Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout625 S. PETERSON MULTI-FAMILY - PDP - PDP160005 - MINUTES/NOTES -City of Fort Collins Page 1 May 11, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 880 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system in HD Belinda Zink The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting May 11, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Ernest called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in Chair Sladek’s absence. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Ernest, Frick ABSENT: Sladek, Lingle STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager, Kadrich • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to the posted agenda. • STAFF REPORTS None. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 May 11, 2016 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 27, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the April 27, 2016 regular meeting. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 5:35 p.m.] 2. 625 PETERSON MULTI-FAMILY (PDP160005) - REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to build a three-unit addition to the rear of the existing 2- story house at 625 Peterson Street. The existing house, which currently has two 2-bedroom units, would be configured to contain one 3-bedroom unit. The addition would contain two 2-bedroom units, and one 1- bedroom unit. The front porch of the existing house would be rebuilt in the same basic configuration as it currently exists. This development proposal (PDP160005) will be subject to Planning & Zoning Board (Type II) review. The project is currently in the first round of development review, and will require a second round of review by the Planning Division prior to the Planning & Zoning Board hearing. APPLICANT: Brad Massey, alm2s, 712 Whalers Way, #B-100, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Mr. Frick recused himself from this item due to a conflict. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek gave a brief presentation, including a summary of the project, the Commission’s role, the review criteria, the area of adjacency and highlights from the Commission’s last discussion about this project. Applicant Presentation Mr. Massey gave the Applicant presentation, focusing on the new information since the last meeting. He reported that they were able to locate two assessor’s cards from 1949 and 1969, and displayed the photos from those pointing out some key elements of the historic architecture. He stated that they intend to use the photos as a reference to replicate those details on the house. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad complimented the Applicant on a well-done project, adding that the details they have added since the last meeting also help the project. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a resolution recommending to the Decision Maker the approval of the addition to 625 Peterson Street as presented at the May 11, 2016 meeting of the Commission, the Commission finding that the project is in compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 and does not adversely affect the historic integrity of the property and area of adjacency. The Commission further finds that the project design uses: • Traditional proportions and building modules • Similar massing to historic context • Historically scaled materials • Historic window patterns • Architectural forms similar to adjacent historic context City of Fort Collins Page 3 May 11, 2016 • Similar pedestrian scale to that of the area of adjacency Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6-0 Mr. Frick rejoined the Commission. 3. THE COY FARMSTEAD, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 1041 WOODWARD WAY – FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION (NONCONSENSUAL) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider a landmark designation application for the Coy Farmstead, 1041 Woodward Way, brought forward by Fort Collins residents. APPLICANT: Gina C. Janett, et al, 730 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Report Ms. McWilliams gave a brief slide presentation. She reviewed the timeline of this item, the significance and integrity of the property necessary for eligibility and potential boundaries for a landmark designation. Staff’s finding is that the Coy Farmstead District is not individually eligible as it does not have sufficient integrity to convey its significance, despite having significance without the silos. Staff believes the barn and milk house structures are individually eligible as they have significance and sufficient integrity to convey that significance. Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation, addressed the Commission about Woodward’s potential willingness to consent to a designation based on their adaptive reuse plan. She reviewed the staff recommendations and conditions under which Woodward would agree to a consensual designation: that the barn and milk house would become individual landmarks, that the landmark boundary be further reduced because of the deconstruction of the silos, that Woodward would be allowed to proceed with their adaptive reuse plan as submitted to the Commission, and that Woodward would in no way believe that the rest of the farmstead would be eligible and would reserve the right to withdraw their consent should the farmstead be pursued for designation in the future. Vice Chair Ernest noted the information being discussed is new information and outlined the presentation time allotments for the various parties. Ms. Gensmer disclosed she has previously conducted cultural resource work at the site; however, not under the employ of either Woodward or the applicant. This has not influenced or biased her decision. Ms. Dunn disclosed she has a relationship with some of the applicants but that will not bias her decision. Mr. Ernest disclosed he has been acquainted with a number of the applicants through past volunteer work but stated he has not been in contact with them regarding this project. Gina Janett stated the applicants were not consulted regarding the conditions of the newly negotiated agreement and requested a ten minute break in order to assess the information. (The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Mr. Yatabe noted the product coming out of this meeting will be a recommendation to Council and encouraged the Commission to consider making that recommendation tonight rather than waiting to adopt a findings Resolution. Mr. Yatabe recommended the Commission consider the effect of the silo demolition on the designation and noted the Commission is still considering a nonconsensual designation unless Woodward is willing to consent to the requests of the petitioners. Additionally, he recommended the Commission also consider making a recommendation on the basis of Woodward’s conditional consensual designation. Vice Chair Ernest recapped Mr. Yatabe’s comments and stated the Commission may need some assistance in crafting a motion. Petitioner Presentation Ms. Janett introduced herself and Carol Tunner who began the Applicant presentation. Ms. Tunner expressed support for the possibility of a consensual designation and agreed the border of the designation should be just around the buildings. She gave a presentation regarding previously destroyed historic structures. City of Fort Collins Page 4 May 11, 2016 Ms. Janett discussed the importance of designating the Coy barn and milk house as locally designated landmarks either consensually or nonconsensually. She requested additional information regarding the area of adjacency and discussed the criteria for designation which are met by the barn and milk house. She argued that both the barn and the milk house still meet the Setting criteria for exterior integrity. Ms. Janett reiterated the Applicants’ belief that a nonconsensual designation is appropriate per the Land Use Code should the conditional consensual designation not be found to be appropriate. Regarding the conditions of a consensual designation, Ms. Janett agreed with the local landmark designation for the barn and milk house in perpetuity, agreed to exterior alterations if subject to the full review of the entire Commission, and agreed that no other areas on the site should be designated. She requested clarification on the meaning of the area of adjacency, and asked if citizens would still have access to the bike trail and if the interpretive sign will still be in place. Myrne Watrous encouraged the Commission to designate the buildings either consensually or nonconsensually. She stated the great, great, great granddaughter of John and Emily Coy is graduating from CSU this year. Wendy Campbell stated that if this is building is not appropriate for a local landmark designation, then doesn’t know to what building the code would apply. Woodward Presentation Chris Fawzy, General Counsel for Woodward, stated Woodward is committed to proceeding with its adaptive functional reuse plan for the barn, milk house, and area where the silos once stood. Funds are available for the restoration of the barn and milk house and Woodward would like to move forward with that restoration in this fiscal year, which ends September 30th. Mr. Fawzy reiterated that Woodward does not consent to the landmark designation proposal as originally submitted by the Applicants. He further detailed the conditions under which Woodward would consent to a landmark designation of the barn and milk house. The landmark boundary would be limited to the barn and milk house structures themselves and Woodward would be allowed to proceed with its previously approved adaptive reuse plan and will commit to that plan; however, they would like to proceed without the need for any further reviews or approvals. Additionally, Woodward has submitted a plan to install a black metal picket fence around the structures and would expect to move forward with that plan. Woodward does not intend to preclude the community from utilizing public pathways. Mr. Fawzy stated Woodward will agree to the area of adjacency indicated by the blue perimeter line in the presentation with the rest of the farmstead not being eligible for designation. In terms of the condition with respect to Woodward’s ability to withdraw its consent should there be an expansion of the designation by a decision-making body, an entirely new nonconsensual designation process would need to be started. He requested the Commission recommend to City Council a consensual designation on these terms as it serves the purpose and intent of the nonconsensual application and would be a win-win for all parties. Public Input Mary Humstone stated nonconsensual designation is an important preservation tool that has been used since the early 1920’s to protect the public interest and help save communities’ heritage. She argued the adaptive reuse plan referenced by Mr. Fawzy was never actually approved by the entire Commission and urged the members to consider whether they want to recommend approval of a compromise that does not allow it to review the plans. Additionally, she questioned whether or not it is legal to have a landmark designation from which the property owner can withdraw. Ann Hutchison, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, opposed nonconsensual landmark designation as a violation of private property rights and supported the conditional consensual designation. She read a statement from Nick Haas expressing staunch opposition to nonconsensual landmark designation and supporting the win-win solution of consensual designation. Dave Dixon stated Woodward’s conditional proposal seems very reasonable and expressed appreciation for the passion that exists on both sides of the issue, specifically thanking Ms. Tunner for her efforts. City of Fort Collins Page 5 May 11, 2016 Woodward Response Mr. Fawzy stated the adaptive reuse plan was presented in its entirety to the full Commission and was approved with conditions that are no longer applicable. He noted Woodward has already conducted Colorado Level 2 documentation and, as it appears this designation is moving in a consensual direction, would be happy to share that documentation with the public. Petitioner Response Ms. Janett stated that the property owner’s written consent to the designation is required for a consensual designation. She recommended adopting two resolutions, one for nonconsensual designation and one for consensual designation with the condition that Woodward consent in writing. She opposed the condition that Woodward could withdraw its consent in the future and stated the Commission should consider reviewing the previously approved exterior changes to the barn. Staff Response Ms. Kadrich addressed reasons for having both consensual and nonconsensual designations and discussed staff’s work to negotiate a solution agreeable to both parties. She explained that the area of adjacency speaks to the issue of exterior changes going forward. Only areas within the boundary would be looked at by the Commission, with the intent to preserve the view shed from the trail and ensure nothing in the future would obstruct that view shed. Vice Chair Ernest requested additional information regarding the boundary of the area of adjacency. Mr. Yatabe explained that the red line boundary is a staff recommendation and the smaller blue line boundary is Woodward’s proposal, adding that neither of those exceeds the originally proposed boundary. Mr. Yatabe noted this meeting will result in a recommendation for Council, which has the ultimate authority to make the decision on the designation. He stated there is precedent for conditions such as those requested by Woodward. He explained why the Commission may want to make a recommendation for the nonconsensual designation, as well as for the conditional consensual designation, to allow for the possibility that Council may not agree to some of the conditions in which case the nonconsensual designation would still apply. Additionally, he clarified that the area of adjacency ties into the review process under Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 and the idea behind it is to define the intent of the designation which would affect future reviews for development in the area. If landmark status is granted, there is a separate alteration demolition process for designated properties to be reviewed by the LPC. Whether the Council can approve a condition that would waive that review of the previously approved plans, is still an open legal question. He noted the City Attorney’s Office will also be researching the question of whether or not Woodward could withdraw its consent in the future, but he recommended the Commission proceed as if it were possible. Ms. Kadrich stated she is in possession of a written agreement from Woodward outlining the conditions under which it would consent to a designation. She read the email statement from Chris Fawzy. (The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Commission Questions and Discussion Vice Chair Ernest suggested the impact of the silo demolition on the aspects of integrity for the remaining structures needs to be considered. Members discussed how to move forward procedurally. He stated he would like to be able to discuss his role and thought process with regard to the previous approval of the barn and milk house plans in reference to Ms. Humstone’s comments. Ms. Dunn asked if the LPC would have any say on putting in the fence, assuming the barn and milk house are designated individually, the blue line is used as an area of adjacency, and the fence is along the walkway on the edge of the natural area and therefore not passing through an individually designated building. Ms. McWilliams replied the LPC would not normally have any say in such cases in a non-designated area. Ms. Dunn then suggested the LPC does not have the right to grant Woodward’s condition relating to the fence. Mr. Yatabe agreed the Commission would not have jurisdiction over the fence in a non- designated area; however, he noted the fence would need to comply with Building Code standards with regard to such issues as setbacks from the public right-of-way. He stated the Commission would City of Fort Collins Page 6 May 11, 2016 only have the purview to address the fence if the area were designated as an historic district rather than individually designated buildings. That condition speaks more to the scope of the designation, in that the fence would not block any view shed from the public path. Ms. Dunn also suggested the Commission does not have the authority to grant the condition relating to Woodward’s possible withdrawal of its consent. Mr. Yatabe stated that Section 14-31 of the Code, Amendment or Rescission of Designation, allows for a landmark designation to be amended or rescinded in the same manner as the original designation. Mr. Hogestad requested information regarding the location of the boundary in relation to the buildings. Steve Steismeyer, Woodward Director of Corporate Real Estate, stated the fence was only mentioned in the interest of transparency and noted it is along the property line shown by the blue line at the south edge of the proposed adjacency boundary. Mr. Hogestad suggested the fence still has an impact of the setting and should be discussed. Mr. Yatabe discussed the intent of the condition relating to Woodward’s ability to withdraw its consent given the language of the condition related to ‘consideration.’ It would not be within the control of the LPC whether or not to hear and consider any future proposal brought forth to amend the designation in some way. Mr. Fawzy clarified the Commission does not have the authoritative power to make a final determination relating to landmark designation; therefore, this condition would not be triggered by the LPC considering a future change to the landmark status. However, if a decision-making body were to consider such a change, the condition would be triggered. He stated Woodward would be happy to clarify that in writing for a subsequent hearing. Ms. Tunner reminded the Commission of the four treatments of historic preservation noting the adaptive reuse plans for the barn and the milk house are considered a rehabilitation, and must be treated as such with regard to various changes that may occur, such as the fence. Mr. Hogestad requested clarification regarding the December approval of the barn and milk house plans given the structures are not Fort Collins landmarks. Ms. McWilliams replied that the plans were reviewed and approved under the demolition and alteration review process which applies to any building or structure that is 50 years old or older. Mr. Hogestad asked if those plans went before the full Commission. Ms. McWilliams replied they went through the approved process wherein the LPC Chair, or acting Chair, and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services review them. Mr. Hogestad asked if the plans have since changed. Ms. McWilliams replied the concept itself has not changed. Mr. Steismeyer replied the plans have not changed and Woodward is ready to implement the previous presentation. Vice Chair Ernest discussed his role in the December plan review process. Mr. Hogestad stated he is fine with the situation as Woodward has acknowledged the plans have not changed. Mr. Frick asked if Woodward has secured a permit for the barn and milk house changes. Mr. Fawzy replied it is in the process. Mr. Frick asked if any future modifications of the structures would go through the LPC process once they are historically designated. Mr. Fawzy replied in the affirmative. Mr. Yatabe clarified this designation process has put a stay on the permit at this point. Ms. Gensmer asked if Woodward’s condition relating to the remainder of the farmstead not being eligible would also apply to some currently unknown future archeological finds. Mr. Fawzy replied that is not what was being contemplated with the conditions but stated he would confer with his team before making a firm commitment. Wayne Timura, Next Level Development, referenced the plan of protection originally prepared which suggests no anticipated excavation but states that if any unexpected artifacts are found, work will stop and the Museum of Discovery will be contacted. Vice Chair Ernest referenced the March 9th Commission minutes and stated the Commission now needs to determine whether the demolition of the silos has impacted the site significance and seven aspects of integrity. City of Fort Collins Page 7 May 11, 2016 Mr. Yatabe noted the Commission previously considered the nonconsensual designation including the silos and suggested the members have a discussion which would ultimately fold into its recommendation. He stated the Code contemplates that a written consent to designation is really an unconditional consent; therefore, it makes sense to possibly consider two motions, one relating to the nonconsensual designation and one to the consensual designation with conditions. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council that the Coy barn and milk house be nonconsensually designated individually as Fort Collins Landmarks in perpetuity with a boundary that includes the footprints of each building and an area adjacency as depicted by the blue line in the staff presentation. The focus of any future review would be upon the effect of proposed work on the view from the public right-of-way from the trail and the homestead natural area. The rest of the farmstead, including the silo seating area, is no longer eligible and is excluded from this motion. The resolution adopted by the LPC on March 9, 2016, at the first designation hearing shall be incorporated as a finding with amendments as shown in the staff presentation regarding changes since the silos were demolished. Additional conditions include that Woodward would not block the view of historic structures and would be subject to the City Code with regard to the future of this site moving forward. Ms. Zink seconded. Mr. Frick asked if the application for the historic district needs to first be vacated. Mr. Yatabe replied the Commission received an application for a district designation and must now determine whether the district or individual structures should be designated; therefore, there is no existing district to be vacated. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern that all of the conditions were included in the nonconsensual motion instead of in a separate consensual motion. Ms. Dunn stated that she thought most of those conditions were things that the Commission would have approved anyway, so she included them. Vice Chair Ernest suggested discussing the milk house with regard to the seven aspects of integrity, stating it no longer qualifies under the aspect of location. Ms. Wallace agreed, adding that each building’s integrity should be discussed individually. Ms. McWilliams stated the Commission could adopt the staff findings if members are in agreement. She clarified that those findings take into account the effect of the removal of the silos. Ms. Dunn amended her motion to include that reference, and Ms. Zink accepted that amendment. Ms. Zink asked if the milk house still has enough aspects of integrity to qualify for a designation. Vice Chair Ernest stated it does meet a majority (four) of the seven aspects, adding that materials and workmanship are readily evident. Ms. Dunn argued it also partially meets the setting aspect given that it still faces the same general direction. Mr. Hogestad disagreed, stating the fence, no matter how transparent, destroys the setting. However, he stated the structure still has enough aspects to qualify for designation. Mr. Hogestad questioned Ms. Dunn about omitting the last condition from Woodward. She did not support the idea that they could withdraw consent in the future because that would undermine every landmark in the City, and would also be a change to City Code. Mr. Hogestad asked how the wording for a motion regarding a conditional consensual designation would be different. Ms. Dunn stated they are the same in her view. Mr. Yatabe stated that for the purpose of this motion, the Commission should only consider what conditions they would want to place on a nonconsensual designation. Then they should consider a consensual designation with the conditions requested by Woodward. There may be some overlap, but they may wish to impose a different set of conditions for a nonconsensual versus consensual designation. Ms. Gensmer expressed concern about the inclusion of the reference to focus of future review. Ms. Dunn replied that wording was based on the staff recommendation. City of Fort Collins Page 8 May 11, 2016 Vice Chair Ernest stated the barn and milk house, without the silos, do not meet the seven aspects of criteria for district designation, but would both qualify individually as structures. He suggested congruencies exist between the nonconsensual motion and one relating to a conditional consensual motion, including the boundary and individual structure landmarking. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Mr. Ernest’s comments, as well as with the findings of the seven aspects of integrity as outlined in the staff presentation. Ms. Zink suggested the motion should stand as it is. The motion passed 7:1 with Frick dissenting. Mr. Yatabe suggested the Commission would be able to make a motion to recommend approval the conditional consensual designation with caveats should it so chose. Ms. Dunn commented on Woodward’s conditions stating she agrees with the designation of just the structures, agrees that the remainder of the farmstead is no longer eligible, and agrees the area of adjacency should be represented by the blue line as presented. She expressed concern regarding the conditions over which the Commission does not appear to have any purview. Ms. Wallace commented that the language used in the nonconsensual designation motion addressed many of the Commission’s concerns and suggested putting forth a similar motion with the wording being changed to consensual. Mr. Yatabe noted the plans previously approved under the alteration/demolition process for a non- designated landmark would normally come back before the entire Commission if the structures are designated as local landmarks. Woodward is requesting a condition that those specific plans for the adaptive reuse not come back before the Commission; however, changes outside the scope of those plans in the future would come back before the Commission under the normal process. Mr. Frick asked if the Commission could request a condition that staff reviews the plans rather than having them come before the Commission. Mr. Yatabe replied his understanding is that the plans have already been reviewed and approved by staff and Woodward has represented that those plans have not changed. If the condition Woodward is requesting is granted by Council, the plans would not come back before the Commission. Mr. Frick asked if the Commission recommending approval of this condition would be changing City Code. Mr. Yatabe replied that is one of the two open legal questions which has yet to be determined and suggested the Commission proceed on the assumption it is possible for the condition to be allowed and that will be decided at Council level based on the recommendation of the Commission. Vice Chair Ernest stated he is not concerned with the first five conditions as per Mr. Fawzy’s email; however, he expressed concern about the creation of a precedent or loophole with regard to the condition that Woodward could withdraw its consent. Mr. Yatabe replied if the legal answer is that Council does have the power to make this exception, it could be narrowly tailored to this specific situation. Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council that the Coy barn and milk house be individually designated as Fort Collins Landmarks in perpetuity with a boundary that includes the footprints of both buildings and an area adjacency as depicted by the blue line in the staff presentation. The focus of any future review would be upon the effect of proposed work on the view from the public right of way from the trail and the homestead natural area with the exception that the already proposed work would only need to undergo administrative review by the Historic Preservation Department. The rest of the farmstead, including the silo seating area, is no longer eligible and is excluded from this motion. The resolution adopted by the LPC on March 9, 2016, at the first designation hearing shall be incorporated as a finding with amendments as shown in the staff presentation regarding changes since the silos were demolished. Additional conditions include that Woodward would not block the view of historic structures and would be subject to the City Code with regard to future development on the property. Ms. Wallace seconded. Mr. Fawzy argued this motion is also nonconsensual as it does not include all of the conditions under which Woodward is willing to consent. He suggested the Commission should proceed with the assumption there is a path for Council to approve the condition relating to Woodward being able to withdraw its consent. City of Fort Collins Page 9 May 11, 2016 Mr. Yatabe stated it is clear that Woodward is asking that all the conditions be fulfilled in order for them to consent; the consensual designation would be conditional. Vice Chair Ernest suggested the motion could either be withdrawn to consider a different motion or a vote on the existing motion could be taken. He stated he would oppose the motion given the motion is essentially nonconsensual despite the wording. Mr. Hogestad made a friendly amendment to include the final condition relating to Woodward’s ability to withdraw its consent in the motion. Ms. Dunn stated she did not want to include something in the motion over which the Commission has no purview. Mr. Hogestad expressed disappointment that the recommendation would now be going before Council without a consensual designation recommendation. He suggested the Commission should proceed under the assumption the final condition will be addressed by the City Attorney’s Office and Council. Mr. Frick stated this motion meets all of the conditions requested by Woodward as far as they can be granted by the Commission. Ms. Dunn stated this motion is making a recommendation for the conditions over which the Commission has purview and it would be up to Council to decide about the conditions over which the Commission does not have purview. Ms. Gensmer agreed with the points mentioned; however, she argued the Commission is making a recommendation and has been instructed to proceed as if it is possible for that final condition to be met. Vice Chair Ernest suggested the possibility of withdrawing the motion and creating a new motion to recommend the conditional consensual designation with the proviso that the Commission understands the final condition is not within its purview. Ms. Dunn stated she would not rescind the motion and does not feel comfortable including the final condition as it could be precedent-setting. Mr. Yatabe suggested the possibility of including some type of language regarding “providing the final condition is legally permissible.” Ms. Dunn reiterated her desire to vote on the motion as stated and opposed a friendly amendment on Mr. Yatabe’s suggested language, expressing concern about setting a precedent and undermining the preservation code. Mr. Hogestad expressed disappointment the Commission cannot come to a resolution. He stated Mr. Yatabe has made it clear the motion would be based on the idea Council would work out the final condition with the City Attorney’s Office. He said he would like to support the motion, but not as it stands. Vice Chair Ernest agreed with Ms. Dunn’s comments regarding undermining the preservation code; however, he stated he could not support the motion given its wording and expressed concern it will undermine the work done to this point. Ms. Wallace expressed support for the motion stating Council will make the ultimate decision. The motion passed 5:2 with Ernest and Hogestad dissenting. Mr. Frick asked Woodward about the conditions over which the Commission has no purview. Mr. Fawzy replied Woodward’s willingness to consent is a significant compromise on Woodward’s part. Woodward is and always has been willing to commit to proceeding with its adaptive reuse plan, but never intended to commit to a landmark designation. In attempting to anticipate and understand the applicants’ concerns, it became apparent to Woodward the continued integrity and historic preservation of the barn and milk house individually, and the ability to view them from the public right- of-way, were of major importance. City of Fort Collins Page 10 May 11, 2016 Mr. Fawzy explained Woodward’s process which led to the conditions under which it would be willing to consent, stating it explored five different alternatives including a contract with the applicant’s involving protection of the structures as if they were designated and a consent with a binding commitment by the City not to, in the future, consider approving landmark designation. He noted Council may not have the authority to bind future Councils with commitments dealing with legislative authority. The final result, as presented, has been discussed with the City Attorney as being an achievable path. Mr. Frick stated a consensual designation is desirable; however, the Commission cannot consent to something to which it cannot consent. Mr. Fawzy replied Woodward is not seeking the Commission’s consent but is rather asking the Commission to make a determination that, if in fact the final condition is something that is achievable based on the opinion of the City Attorney’s Office and Council makes a determination that it is achievable, Woodward would require that condition in order to consent. He stated the LPC could include in its resolution that it is possible Council would not recognize that as a viable condition, in which case it is understood there would be no consensual designation. Vice Chair Ernest suggested the possibility of revisiting the motion. Mr. Frick asked if Woodward considers the motion as passed to be consensual. Mr. Fawzy replied in the negative. Mr. Frick again expressed concern the language of the final condition is not something that can be approved by the Commission. Mr. Fawzy stated Woodward wants a mutually binding perpetual commitment. He read an email from City Attorney Daggett regarding the conditions in the staff presentation in which she outlined the final condition to be workable as follows: Woodward may be able to consent to designation provided the designation includes the above conditions (those presented in the staff presentation) as well as a provision enabling Woodward to withdraw its consent in the future should City Council subsequently review any proposed expansion of the designation. Mr. Fawzy stated Woodward wanted to make clear the effect of Woodward’s withdrawal of consent would be that the landmark designation is nullified and stated Ms. Daggett verbally agreed to that effect. Mr. Frick argued the motion does not place any condition on Woodward’s condition that still cannot be met. Mr. Fawzy replied the elimination of the final condition relating to Woodward’s ability to withdraw consent does not meet the intent of a mutually binding commitment. He stated Ms. Dunn mentioned the condition upon first making the motion; however, upon seeking clarification, appeared to point out her motion is not congruent with the condition. Ms. Dunn stated her motion was that, if the buildings become locally designated landmarks, they would then fall under the City’s codes regarding such landmarks which include the fact that landmark status cannot be revoked unless the City determines the buildings to no longer be eligible. Ms. Dunn expressed concern a group could try to make a change to the boundary resulting in Woodward no longer having a designated property. Mr. Fawzy replied that is not Woodward’s intent; its intent is that the designation would exist in perpetuity and the condition is around the notion that a governing body may entertain a request for a change requiring more time and resources to defend the position. Ms. Dunn questioned what would happen if the property changes ownership and expressed concern this condition would open the way for the historic designation to be eliminated. Mr. Fawzy replied Woodward would be willing to qualify the condition with a change in control. Mr. Frick expressed concern the Commission is being forced into a foggy area for which proper wording has not yet been developed. Mr. Fawzy stated Woodward never intended to wordsmith this before the Commission, but for clarity, wanted to show what its intent would be when the item goes before Council. He argued the Commission has the authority to make a motion to recommend consensual designation on the basis substantially set forth by Woodward as determined by City Council and to the extent the City and Woodward agree.