Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNIVERSITY CENTER FOR THE ARTS - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 34-02 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 102 67 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) 2 ) TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE 3 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) 4 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Registered Professional 5 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby 6 certify that the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter 7 of the CSU Performing Arts Center, and recorded on Thursday, 8 August 1, 2002, at 300 West Laporte Street, Fort Collins, 9 Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and reduced under my 10 supervision to the foregoing 65 pages; that said transcript 11 is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so 12 taken. 13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed 14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein 15 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case. 16 Attested to by me this 21st day of August, 2002. 17 18 19 Jason T. Meadors 20 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 21 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 22 My commission expires January 6, 2001. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 101 rr1 1 says, "Jerry, why do we run away" -- "why do you guys run 2 away from CSU? Why do people run away?" I said, "I don't 3 know, Mr. Boromi, but here's a golden opportunity to have us 4 run to CSU." 5 And I just want to close with that. Because he 6 really got me thinking, what can we do to avoid running 7 away? Well, we've got a chance to run to, and maybe your 8 direction and your staff'.s and the architects' and listening 9 to the citizens can make a big difference. 10 May we have a vote, please? 11 THE CLERK: Torgerson? 12 MR. TORGERSON: Yes. 13 THE CLERK: Carpenter? 14 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 15 THE CLERK: Craig? 16 MS. CRAIG: Yes. 17 THE CLERK: Gavaldon? 18 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. Okay. The advisory plan is 19 disapproved. Thank you very much for your comments. 20 (Matter concluded.) 21 22 23 24 25 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page100 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 99 65 1 think that's true. I don't think that's appropriate when 2 you're adding onto a historic structure, and I'd urge a 3 different approach as design continues. 4 So for those reasons, I'll be supporting the 5 motion as well. 6 MR. GAVALDON: Make my last comment, and that is, 7 Mr. Brian Chase, you have a real golden opportunity to 8 establish a good partnership with the community, the City of 9 Fort Collins, the historical groups, as lifelong citizens, 10 too, as I was born and grew up here in Fort Collins. And 11 I've seen a lot of good buildings, but I've seen some stuff 12 I have to shy away from. 13 This is a big opportunity for CSU to go out into 14 the community. And I missed one session to a family loss, 15 but I sat through the others and I followed through. And I 16 just wanted to say that, this is -- where we've gone, I 17 think we've made some good improvement in the last couple 18 weeks since you've been on -board. Thank you. However, you 19 have a golden opportunity to improve, to enhance, and to 20 facilitate our partnership. And when I talked to the vice 21 president, Jerry Boromi, echoed those words at the open 22 house I went to. And I think you have a golden opportunity 23 to carry forth his vision and his thoughts. 24 Because he had a good point he raised. we need 25 to have citizens come to CSU, not run away from CSU. He Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 98 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 97 64 1 siting of this addition. It seems like, in a site with so 2 much green space around it, that you have a unique 3 opportunity to really properly add onto this building. And 4 that's unique in an urban setting, that you have all this 5 extra room. It's almost like green field development. 6 So I would also urge CSU to look at the other two 7 options that I think would probably be well supported by 8 everyone speaking against you tonight and probably by myself 9 as well. 10 I'd like to also say that the Secretary of 11 Interior standards were developed with broad support from 12 people all around the United States. The local historic 13 community, all their regulations, were developed with broad 14 support from our community. 15 And just because CSU can violate those things 16 doesn't mean they should. The fact that they're allowed to 17 by statute doesn't mean they should. It's clearly flying in 18 the face of all those that had an interest in developing 19 those standards. 20 So I'd like the Board of Agriculture, if they see 21 this, to give that serious consideration, and I'd like the 22 CSU team to give that serious consideration and work on what 23 is a real community resource, a major historical resource. 24 There was also some talk about the fact that this 25 design was sort of a form -follows -function approach, and I Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 96 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 95 63 1 a sour taste in everybody's mouth. Instead of it being 2 something that the whole community is really behind and 3 appreciates and enjoys, it's going to, instead, be the wart 4 that ruined Fort Collins High School. And I really hate to 5 put it that bluntly, but I think it's really sad. 6 And I -- I would urge you to go back and take a 7 look if there's not some way that you can -- can make some 8 changes that would -- and in particular, location. But when 9 you're wiping out the whole gym front and you're taking the 10 green area out, this is really destroying the facade of a 11 really important building. 12 And I hope that you reconsider. I really hope 13 that the University comes to a different decision and tries 14 to be a little bit more cooperative with the community. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Mikal? 17 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I -- I agree with pretty 18 much everything that was said, both by the audience and my 19 fellow board members. 20 I -- it's hard for me to imagine anything that 21 could be done architecturally that would mitigate the 22 terrible disservice of putting the building in front of the 23 old historic facade, was doing. I was probably just trying 24 to follow procedure there. 25 I absolutely agree that this is the improper Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 94 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 93 62 1 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer? 2 MS. CARPENTER: I have a couple of other 3 comments. 4 First of all, I have to say that I really have 5 been pretty disappointed in CSU in this project. And most 6 of the projects that -- that are done at CSU, I think, have 7 been done beautifully. 8 This is such an important building to the City of 9 Fort Collins. And I really feel like a lot of people have 10 really gone through the process with the University, trying 11 to make some kinds of compromises, trying to talk about 12 different things that could be done. And with each comment, 13 we came back to, nothing can be done. There will be no 14 changes. 15 And it seems to me that before this ever got out 16 into the public, it was decided how it was going to be done, 17 and there really wasn't any listening to the importance of 18 this building to the City of Fort Collins. 19 I understand that you have budget constraints. 20 Every private developer has budget constraints. Every 21 private developer could put more money in their pocket if 22 they do it just the way they want to do it. 23 But the Secretary of Interior standards were put 24 in place to allow adaptive reuse. And this is a wonderful 25 adaptive reuse. It's too bad that it's going to leave such Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 92 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 91 61 1 Interior's, the criteria, I learned some things tonight from 2 the citizens. Thank you very so much for that. 3 You're right. The private sector would have a 4 hard time doing what they're doing tonight, and we need to 5 uphold our process and our standards. And I'm going to 6 support the denial on it for the location, primarily. The 7 character, I'm sorry, but sketches don't cut it for me, with 8 due respect. Because we've seen some projects in our past 9 reviews and we saw some drawings and all that, and we didn't 10 get the same product. So with due respect,.the architect 11 and the University will need to really, really work hard on 12 the architecture to really show what it is going to be, 13 because there are perceptions. 14 So based on that, I'm going, to support the 15 disapproval. 16 Any other comments? Sally? 17 MS. CRAIG: I'd just like to quickly say that I'm 18 glad we decided not to continue it, because I think we owe 19 Brian Chase a decision tonight so that he can go forward and 20 for us to make this process any longer really isn't fair to 21 CSU. And I think that my fellow board member, Jennifer, 22 capsulated it beautifully in regards to location. It's not 23 there. So why are we worrying about fixing the architect? 24 Because they've already said they aren't moving the 25 building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 90 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 89 60 1 the whole building that I really don't believe that any 2 change in architecture is going to -- is going to make it 3 acceptable. And for those two reasons, I move we 4 disapprove. 5 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Do we have a second? 6 MS. CRAIG: Second. 7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. It's been moved and 8 seconded. Brian, we'd like you to step down while we 9 confer. If we have a question, we'll have you back up. 10 Thank you very much. I didn't want to see you standing up 11 needlessly. 12 Okay. we have a motion for disapproval'of the 13 site plan for the University Center for the Performing Arts, 14 based on location, character, or -- any board members want 15 to make any additional motion, friendly amendments to, or 16 are you okay with this? 17 I'm going to support the motion for disapproval. 18 Fundamentally, the location. It should be on the east side. 19 Not the north, not on -- not on the west side. My family's 20 gone to that school, when I went to the other high school 21 here, but I have a high respect for FCHS and my friends 22 there, and I feel that the architecture of 1953 is very 23 compatible -- very important to pull forward to the 24 development. 25 And looking back at the Secretary of State Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 88 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 87 59 1 MR. CHASE: You know, we're asking for approval 2 of the location of this site, and if there are issues about 3 refining the architecture, we're more than happy to work 4 with you on that. So we're asking for approval of the site. 5 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer? 6 MS. CARPENTER: I'm going to make a comment, and 7 then I'm ready to make a motion. I think the applicant came 8 asking for location, character, and extent. I think we 9 should give him that. I don't feel that anything they can 10 do to this architecturally is going to change my vote, 11 because I do think the location affects the character. 12 So as far as the extent goes, I think Basil feels 13 that he can -- that they can work this out, given the amount 14 of space that they have. 15 You're right. If this was a private developer, 16 you guys wouldn't be here.. You wouldn't have gotten past 17 the door of the planning officer with this kind of a 18 proposal. But it's not. And the fact remains that we are 19 here. We do need to make a decision. 20 So I'm ready to make a motion. And I move that 21 we disapprove -- is that how I put it -- that we disapprove 22 the CSU Center for the Performing Arts site plan advisory 23 review on the basis of the location is unacceptable; the 24 character, I believe, is incompatible, partly because of the 25 location, because the location so affects the character of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 86 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 85 58 1 MR. TORGERSON: The question is, I guess, would 2 you be interested in developing the design any further 3 before September 5th, I guess? 4 MR. CHASE: We will. 5 MR. TORGERSON: Or would you just rather have us 6 vote on the entire project now? 7 MR. CHASE: That's your decision, sir. If you 8 ask, if you wish to continue it, we will provide additional 9 information if you're asking for it. You know, I asked for 10 a vote this evening because, again, my perception is, your 11 main concern and the staff's concern and what I've heard 12 articulated at the work session is the location issue. 13 MR. TORGERSON: Certainly. 14 MR. CHASE: I don't think we're going to have a 15 serious disagreement about architectural details. I think 16 the location is the issue. And if a majority of you feel 17 that you know what that decision is -- if you're really 18 telling me that you think that changing the architectural 19 facade in some way will influence your approval of the 20 location, I'm more than happy to work on doing that. Is 21 that what you're -- 22 MR. TORGERSON: Would you be interested, then, in 23 containing tonight's vote to location? As the applicant, 24 that's your option, that we're suggesting earlier, that's 25 what they wanted to do. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 84 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 83 57 1 MR. TORGERSON: Brian or -- either Brian, I 2 guess. Do you feel like you would be willing or interested 3 in providing any additional information as it relates to the 4 actual architecture of the building? 5 MR. CHASE: Would be happy to do that. I have 6 not heard what exactly you specified. Most of the 7 conversation, my perception, is concern about the location. 8 And we are making a proposal that this is the location we 9 feel that we are presenting to you for your approval or 10 denial. And if there are other issues related to 11 architectural details, if -- we would be happy to provide 12 that subject to your approval of the project and we would 13 continue to work with you. 14 Our issue is not to be all or nothing. But it's 15 basically, if you're so inclined not to approve the 16 location, we'd like to know that tonight, rather than spend 17 a lot of additional time and effort and money in a design 18 that you are not inclined to approve. So I'd like some 19 direction in what you're looking to do. 20 MR. TORGERSON: Well, I guess as it relates to 21 character, your architect described these drawings as 22 character sketches, and we don't typically approve sketches. 23 We usually look at, is this architecture compatible and that 24 sort of thing. 25 MR. CHASE: Is there specific -- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 82 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 81 56 1 MR. GAVALDON: Right. 2 MR. ECKMAN: So you can't wait past that meeting 3 that we have scheduled for September 5th. If you feel like 4 you don't have enough information tonight to make an 5 informed decision, I think you can wait in the hope that you 6 will get more information. But that if, ultimately, you 7 don't get any more information on it, then you're, again, 8 cautioned to vote even without the information, so as to not 9 have it be deemed to be approval by not having acted in a 10 timely manner. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer? 12 MS. CARPENTER: If we do veto it tonight and 13 voted to disapprove, could they then come back with more 14 information, if part of the disapproval was based on the 15 fact that we don't have enough information? Could they then 16 come back and request to come back with more information? 17 MR. ECKMAN: Sure. They could ask you -- they 18 could come back and ask you to rescind your earlier decision 19 because they have more information to present to you that 20 would persuade you otherwise. But they have no obligation 21 to come back, because you have voted disapproval, in that 22 scenario, and they could then proceed on to the State Board 23 for its decision. But that's a two-thirds vote with the 24 State Board. 25 MR. GAVALDON: Mikal? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 80 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 79 55 1 questions? Go ahead. 2 MR. TORGERSON: I think I'm able to make a 3 decision tonight on location. I would support moving 4 character and probably even extent to the September 5th 5 docket. But we'd have to make a decision then, because lack 6 of decision is interpreted as approval, and certainly not 7 ready to approve those two items. 8 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer? 9 MS. CARPENTER: I'm really comfortable with 10 location as well. As far as the rest of it goes, the 11 extent, I -- we really don't have that information. 12 Character, I guess I waiver a little bit more on, because I 13 think that the location of it affects the character so much 14 that I think that has -- kind of takes care of it. But if 15 other board members are not comfortable with character at 16 this point, I would support voting for location, or doing a 17 motion on location, and having that be the only thing that 18 we decide tonight, and in moving the rest. 19 MR. GAVALDON: Let me ask Paul a process 20 question. Paul, can we split up the three, the criteria, 21 and vote on particular items and defer the other items by 22 continuing? 23 MR. ECKMAN: well, I want to caution you that you 24 must vote on this within 60 days or it will deemed to be 25 approval. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 78 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 77 54 1 MR. CHASE: Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. 2 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. Okay. Cameron and 3 Paul, we've got an interesting -- an interesting approach to 4 this. If the application was July 19, 60 days, roughly, 5 would be September 19th. 6 MR. GLOSS: We have a September 5th hearing. 7 Also one on August 15th. 8 MR. GAVALDON: August 15th or September 5th? 9 MR. GLOSS: Correct. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I happen to agree with 11 Mikal on a number of points. If a private sector brought 12 something like this, I couldn't make a decision to support 13 it. In fact, the private sector wouldn't even make it to 14 the docket unless he was ready to go with something that had 15 some substance. 16 For example, this district brought in the high 17 school, elementary school. They were rather complete 18 projects that we have seen, and we were able to give a 19 recommendation to that, looking at our partners in the 20 County, too, as your partners. 21 I would be open to a continuance until we see 22 something, until September 5th, of substance that can help 23 us on location, character, and extent. Just my preliminary 24 thoughts. 25 Any other thoughts or any other comments or Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 76 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 75 53 1 MR. CHASE: My concern is, I would like to see 2 you vote this evening. We've asked for approval. I think 3 the issues you've raised about different things that we 4 address, that we guarantee we will meet the storm drainage 5 requirements of the City. If there are specific things 6 involved in architectural detail that you wish us to provide 7 you as we develop the site, we're more than willing to work 8 with the staff to do it. We want this to be a good 9 project. 10 But we'd like a vote this evening. We'd like to 11 know, do you or do you not approve the project? And 12 hopefully, you would approve, maybe subject to some 13 conditions of coming back for design control, which we're 14 willing to do, but we'd like to see you vote this evening 15 and not do a continuance. 16 MR. TORGERSON: It does seem -- I'm certain that 17 a lot of developers in the private sector would like to do 18 the same thing, get approval and assure staff that they'd 19 work with them and make something nice. It's a bit 20 unorthodox to come with very preliminary information, 21 frankly, and expect us to make decisions based on that. And 22 I guess that's why I'm asking this, because I don't think -- 23 aside from location, I don't think I'm able to even make an 24 intelligent.decision as to whether or not this is compatible 25 in terms of character and extent. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 74 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 73 52 1 have, I'm pretty confident they can get enough detention. 2 The only question is, when they drain it into our system 3 here, there's a water line or something in the way, like 4 potentially, there's a conflict. But, you know, I'm pretty 5 sure those can be worked out. 6 So as far as I'm concerned, I think we can safely 7 say that they can be dealt with but we don't have enough 8 detail to say, you know, they are dealt with at this point. 9 But I'm pretty confident with the room they have, they might 10 have to move some of this track, which, you know, may affect 11 the character to put the water here, but you know, they 12 resod things. It can be done. 13 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thanks. 14 MR. HERMAN: Does that answer your question? 15 MR. TORGERSON: Yes. Thank you. 16 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Basil. Any other 17 questions? Are we getting chose on a motion with the 18 advisory? Or make any comments before the motion? 19 MR. TORGERSON: Cameron, when was application 20 made? 21 MR. GLOSS: It was July 19th, so we have a fair 22 amount of time if the Board wishes to delay the action. 23 It's 60 days from the day of formal submittal. 24 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Brian, you wanted to add 25 something to that? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 72 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 71 51 1 northeast corner of the site, that they proposed to 2 discharge into it. And that system eventually drains into 3 Spring Creek. 4 That system is built -- I guess -- so, anyway, 5 this is the intersection where they're proposing to drain 6 their site. They're proposing to put in a detention in this 7 location, and they haven't really sized it. They showed it 8 on a conceptual basis on a plan, saying that they could put 9 detention in here, drain the area, all the additional 10 impervious area drainage to the back here, and then our 11 system, as I mentioned, is in this area, on the -- at this 12 intersection, and then that goes down, generally, to the 13 south and drains into Spring Creek. 14 So their proposal is to place a detention pond 15 there. As I mentioned, it's just a conceptual plan, and so 16 it was not reviewed fully because it was kind of saying 17 that, yeah, it can work, we can make it work, and this is 18 where we plan on -- how we plan on doing it, but we don't 19 have the full design plans for it. 20 MR. TORGERSON: So would you be comfortable 21 making a recommendation in terms of extent? They're 22 proposing a certain amount of new impervious areas. Would 23 you be comfortable in making a recommendation whether or not 24 that extent can be dealt with according to our codes? 25 MR. HERMAN: With the amount of open space they Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 70 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 69 so 1 about whether or not the storm drainage is resolved. It 2 seems like -- is he -- oh, great. 3 MR. GAVALDON: Finally, Brian, and CSU staff, I'd 4 like to thank you for the drawings and detail you've 5 provided, they've been helpful, and the changes made. We 6 appreciate you updating us. 7 Basil, I believe you have some questions from 8 Mikal. 9 MR. TORGERSON: Hi, Basil. 10 MR. HERMAN: Hello. My name is Basil Herman. 11 I'm with the City of Fort Collins storm water utility. 12 MR. TORGERSON: The question I had is, we heard' 13 earlier that there were issues about the storm water, that 14 there were probably ways to resolve them, but they hadn't 15 been resolved? And it sort of relates to our criteria and 16 location and extent and character. I'm wondering if it's 17 appropriate for us to make a decision about extent when 18 extent really relates to, you know, this enormous new 19 parking lot and these additional impervious areas. Are you 20 comfortable -- 21 MR. HERMAN: Yeah, I can answer. The applicant 22 has not prepared a full drainage report. What they showed 23 us is a utility plan that shows us a potential location for 24 detention and a potential outfall. We have a storm drainage 25 system -- I don't know if you have a map up that is on the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 68 16 Go ahead. 17 MR. TORGERSON: Is Basil around? 18 MR. GAVALDON: Is Basil around? 19 MR. GLOSS: It's my understanding that he would 20 be here. 21 MR. TORGERSON: We'll get him back. 22 MR. GLOSS: Probably. 23 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Maybe, to express my 24 thought here, is it seems like maybe we could even make a 25 real judgment about extent when there are major questions Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 67 17 model? It was brought up by a citizen, and I believe we 18 requested it last week. 19 MR. GLOSS: That's up to the applicant. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Can someone from the 21 applicant let us know why we didn't have a model here 22 tonight? That was a nice model that you had at work 23 session. 24 MR. CHASE: Mr. Chairman, quite honestly, we 25 didn't bring it because that really wasn't part of the 49 1 discussion of -- we had about what we'd present to convince 2 you. I mean, I think the issue we were concerned about were 3 showing the architectural details and not the model. I 4 don't think we were trying to hide anything. You know, 5 someone earlier commented, well, why didn't they bring the 6 model, that we could move it around. 7 I mean, I made a point of showing, there are a 8 variety of ways you could design this building and move 9 things around. We didn't have the physical model, but we 10 certainly aren't trying to disguise or hide anything. We're 11 showing the best design. So it just was what -- we didn't 12 think it was necessary to bring it, and I didn't get any 13 requests to bring it, so I'm sorry. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you. we'll just do 15 what we can with the drawings. Thank you. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 66 20 Historical Society, and I asked him about, could we 21 individually place the building on the national register and 22 the state register, and he said, "Well, that's not really 23 necessary because it's already contributing to the register 24 districts." He said, "You could if you want, but we'd have 25 to get the owner's permission to do that." 48 1 On the other hand, we could determine if it's 2 eligible for the national register and state register 3 individually, and he said, "I'd be very happy to entertain 4 that if you'd like to do that." He said, "It would be very 5 eligible to be eligible." 6 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. But it's on the listing for 7 the district. Is that the -- it's a list -- it's on a list 8 that is part of the district? 9 MS. TUNNER: Yes. It's a contributing building 10 in the national and state register districts. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you very, very much 12 for that clarification. 13 Okay. Any other board questions? Member 14 questions? 15 Okay. If I can continue on. Cameron, we didn't 16 get the model tonight. Any reason why we didn't see the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 65 23 the top page. It is in the book -- in the national register 24 book, in Washington, is a listing. I don't remember what 25 number it was on the list, but it has a number, and it's -- 47 1 that puts it as a contributing building in the Laurel school 2 national register district. 3 In 1994, there was a state register passed, I 4 believe, that said if you're on the national register, 5 you're on the state register, too, and of course, it was 6 locally landmarked in 1994, which is an even stronger 7 designation, because it controls any changes to the exterior 8 of the building. It's our local landmark -- our local 9 designation set up by the people of Fort Collins to protect 10 their landmarks. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. So this refutes CSU's claim 12 that it is not -- it is actually on the listing. 13 MS. TUNNER: Yes. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I just wanted to get that 15 clear, because then we're listening to the conversation and 16 hearing yes and no, but now -- 17 MS. TUNNER: Yes, that is a confusion. In 18 addition, I've spoken with Dale Heckendorn, who is the state 19 and national registered coordinator for the Colorado Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 64 25 please. Some of the folks from Landmark Preservation, 46 1 Historic Fort Collins, have said this is on a local, state, 2 and national register, and then we heard from you that it is 3 not. Can you help me, help us understand, is it really or 4 is it not really, and do we have documentation that says the 5 school is on all three registers? 6 MR. CHASE: Again, I have to -- being new to this 7 process now, I'd prefer to refer to your staff, who I'm sure 8 probably knows better than I do. 9 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Let me ask the Historic 10 Landmark Preservation and maybe can have you back up for 11 more questions, sir. 12 Someone from Landmark or Historic Fort Collins 13 can come up and talk to us about the national historic 14 register. 15 Thank you, Brian, very much. 16 MS. TUNNER: I'm Carol Tunner. I'm City staff to 17 the Landmark Preservation Commission and in charge of the 18 design review to designated properties. 19 Fort Collins High School was placed on the 20 national register as a contributing building in 19 -- I 21 believe 1977. It's listed on the register. I gave 22 Mr. Gloss a copy of that listing with national register on Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 63 45 1 our intent to exclude parking and landscaping along the 2 north edge of the site, and we would comply with the City 3 regulations for that type of thing. So we'll continue to 4 work with you, if that answers your question. We are 5 asking -- 6 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. I guess we're just more 7 accustomed to seeing applications with fully -developed site 8 plans and fully -developed engineering and fully -developed 9 architecture, and for us to make a judgment about location, 10 character, and extent. I think we're able to make a 11 judgment relative to location today, but not character. 12 MR. CHASE: And I appreciate what you're saying. 13 And I think, you know, we do have.the traffic study that 14 shows that there is not going to be a major impact, much 15 less than the high school ever did, and is something you can 16 work with, as well as we will meet the City standards for 17 the drainage issues and retention of the water on the site 18 and that. And I think if the primary concern you've got is 19 architectural design issues, I can give your our assurances, 20 again, we will work with staff on those issues. We want the 21 building to be as nice as possible. It's always been our 22 goal. 23 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you. 24 MR. GAVALDON: Brian, could you stay up here, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 62 24 concern that you point out that you would like reviewed. 25 Just as when Cameron and I talked this afternoon, it was not Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 61 25 brought it in for approval? 44 1 MR. CHASE: I can't speak for my predecessors and 2 what the reason for that is. Everything takes on a schedule 3 of its own, and they have been working on it. Most of -- I 4 can tell you a big part of it is the internal design of the 5 building has been the primary concern, about how we come up 6 with a project that is financially feasible and meets the 7 user needs. A lot of the work sessions we've been having 8 with users of the building, music, theater departments, so 9 on, is how do we make the internal design of the building 10 work. 11 And it's the old issue of form follows function. 12 We had to have something that functionally works before we 13 could work on the form. And I think, basically, we've put 14 more effort into the design of the exterior after the last 15 work session. 16 MR. TORGERSON: That's apparent. Okay. Well, I 17 guess that answers my question. My concern is that -- so is 18 your application today for approval of location, extent, and 19 character? Or is it for location and extent? 20 MR. CHASE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer back 21 to the staff. I think we're asking for approval of the 22 project; and subject to approval, we would continue to work 23 with staff on the details, if there are some issues of e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 60 43 1 approves it, and we have a project that we intend to have in 2 the community for the next 50 years. We expect that it will 3 be built, approved, and in a way that it will become part of 4 the community. So we have no desire to make you think that 5 whatever your action is tonight, we are not going to work 6 with you and your staff to get the best project possible. 7 MR. TORGERSON: That wasn't why I was asking. 8 MR. CHASE: Okay. 9 MR. TORGERSON: I guess the fact that you're 10 saying you're going to continue to work on the design is the 11 root of my'question. It doesn't seem like we have real 12 architecture here that we can make a decision about 13 character on. 14 MR. CHASE: Okay. And Mr. Chairman, to respond 15 to that is, we have -- I don't know that I would say we 16 tried to separate the site from the design part as much as 17 we're moving along with that and we wanted to have a process 18 where we would say, how can we be responsive. We will 19 develop it in more detail. We tried to be responsive to the 20 comments we heard in the last work session, and we'll flesh 21 that out as best as we can as we continue now and work with 22 you on that. Does that help? 23 MR. TORGERSON: Perhaps. Out of curiosity, why 24 wouldn't you have developed the architecture more before you Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 59 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 58 42 1 questions of applicant and staff. 2 We jotted down some notes, and I'm sure we'll 3 probably capture as many of the citizens' inputs or 4 questions that were brought up as much as we can. 5 So Board members, do you want to start off with 6 some questions? Mikal? 7 MR. TORGERSON: Brian, if you could come up -- 8 Brian Chase, I'm sorry. Got two Brians here. 9 Brian, in the two earlier work sessions that you 10 folks came to, you had mentioned that -- we've got a lot 11 more architectural detail -- there's a mosquito here -- 12 we've got a lot more architectural detail now than we had in 13 those work sessions, but at the time, you were indicating 14 that the reason you didn't necessarily have all that detail 15 is that you were really looking for input as it relates to 16 the location. And you were even talking about possibly 17 separating the approval of location, extent and character, 18 into separate approval processes. 19 Are you still interested in doing that? 20 MR. CHASE: I -- you know, I don't remember 21 saying that exactly that way. What I can tell you is what I 22 told Cameron, is regardless of your vote tonight, we're 23 committed to make this site work well. And we will work 24 with you and the staff when we continue with the design, 25 assuming that you approve it or the State Board of ours Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 57 23 we were working with the University Center for the Arts site 24 plan advisory review, and we went through a presentation and 25 public input. And we will now proceed on the Board Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 56 25 uses, and opportunities here. 41 1 What I'm asking.you to do this evening is, while 2 I agree with a lot of the things that have been said, I 3 think the importance of historic preservation has been 4 important, we're looking at a variety of other priorities 5 and other things as well as looking at the importance of 6• historic preservation. 7 We really feel the plan we've presented preserves 8 not only the essential historic nature of the building; it 9 also enhances it in terms of adds to the building; and yes, 10 there's a compromise there in terms of what some people 11 would like to do, in terms of preserving the building 12 exactly.the way it is. And that is not what we're about and 13 that's not what we're presenting to you this evening. 14 We are proposing a project that we think is 15 worthy for your consideration, and we're asking for your 16 approval. Thank you. 17 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Mr. Chase. Thank you 18 very much. We're going to take a ten-minute break and then 19 come back with some questions and our decision after we've 20 .had our questions. So we'll take a 10-minute break. 21 (Recess.) 22 MR. GAVALDON: Good evening, and welcome back. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 55 40 1 people that might be listening and thinking we're violating 2 those interior standards that we're obligated to go with. 3 I think the issue we're looking at is, as a 4 -University and as someone who is director of facilities, I 5 do take serious the idea that we are custodian of certain 6 historic structures on the campus. 7 When we look at this building, we are not looking 8 at just strictly a historic preservation issue. We are 9 looking at a commitment the University has made to preserve 10 this structure in the community, make it a living, important 11 part of the community, preserve the impact it might have to 12 the neighborhood if we were to consider some of the other 13 options that people are advocating. 14 We think that this is a good plan. I think, you 15 know, the person who spoke last here, what are people going 16 to think 20 years from now? And I'd like to say the same 17 thing. what will it be viewed as in 20 years? If we do 18 this addition the way we want, if we do the architecture, 19 which even your own staff agrees is.sensitive to the design 20 of the building, we think it is a good, adaptive reuse of 21 the facility. 22 In a pure world, with unlimited budgets, we could 23 redesign things and meet everyone's expectations. In the 24 real world we're dealing with, I have competing obligations, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 54 20 like to come up and offer a rebuttal? 21 MR. CHASE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't 22 think it's really a rebuttal. I think there are issues that 23 I'd just like to mention. 24 one is that this is not on the national register. 25 That's really not the issue. I want to clarify that for Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 53 Ri] 23 complete, unacceptable, architectural option. 24 I know that as a planning commission, you have a 25 very difficult task in front of you. You have to make the 1 decisions all the time that will affect this community for a 2 great while. 3 In this particular case, this decision may be 4 seen as one of your greatest legacies, in fact. This 5 particular building and its addition will be there because 6 it's such a prominent part of this community, and people 7 will be driving by 20 years from now and saying, "Why did 8 they put that addition on the front end of the building?" 9 So I, again, would like to support the comments 10 that were made by staff, by the rest of the audience 11 tonight, and urge you to make a recommendation of, if not 12 denial, at least a recommendation for either option B or C 13 to the applicant for revising this plan. Thank you. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Do we have anyone else who would 15 like to come down and speak to the board about the pending 16 advisory review? 17 Okay. Seeing none, I'll close public input. At 18 the discretion of the board, we'll go ahead and offer the 19 applicant a five-minute surrebuttal. Mr. Chase? Would you Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 52 25 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. 38 1 MS. LEFLEITNER: Thank you. Elizabeth 2 Lefleitner. I own two properties in the neighborhood, and 3 I'm also an alumnus of Fort Collins High School. And I'm 4 delighted to see that it looks like it's going to be 5 preserved and put to such good use as a performance 6 facility. I'm really pleased about that. 7 But I echo everything I'd heard this evening, 8 that I think it would be a shame to not be consistent with 9 the historic preservation of the building. And so I also 10 oppose the current proposal. Thank you. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. 12 MR. LANDERS: Hi. My name is Martin Landers. 13 I'm a resident of the neighborhood. I live at 1418 Whedbee 14 Street. And I agree with almost all of the comments I've 15 heard here tonight as well. This neighborhood is an 16 incredibly beautiful neighborhood. That structure is an 17 icon of the neighborhood. The historic character of it is 18 incredibly important to this -- even the intent of the 19 neighborhood conservation zoning district. 20 And it would seem to me to be a great shame, 21 especially when there's two other excellent options, option 22 B and option C, to put forward what I consider to be a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 51 37 1 Fort Collins has a few icons. The first provided 2 by Mother Nature is Horsetooth Rock. And the second being 3 provided by our pioneer ancestors is probably the Linden 4 Hotel building, the linchpin of the Old Town business 5 district. Surely the historic vista provided by old Fort 6 Collins High School for four generations of Fort Collins 7 citizens would be another. 8 Just last fall, this board denied a request by 9 the City to place a homeless shelter at the rear of the old 10 power plant on North College Avenue on the grounds that it 11 would destroy the historic fabric of the site. That 12 decision was upheld on appeal by City Council. 13 50 years ago, old Fort Collins High School and 14 the old power plant were the bookends of this city. Before 15 the construction of I-25, one drove to Denver on what is now 16 Highway 287; and as you returned to Fort Collins, you 17 crossed Prospect Road, just a narrow dirt road at that time. 18 But when you saw the gleaming pillars and the soaring tower 19 of old Fort Collins High School, you knew you were home. 20 Please don't allow the local, state, and national 21 designation of this historic site to be put in jeopardy by 22 this project. Please recommend against this project as 23 presented. 24 Thank you. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 50 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 49 36 1 If the members had violated those standards, as well as City 2 code, this site would lose its historic designation, and I 3 suspect the commission members would have been in a world of 4 trouble. 5 Lacking approval, it was suggested that ' 6 facilities and the architects rethink the placement of the 7 concert hall, perhaps placing it to the north or to the east 8 of the historic building and return to the LPC at a later 9 date for approval. They have not done so. 10 The design they're presenting tonight is not the 11 same design presented to the LPC. In fact, it seems to have 12 enlarged a bit from apparently 25,000 feet to 28,000 feet. 13 The materials to be used are still vague and the placement 14 is the same. 15 In a conversation with Mr. Chase on June 7th, I 16 understood that certain unnamed wealthy benefactors are 17 donating funds for this project. Now, philanthropy for the 18 arts is most certainly to be encouraged. However, in this 19 country, we live under a system of laws designed to apply to 20 all alike, whether rich or poor. 21 CSU apparently plans to take advantage of a 22 loophole in the state statute exempting them from local 23 ordinances. I'm sure this board, like the LPC, endeavors to 24 treat all applicants in a fair and even-handed manner. Not 25 to do so invites public scandal. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 48 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 47 35 1 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. 2 Do we have any others who would like to come on 3 down? Please come on down. 4 MS. WATROUS: Mr. Chairman, members of the board. 5 My name is Myrne Watrous. I'm a past president of the Fort 6 Collins historical society and a 50-plus year alumna of old 7 Fort Collins High School. I'm also a member of the City of 8 Fort Collins Landmark Commission. I'm speaking here tonight 9 as a private citizen. 10 In 1994, the then -owner of the property at 1400 11 Remington was bought by Poudre R-1 School District, owned it 12 then, for local landmark designation. And this designation 13 was granted by the LPC, unanimously, at a public hearing 14 July 26th, 1994. 15 On November 14, 2001, the current owner of old 16 Fort Collins High School, Colorado State University, came to 17 the LPC for a conceptual schematic of this proposed concert 18 hall addition; and as according to Fort Collins code, the 19 LPC must review and approve any proposed exterior changes to 20 local landmarks before a building permit can be issued. And 21 of course, we do use the Secretary of Interior standards. 22 And as Agnes Dix said, this particular project 23 violates six of the ten applicable standards. Indeed, one 24 of the building's architects suggested that the commission 25 members violate those standards in making their decision. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 46 24 for the City of Fort Collins to lose this treasure at the 25 hands of the University. Thank you. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 45 25 standards set forth by the Secretary of Interior for 34 1 rehabilitating -- for the rehabilitation of such buildings. 2 Even by the most generous interpretation of those standards, 3 the University's plan for the high school will violate six 4 of these standards. 5 Rather than read through them, I will bring to 6 your attention standard number 9, and I quote, in part: New 7 additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction 8 will not destroy historic material, features, and spatial 9 relationships that characterize the property, unquote. 10 The planned addition to the high school 11 overwhelms the original building. It diminishes rather than 12 enhances. It neither refers to nor respects the original 13 structure and fabric. 14 I'm certain that if this proposed plan is put 15 forth by a private developer, the University would be among 16 the first to oppose it. I know that CSU has the resources 17 and vision to create a plan that enhances both the community 18 and the University and respects its history. 19 It's incumbent on us to insist that the 20 University meet their responsibilities and this challenge. 21 I strongly urge the University to reevaluate and redesign 22 these plans so they are in compliance with the spirit and 23 letter of the Secretary's standards. It would be a tragedy Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 44 33 1 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Ma'am? 2 MS. DIX: Good evening. My name is Agnes Dix. 3 I'm a current member of the Landmarks Preservation 4 Commission. But I'm speaking tonight as a private citizen 5 and a 35-year resident of Fort Collins. 6 I have degrees in art and anthropology and taught 7 both at the University level. For 12 years, I was curator 8 of education at the Fort Collins Museum. Over the year, I 9 conducted many tours and programs on the architecture and 10 history of Fort Collins. I'm deeply committed to this city, 11 both its past and its future. 12 As part of my interest in architectural history, 13 I have been fortunate to take several of the many courses 14 the University offers in preservation. I'm especially sad 15 to be here tonight because I considered CSU a strong 16 advocate for preservation in Fort Collins. 17 It's easy enough to advocate preservation. We 18 want to see the.University implement those preservation 19 standards and -- and has its -- its -- the preservation 20 standards it has long advocated. 21 Old Fort Collins High School was designated a 22 historic landmark at the local, state, and national level. 23 Buildings with this designation are governed by standards 24 set by the Secretary of the Interior. There are 10 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 43 20 The purpose of the National Historic Preservation 21 Act was to preserve the character, the historic character, 22 of our community. This is a primary landmark. It shows the 23 historic character of Fort Collins. And I hope that you 24 will support the landmark's preservation ordinance and stand 25 for preserving that character. Thank you. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 42 32 23 primary facade of the building that the people would see. 24 Certainly, additions could be added to the back 25 of the building, to the side of the building, using 1 additions or anything that would keep clear what the 2 original building was. 3 Since that time, I started working for the State 4 of Wyoming in 1985 and worked for their state historic 5 preservation office, and for seven years, I reviewed all 6 projects at the State, Federal, and local level that could 7 have impact on the character of historic buildings. 8 During that time, I went to a lot of different 9 conferences where we discussed the Secretary of Interior 10 standards. We discussed problems like this. I must say 11 this in all of my discussions, though, I have not seen one 12 architect that -- at any of those conferences I went to that 13 would have said that this met the Secretary of Interior 14 standards. 15 First, you've got a complete intrusion on the 16 primary facade of that building. When you look at the 17 building, you don't think it's a colonial revival building 18 if you're looking at this modern structure based on the 19 front of it. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 41 25 that. 31 1 I agree with Janet Orr that we're living in a 2 time of rapid change.We're living in a time that we need 3 to reaffirm to ourselves who we are as a people. And I 4 think we have an obligation, therefore, to realize the 5 historic character of our public monuments. So thank you. 6 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Anyone else? 7 Please? 8 MS. MANSEY: Rita Mansey, 1400 Freedom Lane. 9 In 1976, the national government passed the 10 National Historic Preservation Act, and in the late 1970s, a 11 group of architects, urban planners, historians, met in 12 Washington to write the Secretary of Interior standards for 13 rehabilitation. 14 They realized they had a pretty daunting task 15 because there were a lot of different viewpoints that came 16 into this, but one of the things they wanted to do was to 17 allow the use of historic buildings for modern purposes. 18 Yet on the other hand, they wanted to protect the most 19 important historic features. 20 They realized that in order to do that, if you 21 were going to restore or rehabilitate a historic building, 22 that one of the major things you need to protect was the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 40 30 1 '53 building, going on down the street. And also because it 2 related to the parking way across the street. 3 There wasn't much mention about parking, 4 additional parking, north and east of the big, current 5 building. So now all of a sudden, I see a lot of additional 6 parking there. So what happened to the argument about all 7 the parking is going across the street? 8 My kids went to Fort Collins High, and they 9 parked as close as they could. And I would do the same if I 10 were going to a performing arts center. I wouldn't park 11 across the street, go under the viaduct and get to that 12 performing arts center. I'd find local street parking. 13 So we'd like to continue the train and have the 14 addition put on the north side. Thank you. 15 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Yes, sir? 16 Please? 17 MR. FEEGEE: Hi. Mark Feegee. I'm associate 18 professor of history at Colorado State University. I just 19 want to offer my support of everything that everyone has 20 said thus far, especially in terms of supporting the 21 Secretary of Interior standards; but I want to add something 22 to that, and I think that it's our moral and ethical 23 obligation, duty, to respect the integrity of our public 24 monuments, and I feel that the proposed addition does not do Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 39 25 the 153 addition to stop the train, the 124 building, the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 38 29 1 a scale, so I can't tell. It just visually looks that way, 2 so that was one question. 3 Like everybody else said, what happened to our 4 landmark ordinance? We designated the structure. We did 5 not designate -- or not designate the 1953 addition. We did 6 designate that. So why all of a sudden can someone come 7 along who has what they think is a higher and better purpose 8 and obliterate it, say it's not worth it, and do all sorts 9 of warm fuzzy material things and the fenestration as 10 related to the azimuth of the original relationship of the 11 solar angle of the 1953 sun goddess of the performing arts 12 center. 13 You know, it's -- materials, everything, all the 14 articulation, the style, the spacing, all the proportions, 15 are all great. Just take the thing and move it around to 16 the north side of the existing gym. 17 If fund-raising is a problem, they've done a good 18 job of fund-raising and they say they have a budget 19 constraint. Why don't they go out and do some more 20 fund-raising and make up the difference? 21 And the last thing -- or two last things. At a 22 presentation that was at the Landmark Preservation 23 Commission, there was a lot of mention about stopping the 24 train. In other words, putting this building in front of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 37 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 36 28 1 An addition like this, with a $7 million 2 investment, should be the very best, shouldn't be a 3 make -do -with -the -budget -that -we -have -now proposal. If there 4 aren't sufficient funds, wait. Do it right the first time. 5 Undoing it is a very difficult proposal, and the project 6 configuration, I don't think, is in keeping with the rest of 7 that building. I can't make myself think it is. Thanks 8 very much. 9 MR. GAVALDON: Thanks. Appreciate it. Anyone 10 else, please come to down. We have two -- two microphones. 11 MR. FRICK: Thank you. I'm Bud Frick. I'm a 12 member of the Landmark Preservation Commission and also a 13 citizen of Fort Collins. 14 First of all, I have to -- I had to get up here 15 soon, because otherwise, I'm going to say ditto to everybody 16 who was up here before, so ditto to Alyson, Janet, and 17 Ralph. 18 I noticed that the applicants didn't bring a 19 model. The last time we had a public meeting, there was a 20 model, and they didn't have part of it glued down, and_we 21 were able to move the addition around to a more suitable 22 location. And I noticed it's not here tonight. 23 I'm curious -- it looks like on the drawings that 24 the corners line of the addition is actually higher than the 25 corners line of the original 1924 building, but I don't have Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 35 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 34 1 place. And the old Fort Collins High is crucial to 2 understanding the unique character in history in Fort 3 Collins, so I think it's absolutely crucial that we don't 4 diminish our sense of place by fundamentally transforming 5 the exterior of Fort Collins High with a big addition to the 6 front. Thanks. 7 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Sir? 8 MR. OLSEN: Good evening. My name is Ralph 9 Olsen. I'm a resident of Old Town. Over the years, I've 10 restored three old houses downtown. I presently live in a 11 designated property which carries with it some certain 12 responsibilities. If I, as a citizen, want to make a change 13 on the facade to my building, I pass through a review 14 process. The review process is intended to ensure the 15 architectural integrity, the historic fabric, of the 16 neighborhood I live in. I endorse that wholeheartedly. 17 I wanted to speak with you tonight, because I 18 wonder why the University wouldn't be held to the same 19 standard, inasmuch as they're citizens and residents of this 20 community. 21 We have a watch word in preservation effort that 22 we wouldn't want to do anything to the properties we're in 23 that couldn't be undone. There's a sense of stewardship 24 that comes along with temporarily owning a piece of 25 property. Nothing's forever. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 33 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 32 26 1 should not be destroyed. 2 And I've heard comments that the building is 3 plain, some people have called it ugly and they say it's 4 expendable. But in my view as an architectural historian, I 5 think the 153 addition is a really great example of a 6 modernist interpretation of classicism that very nicely 7 implements the original neoclassicism of the 1924 building. 8 And so I think it's really important, then, that the current 9 addition take its lead from the 153 addition and be 10 subordinate and respectful to the original 1924. 11 Classicism. 12 The other thing is that that 1953 addition is, in 13 itself, a perfect, great example, a high -style example, of a 14 type of trend in modernism after World War II called new 15 formalism, where they returned to classic ideas of symmetry 16 and interpreted them in a modernist sense. And I don't 17 think we should lose that part of our history as well, 18 because after all, it's now historic. And in addition to 19 that, our -- we don't want to lose our 150s-built 20 environment as well. 21 So lastly, my last point is that right now, Fort 22 Collins and the rest of the Front Range has been undergoing 23 a time of really rampant growth, and I think when that 24 happens, our built landscape undergoes tremendous change, 25 and we are in danger of losing our own unique sense of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 31 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 30 25 1 or withhold your approval or not recommend to the State 2 Board of Agriculture the addition onto the front that's 3 proposed for a couple of reasons. 4 First of all, to restate what Alyson McGee has 5 already said that, this addition to the front of the 6 building violates a basic fundamental principle of historic 7 preservation and that is that additions to historical 8 buildings should not detract from the historic building 9 itself. And as you can tell, any kind of a monolithic 10 structure on the front of this building is going to obscure 11 and detract from the 124 original building built in 1924. 12 So I think in no way should we allow this -- this 13 magnificent building, which is such an important landmark 14 for Fort Collins, to be diminished by an addition onto the 15 front of it. So that's my first reason. 16 My second reason for making this request is that 17 this addition is going to destroy that 1953 addition to the 18 original building. And that addition, in itself, is 19 historic and unique in its own right, separate from even the 20 1924. In other words, it is not just an ancillary feature 21 that can readily be worked around and destroyed. It's 22 historic in its own right, architecturally. 23 First of all, it's on the national register, so 24 it's been recognized for its significance. So following any 25 kind of preservation guidelines, it -- its historic fabric Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 29 23 arts going into the old Fort Collins High School. But I do 24 have grave considerations about the addition to the front, 25 and I would request that the Planning and Zoning Board deny Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 28 25 acquired that property. 24 1 So I feel, in a sense, and I think a lot of 2 people in the preservation community feel, that the 3 University was acquiring that landmark designation when they 4 acquired the building. And that building was designated 5 that way in order to protect it. 6 And I think that the University owes it to the 7 City and the citizens of Fort Collins to respect that 8 designation and, in so doing, follow the Secretary of 9 Interior standards. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. We sure 12 appreciate it. 13 Would anyone else like to come up and speak to 14 the board? Please come on down. You don't have to raise 15 your hand. Feel free to step on up. We have a second 16 microphone for those who would be interested. Thank you., 17 MS. ORR: Hi. My name is Janet Orr. I'm an 18 architectural historian. I teach architectural history at 19 CSU, and I've been involved in preservation in various 20 aspects for about 20 years now. 21 And I would like to say that overall, I very 22 much, I very heartily support the idea of the center for the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 27 23 1 preservation, is that buildings can continue to be used in 2 their historic -- you know, in the same way as their 3 historic use. 4 But I think it's really important for people to 5 understand that putting a large addition on the front of a 6 historic building very clearly violates the Secretary of 7 Interior standards for historic preservation, and those are 8 standards that have been adopted nationwide for historic 9 buildings and how they should be treated. 10 The Secretary of the Interior standards, just to 11 paraphrase, states that new additions will not destroy 12 historic features and spatial relationships that 13 characterize the property. 14 Putting an addition in front of that post -World 15 War II gymnasium addition clearly destroys those historic 16 features. And that gymnasium, although it's in the part of 17 the original -- or has been added to the original building, 18 has acquired a significance of its own, not only because of 19 its age, but because of the fact that it was the site of so 20 many important events for people who went to that -- that 21 high school over the years. 22 Another important point is that that entire 23 building, the gymnasium addition and the original building, 24 were locally landmarked. It was locally landmarked when CSU Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 26 17 we'll grant you additional time as you represent a group. 18 MS. McGEE: Okay. I just wanted to make a couple 19 of brief statements. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. 21 MS. McGEE: As the head of facilities stated, I 22 think that the public does support the concept of the 23 project, and especially the fact that it is a historic 24 school and it's going to be continued to be used for 25 educational purposes. And that's always a goal of historic Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 25 22 20 Unless the board has some questions, we'll go to 21 public input. 22 Okay. We're going to move to public input at 23 this time. And is there any -- I'd just like to know, is 24 there an organized group out in the audience? Anyone 25 represent an organized group? Yes, ma'am. And what group 1 do you represent? 2 Pardon me? I'm sorry. Come up and -- please. 3 MS. McGEE: My name is Alyson McGee, and I'm the 4 president of historic Fort Collins development corporation. 5 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. And if you would like, 6 we'll give you additional time above the four minutes. 7 MS. McGEE: I just wanted to make a couple of -- 8 MR. GAVALDON: Just let them get their hands up 9 who's in -- 10 MS. McGEE: Oh. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Any other groups out in the 12 audience? 13 Okay. If it's okay with the audience, we'll go 14 with your representation. And then anyone else who would 15 like to speak, we invite you to share any comments. We have 16 two podiums here, and time is four minutes per person, and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 24 22 trying to give the elevation some relief, stepping back, if 23 you will, from the outermost plane, being the primary brick 24 face, and then we start to develop this phase of relief that 25 are identified by the columns. 21 1 And up top, we're looking at some metal 2 detailing, a little more lighter feel that, again, picks up 3 off the -- in the new building, would be located here, but 4 we're trying to pick up some of the elements of the 124 5 building, which are located on these mansard ends, kind of 6 bookends, if you will, on the north and the south of the 7 1924 building. 8 The other element on top here is a precast 9 cornice line, very similar in look and feel to what is 10 currently on the 124 building. A little bit of relief 11 there, provides a nice cap, a nice line, clean line there, 12 for the top of the building. 13 So that's really and architecturally the main 14 elements. Brian, unless you have anything else, we'll turn 15 it back to you for comments. 16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you very much, Brian. 17 Thank you very much for sharing with us the changes you made 18 and the background information. It's been very informative. 19 Thank you. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 23 25 The cupola height is a hundred feet above -grade, 10481 1 so again, we're -- that's the high point, and we want to 2 respect that, as well as making sure that the main volume of 3 the new proposed addition is basically equal with the 4 existing building. 5 Architecturally, in terms of the approach and the 6 features, basically, what we have here is a character 7 sketch, trying to give a little more of the tactile and feel 8 nature of what the building will actually be like. 9 Primarily, we're looking at brick masonry to match the 10 existing building of the 124 vintage, bringing in some 11 column elements, basically trying to capture some of the 12 beautiful feel of the existing entrance to the former Fort 13 Collins High School. 14 And that, as you can see here, in the new 15 addition, would be located primarily at the entrance as well 16 as on the west side that fronts Remington. So, again, 17 trying to get some compatibility, looking for a fit here 18 between the new and the existing. 19 The second element to the kind of facade design, 20 if you will, is a precast base, again, to try to pick up 21 some of the elements on the existing building. We're also Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 22 1 to support it. 2 I'd like to have Brian, the architect, who's 3 presented some of the things before, to maybe discuss a few 4 more of the details of how we've also revised the 5 architecture since the work session. 6 MR. FAGERSTROM: My name is Brian Fagerstrom. I 7 represent Slater Paull Architects. I've been hired by the 8 University to develop what is called the performance hall 9 phase, which is the privately funded phase of the project 10 that Brian Chase had mentioned, as well as the renovation of 11 the 1924, the 150s gymnasium, and the 180s addition to the 12 south of the 124 building. That project is on hold from the 13 State. So what we're looking at primarily is, again, the 14 concert hall, performance hall, piece of the project. 15 The current exterior design, as you can see, the 16 fly space that used to be located here, which was 70 feet 17 tall, has been eliminated. The main volume of the concert 18 hall is 47 and a half feet tall. As Cameron had mentioned, 19 that is basically equal to the height of the existing 1924 20 parapet wall. In this drawing, that is represented here. 21 The height of the mansard roof on the ends of the 22 124 building are 57 feet tall, so we're about 9 and a half 23 feet below, basically, the uppermost point on the ends of 24 the 124 building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 21 1 cost-effective way of doing it. It's the way that's 2 affordable within the budget that we have. It's also the 3 issue that was brought up by different people with concern 4 about the fly, the area where you would store the sets. 5 The original presentation we made had a fly that 6 competed with the cupola. And that was the big issue we 7 discussed with our user group about being -- you know, 8 trying to be compatible with the architecture of that site, 9 and we have eliminated the fly. Part of that was a budget 10 decision, but quite honestly, I feel that I can represent 11 it, was because of remarks of concern that were made by the 12 commission. That was a primary goal we had, is how do we 13 get this addition more in line and in keeping with what your 14 concerns were for that. 15 We realize there's a value judgment here and 16 appreciate the fact that you're looking at that building as 17 a historic and important part of the community. We view it 18 the same way, too. We feel that through the architecture we 19, do, the landscaping, the siting of it, we're preserving the 20 building, we're preserving the most important elements of 21 the building, and making this compatible with the community 22 and something that has a lot of community support. 23 We realize there is that issue, architectural 24 concern, and that's a -- a value judgment. We're asking you 25 when you consider the whole project that you would see clear 19 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 20 4 You're primarily looking at a site plan. We have to worry 5 about how the internal operation of the building goes. When 6 you look at putting on something to the east, we're 7 concerned about the neighborhood as well as you are. 8 One of the concerns we had is by putting the 9 building, primarily the concert hall, facing to the north, 10 you would adversely impact the neighborhood. You would 11 bring more traffic to that northern end. It would have an 12 impact on the planning commission member who's not voting 13 today who realizes, you know, there's an impact. It also 14 takes away the opportunity to take advantage of the parking 15 on the campus, which allows you to come through the tunnel 16 into the site. 17 So part of that concern was not only the impact 18 on the neighborhood but also, if you look at the uses within 19 the building, how they were laid out, it's moving people 20 through the building, how the public areas relate to the 21 educational areas, the back of the house areas, moving sets 22 and that, those uses just don't work. If we had a perfect 23 world and unlimited budget, we could do it. 24 The one exception I take to staff, they say this 25 is our cost-effective method. It isn't the most 18 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 19 6 We agree with the staff when they say architecturally, we 7 tried to be responsive to you and we understand that the 8 main concern is the site plan. 9 And I just briefly would like to talk about a 10 couple of the issues -- can I move around and talk? Are you 11 hearing me okay? 12 MR. GAVALDON: You need to grab the microphone. 13 MR. CHASE: That's fine. I can do it from here. 14 MR. GAVALDON: You can take the microphone with 15 you. 16 MR. CHASE: Great. Get rid of that, then. 17 MR. GAVALDON: There you go. 18 MR. CHASE: The main issue -- three of the issues 19 came up. One was, talking about in order to preserve the 20 facade of the addition, one of the commission members had 21 asked about that. We did a sketch of looking at how that 22 could be accomplished. The trouble with that is if you did 23 do that, it would push the building further out. It also 24 changes some of the internal uses. It also has an impact on 25 the landscaping setback, and it's about 800,000 or more to 17 1 do that. We didn't feel that was an option that we could 2 look at seriously. 3 Staff mentioned about looking at other options. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 18 9 what 2 felt was not done very well by the University, was 10 explain some of the issues that we have concerns. 11 We agree with two-thirds of what the staff has 12 said, which is, it is a good project. we've had over a 13 dozen events of various types, public meetings, Web site, a 14 lot of input from the community. People like the project. 15 We have a lot of positive responses to that. The last one, 16 Jan Carol was in the office, was someone who was involved in 17 the last event, being the 1952 reunion of all the graduates 18 from Fort Collins from previous years. 19 They liked the fact that we're working to 20 preserve the high school and do a good thing with it. We 21 have $7 million of donated funds to do the addition that 22 we're talking about. The legislature approved it. The 23 governor, who vetoed a number of other projects around the 24 state, specifically approved this project to allow us to go 25 ahead. Even some of the money that we had to do other 16 1 renovations in the building were not approved. But knowing 2 that there was that public support and private funds to go 3 ahead with it, it was approved by the governor. 4 What we're finding is, from the different events 5 that we've had, is that there is support for the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 17 11 you very much. 12 MR. CHASE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of 13 the Commission, my name is Brian Chase. I'm the director of 14 facilities for Colorado State -- are you hearing? It's 15 okay? It's okay. Thanks. I was at the work session that 16 we had over a month ago, and my concern there was that we 17 presented some information. There was a lot of issues that 18 you raised of concern -- no. 19 MR. GLOSS: Pardon me. I'm sorry, Brian. Can I 20 interrupt for a second? 21 MR. CHASE: Yes. 22 MR. GAVALDON: Because we're recording this, come 23 to the microphones, that -- the mike at the podium here. 24 That would be preferable. You can use that as well. 25 MR. CHASE: Okay. Great. 15 1 MR. GLOSS: Sorry. 2 MR. CHASE: And again, for the record, I'm Brian 3 Chase, director of facilities. When we had the work 4 session, there was a number of issues that the commission 5 members expressed that we tried to respond to. 6 The concern I have is that at that point, you 7 know, some of the discussion was like, some of this isn't 8 negotiable. We have problems. And what I wanted to do was, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 16 14 came back to our Board with changes, we would have to 15 rescind the previous vote to hear it again 16 MR. ECKMAN: Sure, and that would be no problem. 17 You could do that. 18 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Paul, with the applicant's 19 presentation, we offer them 30 minutes for them to present. 20 25, 30 minutes. You may ask them -- that's not a hard and 21 fast rule. We can extend if it's necessary, okay. 22 So at this time, I'd like to have a 23 representative of the applicant come up. Typically, we 24 offer 25 to 30 minutes. With that, I'll give you an 25 opportunity; is that adequate? 14 1 MR. CHASE: Yes, sir. That's fine. 2 MR. GAVALDON: 30, then? 3 MR. CHASE: We can do it within 30. No problem 4 at all. 5 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. And then we'll have citizen 6 input, and then if there is -- our process usually allows us 7 a surrebuttal by the applicant. So if there's a need for 8 it, we'll weigh it and we'll go from there, okay? 9 MR. CHASE: Yes, sir. 10 MR. GAVALDON: All right. It's all yours. Thank Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 15 16 MR. ECKMAN: I don't know. The statute is silent 17 on that. It just says, in the case of disapproval, it may 18 be overruled by the governing body of the University by a 19 vote of not less than two-thirds of their membership. So 20 how they conduct their meetings and whether they allow 21 public input or not, programs the applicant could tell you, 22 because I've frankly never been to one of their hearings. 23 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Jennifer, you may want to 24 ask the applicant that question when it comes to us in time. 25 Great. 13 1 MR. TORGERSON: Paul, you mentioned that it would 2 go to the Board of Agriculture. That's not necessarily a 3 given if CSU chose to respect the decision made by the 4 Board. Isn't that true? It's not a given that it would 5 necessarily go to the Board of Agriculture. 6 MR. ECKMAN: No, that wouldn't be a given. They 7 could change the plan to comply with your -- they may need 8 to come back to this board for another look at the plan in 9 that event, because you wouldn't know for sure that they had 10 changed it until you've seen it again. 11 MR. TORGERSON: Right. Great. 12 MR. GAVALDON: And that would come as asking the 13 Board to rescind the previous vote. Is that correct? If it Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 14 19 MR. ECKMAN: It's Colorado Revised Statute 20 31-22-09, and I guess it's not quite like a recommendation 21 to the State Board of Agriculture, because this board makes 22 the final decision on this, subject to being overruled by 23 the State Board of Agriculture. 24 So, for example, if the project should be 25 approved by this Board, then it would not need to go to the 12 1 State Board of Agriculture for any further review or, as I 2 understand it, the name of that board is changing sometime 3 very soon in the next couple of weeks. 4 But if you disapprove of this plan, then the 5 University must take the matter to the State Board of 6 Agriculture, and it can only be overturned by a two-thirds 7 vote of its entire membership. 8 So I guess in the event of a disapproval, it does 9 become somewhat like a recommendation, because they take 10 your information and they are required to vote on it. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Paul. Jennifer? 12 MS. CARPENTER: Paul, could you tell us a little 13 bit about that procedure? Is it like an appeal to our City 14 Council or is it -- can new information be put in at the 15 State Board of Agriculture? Is there public input there? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 13 21 have questions dealing with storm water staff over this last 22 week, in that we did get a very brief summary of the 23 potential design to deal with storm water impacts with the 24 addition. 25 And it wasn't as complete as we typically get, 11 1 but the storm water staff is confident that the professional 2 designer that's been assigned to this project is well -versed 3 in the Fort Collins storm water regulations and that all the 4 options that they talked to them about are feasible. They 5 just haven't done the detailed analysis at this point, but 6 there's confidence by City staff that storm water 7 requirements can quite easily be met on the site, given the 8 open site area, particularly on the north side, east side, 9 of the site. 10 And with that, that's staff's recommendation, and 11 I'd certainly be willing to answer any questions you have. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Cameron. Thank you 13 very much for an excellent presentation. If it's okay with 14 the Board, we want to move to the applicant's presentation? 15 MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chairman, before we do that, I 16 just wanted to explain the operation of the statute just 17 briefly to the Board. 18 MR. GAVALDON: Oh, absolutely. Thank you. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 12 24 appropriate one. And essentially, based on the three 25 criteria, I wanted to go through our recommendation with 10 1 you. 2 The first being that relative to character, or, 3 excuse me, relative to location, that the location is 4 incompatible with historic spatial relationship of the 5 existing building, the park, the front lawn, streetscape 6 context, and the site and neighborhood. 7 On the second issue, that the character of the 8 addition is compatible with the historical building facade 9 and materials found on the existing building within the 10 immediate neighborhood. 11 And then lastly, that the extent of the addition 12 with regard to the proposed building square footage and 13 operational characteristics is compatible with the site and 14 neighborhood. 15 The staff report did indicate that we received a 16 traffic study. And we find that the impacts are nominal, 17 based on traffic generation within the neighborhood and 18 existing conditions. 19 Also, with respect to storm water, Basil Hampden 20 from the storm water utility is here this evening, if you Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 11 K 1 the impact of the parked cars here along Pitkin Street. And 2 you would have a full complement of interior landscaping of 3 the parking lot, which we think is a very positive element. 4 Just some graphics that the applicant had 5 submitted, and we took a look at these at our work session. 6 I think also in our packet is in more tabular form an 7 analysis of each one of these and which types of draw -backs 8 each one of these proposals has, different options for 9 fronting the addition or siting it on the property. But 10 essentially, one thing that was looked at was putting the 11 performance hall largely to the east and putting a dance 12 addition here immediately behind the building. 13 And then the other -- another being immediately 14 to the north of the performance hall. 15 And then the last one, which is essentially what 16 you see before you, is the performance hall on the west 17 side, towards Remington Street. 18 The staff certainly has spent a lot of time 19 looking at this issue as well as the Board. And we 20 certainly understand the position that the University is in. 21 We understand the programmatic and financial constraints 22 that the University is under. But we still respectfully 23 disagree that the design option that was chosen was the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 10 1 street. 2 This is the 1953 addition that respected the 3 setback line of the original building, picked up on a lot 4 of, I think, what we've seen with the latest proposal, that 5 the architect back at that time did pick up on some of the 6 architectural elements of the original building without 7 exactly mimicking it, reflecting it in the brick treatment 8 and window placement. 9 This is also a local landmark element of that 10 building; and this is another shot of it showing the green 11 area in front, and from another angle, and the architect's 12 proposing this design will be, I think, coming forward with 13 either some graphics here that I think show the addition 14 quite well, how it would be projecting here in front of this 15 green area that's presently in front of the 153 addition. 16 The track in the back of the site would not be 17 modified in any way. 18 This is the Pitkin frontage. As I mentioned, the 19 site plan indicates that there would be -- creating some 20 additional parking on this frontage, as well as upgrading 21 the landscape. I did fail to mention in the staff report 22 that there is no landscaping proposed between the sidewalk 23 and the parking area. And we have talked to CSU since the 24 time of the application came in, and they're quite willing 25 to make that change and provide a landscape screen to soften Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 9 3 at this element of the facade. This is the administration 4 building at CSU, and looking at this, I guess it's hard for 5 the staff to imagine that you would put an addition on this 6 building that would project into the space. 7 In fact, it's sited somewhat similarly to Fort 8 Collins High School in that the oval, which is somewhat off 9 the picture, just right off the picture here, does a curve 10 here just off the photograph, and you have the same spatial 11 relationship between the curve line and the face of the 12 building that you have with the Fort Collins High School 13 site. 14 Getting back to that beautiful building that's 15 Fort Collins High, as I mentioned, designed and constructed 16 around 1924. A wonderful neoclassical building. It is a 17 local landmark. It certainly contributes a lot 18 architecturally to this town as well as the whole historical 19 aspect, operating as a high school for so many decades. And 20 there's an analysis of the architectural character of this 21 building, the staff report. I think there are others that 22 will be speaking this evening about the historical 23 significance of this building. 24 And this is the pedestrian underpass under 25 College Avenue and the beautiful park right across the 8 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 8 5 Denver, was designed by the same architect or actually, he 6 wasn't part of the team that designed this building. His 7 name is William Bowman. Quite well -know architect in 8 Denver. He designed several civic buildings throughout the 9 state, several schools, and he's very highly regarded within 10 this whole movement. You can see, if you think about Fort 11 Collins High School and you're relating it to this 12 photograph, you see that field of green in front and then 13 the neoclassical architecture in back and how well those 14 relate to each other. 15 The great example we have in Fort Collins, other 16 than this high school site, is the CSU oval area. It's just 17 a wonderful example, and this is kind of the classic shot 18 you think of the CSU campus, the walkway coming right down 19 through the middle of the oval. 20 What's interesting is the building that fronts 21 onto the oval. And again, you see it. This is a wonderful 22 building, Ammons Hall, which is on the north end of the 23 oval. Again, you see that relationship. You see the 24 architectural treatment. 25 And another wonderful example, we see these 7 1 columns, very similar to what you see in Fort Collins High 2 School. In fact, it's somewhat reminiscent, when you look Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 7 G 8 architect that designed this building. It was designed, as 9 I said, back in 1924, completed rather quickly. 10 I think what really characterizes this period in 11 American design history is really a high regard for the 12 aesthetic quality of buildings and communities and the fact 13 that you have very spacious green areas around buildings, 14 and you can see it here, with the park in the front of the 15 building, across the street on Remington. All the greenery 16 around the building is very significant as a part of this 17 movement. 18 And buildings that took -- typically are knee on 19 classical style and quite beautiful and balanced within that 20 field of green; and this is a shot of the 1970 master plan 21 for the Denver Civic Center, which is, I think, one of the 22 best examples in the United States of the city beautiful 23 movement. And you can see that relationship between these 24 neoclassical buildings sitting within this larger green 25 area, in this case some very formalized space, some walkway 1 action and some water features that are typical. 2 And this is the construction of that Denver civic 3 center, about that same time. What's interesting to note, 4 this building, which is the City and County building in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 6 11 building. You can see this inset right here that has a 12 little bit of articulation of these different elements, 13 column -type treatment, some steel breaks that would mimic 14 some of the others you see here on the facade, as long as a 15 very strong face treatment and then a middle and this strong 16 cornice line. 17 Staff, I think, is very impressed with the 18 response of the applicant with respect to this treatment, as 19 far as it relates to the rhythm and spacing of these bays on 20 the existing building, how that is reflected in the addition 21 without exactly copying it. 22 This is a shot that was taken in the mid-130s. 23 This shows the original 1924 construction, I think, very 24 well of the building. And you can see the track there at 25 the back of the site, what is now improved track, and Pitkin 5 1 Street here to the north and Remington curving around here 2 on the west side. 3 This development really epitomizes the city 4 beautiful movement which was started right about the turn of 5 the century here. And you see it, I think, exemplified also 6 in the Denver area. I want to show you some shots of the 7 Denver Civic Center and how it actually ties into the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 5 4 14 copy, a full-sized copy, in your records that -- I'd show 15 this a little bit better, but essentially, you have an 16 addition that's being proposed of 28,830 square feet. That 17 would be to the west, the front side -- I'm sorry, I 18 misplaced my pointer. It's this area right here, projecting 19 on the west side of the building, fronting onto Remington 20 Street. And you have a field of.parking that would be 21 reconfigured that's on the north side of the building, 22 immediately adjacent to Pitkin. That would be reconfigured 23 to accommodate additional parking there. Thank you. 24 The parking area here on the north side of the 25 building, the primary addition here, west and northwest of 1 the building. 2 And you've seen these drawings before, with one, 3 I think, substantial change from the previous work sessions 4 where the Board has been presented with information, in that 5 this is the addition here, and you see that the cornice line 6 of the main part of the building is being carried along, 7 it's about 47 and a half feet, which virtually matches 8 what's existing on the north side of the building. 9 And this, the addition, you pick up on a lot of 10 the architectural elements that you see in the 1924 original Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 4 17 want to add on that process? 18 MR. GLOSS: Maybe just a reminder for the Board, 19 that this is a location, character, and extent review, based 20 on State statutes. It's very similar to what we do with the 21 School District and the County in our relationship, in that 22 this is advisory. It's as Mr. Chairman mentioned, and the 23 decision ultimately rests on the State Board of Agriculture. 24 You're making a recommendation to them this evening. 25 I've got some context that I'd like to start with 3 1 and then go into, very briefly, an analysis relative to the 2 three criteria. 3 The site is located on the east side of 4 Remington, just south of Pitkin Street. This is an east 5 side neighborhood planning area. The east side neighborhood 6 plan was approved in 1986. The site is bounded on the north 7 by Pitkin Street, and you have CSU over to the west, west of 8 College, South College Avenue. And you have the 9 neighborhood immediately to the north that is zoned NCM. 10 Another contextual area photograph. I think this 11 is good at showing the pedestrian underpass underneath 12 College Avenue and the park immediately across the street. 13 This is a site and landscape plan. You do have a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 3 Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office Cameron Gloss, Planning Department Georgiana Deines, Planning Department 2 1 MR. GAVALDON:- We'll go to the 2 discussion agenda, and our first item will be number 3, 3 number C, center for the art site, advisory review. This is 4 an advisory to the State Board of Agriculture. And Karen 5 will lead off with the staff presentation, and then we'll go 6 to an applicant presentation, and then we'll go to the 7 citizen for public inputs. 8 If we have a group or an organized group, I would 9 need to know that so we can allocate you adequate time. 10 Typically, input is limited to four minutes per person, 11 similar to what we do for City Council. Dan, do you want to 12 go ahead and declare your . . . 13 MR. BERNTH: I will have to declare -- I will not 14 be able to hear this, as I live right across the street from 15 this, so I do have a conflict of interest. 16 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. Cameron, anything you Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 1, 2002 Page 2 Project: University Center for the Arts Site Plan Advisory Review. Project Description: Request to renovate the former Fort Collins High School building and construct a 28,830 gross sq. ft. performance hall, instrumental rehearsal area, dance studio, and support space addition. The main addition along the west fagade will be constructed with a pre -cast concrete base treatment, brick veneer, precast concrete columns and cornice details, and metal detailing, to reflect the character of the existing, historic brick building. The school is located at 1400 Remington Street and is zoned NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. Recommendation: disapproval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Held Thursday, August 1, 2002 At City Council Chambers 300 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the matter of the CSU Performing Arts Center Commission members present: Jerry Gavaldon, Chair Jennifer Carpenter Sally Craig Dan Bernth Mikal Torgerson Staff present: Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Gavaldon. Members Colton and Meyer were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Olt, Stringer, Virata, Moore, Harridan and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the December 6, 2001, February 21 (Continued), June 20 (Continued), and July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #28-02 Modification of Standards — Park Central Condos Discussion Agenda: 3. #34-02 University Center for the Arts — Site Plan Advisory Review 3. Modification of Standards — Fossil Lake P.U.D., Swift Addition (County Referral) 4. #24-94A Lindenmeier Estates P.U.D. - Final Member Bernth moved to approved Consent Item 1, the December 6, 2001 and July 18, 2002 minutes and Consent Item 2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.