of the second paragraph states: "Although it is always preferable that a new entrance be added to a rear or side elevation, in some instances a new entrance may be added on a primary elevation ...." So in some instances a new entrance may be added to a primary elevation; however in the case of the Feeder Building, a rear entrance is possible and therefore the entrance should be added to the rear elevation. 2.E. Warehouse Addition's Sliding Door My comments are included above, with item 2.C. 2.F. Apartment Tower/Lobby The projected tower creates a larger mass than that of a recessed tower, A recessed tower would respect the pattern of existing buildings in the district and make it appear like two smaller buildings with a connector. Page 3 of 3 Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize -a property will he preserved. The lack of windows in the second floor is a character -defining feature of the building and by - adding windows, historic materials will be removed and the alteration of_the features that characterize the property will lost; things that should be avoided. --ITS #14-- "New Openings in Secondary Elevations -or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls." See Application I in this bulletin:=: -Y ITS#21, "Adding New Openings on Secondary Elevations," states that "The. character of certain i types of hi'toric buildings, such as grain silos and grain elevators, or ice houses and cold storage - --` facilities, is_def defined —at least in part—eir by th_blank walls. -Consequently, -•they are•not goad- :._ . candidates foi residential conversion, or for any new use that requires a loi of windows." The next paragraph goes on to state: "The number of new openings should be limited so that enough mass remains to keep the wall's sense of solidity. It is usually recommended when adding compatible' new openings to a blank wall that windows not be cut into the first bay at either end of the wall but, instead, pulled back at least one bay." Thus, the reason the right window (the one closest to Linden) should not be added. 2.13. Indoor -Outdoor Patio I appreciate the attached examples. I just need to know the specifics for this project's patio windows: in the rendering on attachment 4A, it shows the patio having four bays and within each bay it appears that there are two "windows" (one over one, thus only one horizontal muntin/hinge). It appears that the roll up sections rest on top of a transparent, partial wall with railing. Is this correct? Or are there three "windows" (one over one over one, thus two horizontal muntins/hinges) and the roll up section goes all the way to the floor? If it's two "windows" resting on top of the transparent wall/railing, I have no further issues, except to request that the muntins/hinges be minimal in size, e.g., 2 inches maximum. I like that there are not any vertical muntins (except those dividing the bays). 2.C. New Warehouse Entrance [on Willow Street elevation] and 2.E. Warehouse Addition's Sliding Door [on Willow Street elevation] I understand the requirements for fire exit, handicap access and general access; however I am not convinced that the existing opening (where the sliding door is located and is 5 feet wide) cannot be used for this purpose. The existing (historic) sliding door could be fixed in the open position and a new door installed within the existing opening. This new door would meet all the requirements for exit, access and energy efficiency. Page 2 of 3 €C, 3 H IS TO RY V b� August 8, 2013 _. To: City Ft, Collins:Plan_ ning * Zoning Board Andy Smith, Chair Ted Shepard, Chief City Planner Laurie Kadrich,.CDNS Director Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner __From;.. Anne.McCleave, Historic Preservation Specialist, State Historical Fund Re: Feeder Building comments Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Feeder Building alterations and the proposed apartment building. Below are my comments in regard to the Design Questions Discussion items in Jon Prouty's memo dated August 6, 2013. After each comment I include either a Standard from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, of which our office and the City of Ft. Collins use to review historic rehabilitation projects, or a case study from the National Park Service's Interpreting the Standards Bulletins (ITS). 2.A. Three second -level west windows [the elevation that faces the parking lot] As previously stated, the addition of three windows on this elevation will not be allowed. One of the character -defining features of this building is the lack of windows, due to the building's use as an agriculture/industrial building. Adding windows eliminates that feature and removes evidence of the building's historic use. The addition of two windows (the two left windows on this elevation,viewed as looking at this elevation) would be allowed; however they should be smaller than the existing windows. Standard #1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Hence if the proposed use requires the addition of too many windows, those windows would diminish the historic character of the building; the proposed use would not be compatible with the historic building and a new use should be explored. Standard #2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. ;.a and-will-require.the placing of.a steel header is moot, as this will need to occur in either location. E. Warehouse Addition's Sliding Door: In order to comply with Standards No. 1, 2, and 5, the historic 5-0 sliding warehouse door should be fixed to one side. The space may then be infilled with a weather -tight glass storefront assembly, meeting handicap accessibility requirements. F.. Apartment Tower/Lobby: The tower/lobby should be'recessed behind the plane of the apartment building. This will help to create the perception that the building is two smaller units with a glass connector, rather than one large building with a prominent entry. This meets Standard No. 9, as the new work would be compatible with the historic size, scale, proportions and massing to protect the integrity of the adjacent Mill building and its environment, as well as the integrity of the historic environment of the National Register District. Historic Preservation Planner Karen McWilliam's responses to the issues identified by Mr. Prouty in his August 7, 2013 memo A. Three Second Level West Windows: In his memo dated August 7, 2013, Mr. Prouty notes that the smallest window in the Mill is 44x65 inches. He continues to say, "It would seem most appropriate that this small sized window would be the size of the... additional new windows." So as to distinguish the new construction from the historic (Sec. of the Interior's Rehabilitation Standard No. 9), two new windows have been approved for the second -level west elevation; these new windows need to be smaller than this size, if even by only a few inches; and need to be simple in design, differentiating them from historic windows. In her July 30, 2013 response to Jon Prouty's email dated July 24, 2013, SHPO Historic Preservation Specialist Anne McCleave stated that she would concur with 2 new windows, but not three, as the one closest to Linden Street is too visible from the street. B. Indoor -Outdoor Patio: Mr. Prouty's August 7, 2013 memo is not specific on the design of Willow Street patio, including the roll -down windows. Therefore, in order to move this to Final Approval, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the City's Historic Preservation Office (staff) have chosen to set maximum parameters for the patio design which would meet Standards No. 1, 2, 9 and 10. The structure of the patio is to be designed in such a manner that it is a stand -along structure, not bolted into or attached to the Mill building. This enables the patio to be removed in the future without damage to the historic structure, meeting Standard No. 10. The design of the glass patio structure should have no more than three bays facing Linden Street and four bays facing Willow Street; and fewer bays would be preferable. The panes should be as large a glass pane as feasible, closely resemble that of image No. 4A of the August 7, 2013 memo, which identifies the patio as consisting of two roll -down and one fixed pane in each bay, with each pane measuring 2'- 3" by 8"- 6". The dividers/hardware between the panes should not measure more than 1'/z inches in width. Again, fewer, larger panes of glass are preferable. Finally, the existing mill door and two existing first level mill windows that will be enclosed by the patio will be maintained and used. C. New Warehouse Entrance: Adding a new entrance, when there is the ability to adaptively reuse the 5-0 warehouse door opening, fails to not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards No. 1, 2, and 9. D. Warehouse Addition Fire Sprinkler Door: The fire sprinkler door shall be relocated to the rear wall, facing the alley between the Mill and the new Apartments. This causes the least amount of visual intrusion to the historic Mill building, meeting Standards No. 1, 2 and 9. The argument that moving the door to the rear wall will result in removing approximately 10 or 12 ft. of original wall B. Parking A question was raised about the parking for the Apartment Building. There will be 54 dwelling units and 54 parking spaces for a ratio one space per unit. There will be 77 bedrooms and 54 parking spaces for a ratio of. 7 spaces per bedroom. A slide has been prepared that compares the parking provided versus parking that would be required if the project were not in the T.O.D. C. Plan Set of Record A question was raised about the current plan set and what is the plan set of record for the Board's consideration. The Board's packet contains full-size plans, on 24' x 36' plan sheets, that include the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and two Architectural Elevations. These are the official plan sets of record for the August 8, 2013 P & Z hearing. D. Existing Wall Sign A question was raised about the historic status of the existing wall sign. According to the research and evaluation by Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, the existing metal sign, affixed to the building above the main entrance, is not historic. E. Number of Windows to be Allowed on the Southwest Elevation of the Historic Building Per the recommendations of the City of Fort Collins and the State of Colorado, the number of windows on the upper portion of the southwest elevation of the historic buildings is now allowed to be two instead of one. Therefore, the revised condition of approval is recommended as follows: 1. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, and in order to comply with Section 3.4.7, the applicant shall provide architectural elevations for the Feeders Supply Building that depict only one two windows on the upper level of the southwest elevation, and that this these windows shall be subordinate in size to the existing windows so as to not compete visually with the existing building details. 3 5. Memorandum from Karen McWilliams Historic Preservation Planner dated August 8. 2013: Karen McWilliams has provided a memo that responds to questions raised at the worksession and the status of the two conditions of approval, in particular, two windows versus one window, will now be allowed on the upper portion of the southwest elevation of the historic building. The memo provides staff analysis of the issues related to the proposed new windows and doors on the northeast elevation of the historic building and the condition of approval addressing the relationship of the apartment central tower to Willow Street. 6. Letter from Anne McCleave Historic Preservation Specialist, State Historical Fund History Colorado: This letter provides background from the State as to the issues related to doors and windows on the northeast elevation of the historic building and the condition of approval addressing the relationship of the apartment central tower to Willow Street. 7. Letter from Todd Dangerfield Downtown Development Authority, dated August 7, 2013: A letter in support of the project as designed by the applicant with an emphasis that the two proposed conditions of approval are not warranted. 8. Worksession Questions — Response from Ted Shepard Project Planner: A. Northeast Elevation Along Willow Street Questions were raised about the northeast elevation along Willow Street and the relationship of the second floor of the New West Addition that fronts on Linden Street. The second floor of the New West is set back from the historic building face (Warehouse Addition) along Willow Street by 28 feet. A slide has been prepared that helps illustrate this relationship. A question was raised as to whether or not the existing freight doors are double doors. Yes, these doors are double doors. A new site shot has been provided that shows these doors. The memo from Historic Preservation staff will address other questions related to the northeast elevation along Willow Street. 2 �of t Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner DATE: August 8, 2013 RE: Feeders Supply P.D.P. — New Information Planning, Development and Transportation Services Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/Currentplanning New Information has been provided for the Board's consideration of Feeders Supply P.D.P. This information is as follows: 1. Transportation Impact Study: A revised T.I.S. has been provided. This is because the in the existing packet, the T.I.S. contains a Revised Trip Generation Table and was inserted as page 111 of the total packet set. The Traffic Operations Department has determined that due to the revised numbers, the entire analysis needed to be updated. It has been updated and the results are consistent with the original findings. The Board received digital copy via on Wednesday, August 7, 2013. 2. Letter from Rich Shannon dated July 29, 2013: A letter in support of the project has been provided by Rich Shannon. 3. Memorandum from Jon Prouty dated August 2, 2013: The applicant, Jon Prouty, has provided a memo, with attachments describing the interaction with the Landmark Preservation Commission. One attachment includes a copy of an e-mail message from Anne McCleave, Historic Preservation Specialist, State Historical Fund, which includes a statement from Heather Peterson, also with the State Historic Preservation Office. 4. Memorandum from Jon Prouty dated August 6, 2013: The applicant, Jon Prouty, has provided a memo, with attachments updating the Board on the questions raised at the worksession and the status of the review with the State of Colorado and City of Fort Collins.