Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIVING OAKS - PDP - PDP170009 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (11)City of Fort Collins Page 1 April 18, 2017 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Dave Lingle Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace 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. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting April 19, 2017 Minutes – Excerpt for Living Oaks • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson ABSENT: Gensmer STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager 7. LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a three-story residential project that would be a Net Zero Energy building on a 4,600-square-foot site at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The development site is within the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT/OWNER: Laurie and Bob Davis, DavisDavis Architects Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 April 18, 2017 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She discussed the area of adjacency, changes to the project since the last meeting, and the staff analysis and recommendation. She reviewed the new information provided at the Commission’s request. Regarding the Commission’s question at the work session about the entry, Ms. Bzdek read City Planner Clay Frickey’s response, referencing Land Use Code Section 3.5.2(D)(2). Applicant Presentation Ms. Davis gave the Applicant presentation. She addressed the Commission’s questions and concerns, beginning with the typology and the changes to the glass storefront. She discussed changes to size and height. She explained why the floor heights were necessary due to the sunlight angles. She addressed the changes in materials with the textured terracotta on the upper floors and the gray fiber cement on the first floor. She talked about character and pattern and how they have strengthened the design’s historic ties. She provided the rationale for the color choices and showed the height comparison with the Library Park Apartments. She discussed the addition of the terracotta window headers and other details. Public Input None Area of Adjacency There were no questions from the Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt as the area of adjacency for the proposed Living Oaks building at 221 East Oak Street the sixteen designated and eligible buildings on Oak, Mathews, and Remington Streets, as listed in the staff report. Mr. Lingle seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Commission Questions Mr. Hogestad asked for confirmation on the height, and Ms. Davis confirmed it is 39’ 7” to the top. He asked if they had considered lowering the second floor by a foot, as they had done with the third floor. Ms. Davis said they had not considered that, and pointed out that the McHugh-Andrews House was similar at 38 feet. Mr. Hogestad pointed out that the building was still considerably taller than the average in the area. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern that that the roof style was dissimilar to the gabled and hipped residential roof styles in the area. Ms. Davis said the flat roof in the front lowers the front, and the angled PVs give the appearance of a pitched roof to be more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hogestad said it was a shed roof, not a pitched roof. Mr. Hogestad asked if the fiber cement panels had a condition at the corner. Ms. Davis explained that while there are corner pieces available, they may not be within the budget, so there would likely be an open joint at the corner. Ms. Zink asked if the ground floor is rainscreen, and Ms. Davis confirmed it was. Mr. Hogestad pointed out it was not made of clay, and Ms. Davis confirmed it was concrete and fiber. Mr. Frick asked about the structure of the floor system on the first floor and the demising walls. Ms. Davis said two steel trusses would run through it, basically a cantilevered beam that would probably be between 1’4” and 1’6”. Mr. Lingle pointed out that the most immediately adjacent buildings tend to be the taller ones. Mr. Hogestad talked about the statistics of the heights and roof forms in the area. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Living Oaks Project Development Plan (PDP170009), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the following reasons: • The project does not impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency. City of Fort Collins Page 3 April 18, 2017 • The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with the historic context. • The project relies on building materials that are visually compatible with adjacent historic properties. • The project uses window patterning and proportions that provide visual ties to buildings within the adjacent historic context. • The proposed design does not impede existing visual and pedestrian connections to the adjacent neighborhood focal points. Ms. Zink seconded. Mr. Hogestad stated his hesitancy to support the motion, as he did not believe the height, setbacks and width met the requirements of section 3.4.7 to the maximum extent feasible. He stated the design was not in character with residential nature of the area. He said the design does not strengthen the visual ties among buildings. He stated that the building doesn’t have scale, and the materials and location of the front door don’t help to establish that. Mr. Lingle agreed with the staff analysis that the terracotta material visually harmonizes with the brick in the area as a modern interpretation of historic material, and argued that the terracotta does have scale. He suggested the Commission should embrace the transition in time periods and the use of modern materials that are compatible with historic materials in texture and color. Mr. Hogestad disagreed that the material has scale, stating that scale is based on perception built over years. Ms. Wallace said she agreed with all of the findings of fact, except for the compatibility of the scale and massing. Ms. Zink did not find averages and percentages in terms of size and materials to be a valid way to evaluate. She thought the size and massing of the closest buildings were most relevant. She commented that the changes made to the detailing helped the design, adding refinement that was missing previously, and tying it into the neighborhood better. Chair Dunn asked about the size of the fiber cement panels. Ms. Davis noted that the McHugh- Andrews House has also has larger scale pieces that are of similar size. Chair Dunn expressed concerns about the primary entrance, the setback and orientation of the doors, in relation to section 3.4.7(F)(2). Mr. Lingle said pointed out that the public would experience the building from an angle, and wouldn’t see the alcove. Ms. Zink commented that a lot of buildings have an entrance with the door somewhat obscured. Mr. Frick said he loved the project, and was not too concerned about the entrances, but has a hard time justifying it with the Code due to the height, setback and width on this block face. Ms. Wallace said the proposed development it is in compliance with the Code, except for its size and massing. Mr. Ernest pointed out the varying typologies and heights within the area of adjacency. He referenced several sections of the Code, and said he finds the project complies, and that he would support the motion. Ms. Simpson expressed concerns about the height and setbacks with regard to section 3.4.7(F)(1), pointing out that it was setback on Oak, but not on Matthews. She appreciated the Applicant’s efforts to improve the project. Chair Dunn found the height to be acceptable, given the range of heights in the area. She said she was struggling with character, but noted that the area is varied, and the project fits well with one side of the street, but not the other. She is still having some difficulty with the doors, but appreciates the articulation. She stated that the terracotta material is compatible with the brick, although she questions the size of the panels. City of Fort Collins Page 4 April 18, 2017 Public Input John Gascoyne expressed support for the project on behalf of himself and his neighbor, Mary Ray. The motion passed 5-3, with Frick, Hogestad and Wallace dissenting.