Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONFLUENCE - PDP - PDP170001 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (12)Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: June 30, 2017 TO: Hearing Officer TH: Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Jason Holland, City Planner FR: Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to Confluence (PDP170001) As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Findings of Fact and its motion for this project. At its May 17, 2017 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the development project known as Confluence (PDP170001) as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6). The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-0: “That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Confluence project (PDP170001), 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. • The project design uses a massing strategy at the transition edges that is compatible with the historic context and situates taller elements at the interior of the project site. • The project includes primary building materials on the elevations immediately abutting historic properties that are reflective of the dominant historic materials. • The project provides multiple design elements that create visual ties to buildings within the adjacent historic context. City of Fort Collins Page 1 May 17, 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 May 17, 2017 Minutes – Excerpt for Confluence • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Ernest, Frick ABSENT: Lingle, Simpson STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager **BEGIN EXCERPT** 3. CONFLUENCE (PDP170001) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposal is a mixed-use project of residential, office, commercial space, and parking on a 0.4-acre site at 401, 405, and 409 Linden Street in the River Downtown Redevelopment District (RDR). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Jason Kersley, [au]workshop, llc., 405 Linden Street Ms. Gensmer recused herself due to a conflict, and Mr. Frick recused himself because he was not present at the 2015 review of this project. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 May 17, 2017 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She discussed the relevant Code and the Commission’s role in the process. She reviewed the background and staff analysis, and provided recommendations for the area of adjacency. Mr. Yatabe asked the members to confirm whether they were present for the 2015 review of this proposal, and if not, whether they had reviewed the materials from that meeting. Mr. Ernest said he had reviewed the materials. Chair Dunn confirmed she was there. Ms. Zink was there and also reviewed materials. Applicant Presentation Jason Kersley gave the Applicant presentation, including historical context, zoning summary, site plan, and responses to Code requirements. He reviewed the Commission’s comments from their 2015 development review and explained how their design addresses them. He talked about the materials, where they are placed on the building, and how they relate to the surrounding historic context. Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Ernest pointed out a discrepancy in the address for the sign shop at 320 Willow. Mr. Kersey said the Assessor’s map shows 320, but the number on the building is 326. Upon Mr. Hogestad’s request, Mr. Kersey reviewed the materials again, pointing out their locations. Ms. Zink asked about the fenestration and window patterns. Mr. Kersey explained that they used storefront windows for the retail portion, and the residential windows are aluminum clad wood. Mr. Hogestad asked how the cement board is scored and mounted, and whether it’s a rainscreen. Mr. Kersey replied that it was a raw concrete panel rainscreen. He passed around samples of all the materials. Mr. Hogestad asked how the wood would be treated, and Mr. Kersey said it would be stained. Ms. Zink asked about the coursing for the stone, and the mortar for the brick. Mr. Kersey said the brick would have standard gray mortar, and the stone would be rubble. Mr. Hogestad asked for details about the concrete panels, such as how they are scored, how the corners are made, what the header and sill look like, how the storefront fits into it, and how they are attached to the wood tower piece. Mr. Kersey said there would be an open butt joint at the corner. He said the panel size would be 2’ x 10’ vertical, but they are still working through the details. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern that they don’t have the detail worked out. Mr. Kersey assured him that they would get there. Chair Dunn asked about the rust on the corrugated panels dripping to the sidewalk. Mr. Kersey said there is a sunshade to catch that, and a narrow patch of grass to catch anything that gets past that. Mr. Hogestad asked about the signage. Mr. Kersey explained it would be a ghost sign in lighter colored stain. Mr. Kersey responded to additional Commission questions about materials and colors, pointing out their placement. Chair Dunn asked about the Camp Collins sign, noting that it should be “Fort” Collins, not “Camp” Collins, and the year should be 1864, not 1866. Mr. Ernest suggested they come back to discuss the sign further. Chair Dunn asked whether the small building behind the outbuilding is part of the eligibility. Ms. Bzdek said she would have to look into that. Area of Adjacency Chair Dunn asked the Commission about their thoughts on the area of adjacency. Mr. Ernest stated he is comfortable with Staff’s recommendations. City of Fort Collins Page 3 May 17, 2017 Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt the area of adjacency as listed in the staff report for the proposed Confluence project. Mr. Ernest seconded. The motion passed 5-0. Commission Discussion Mr. Hogestad expressed amazement at the detail and volume of materials included. He said the project meets all the criteria, but he feels that the whole project is a lot of little pieces in need of a unifying element that brings it all together. He clarified that was not meant as a criticism, just a comment. Mr. Ernest commented that the Applicants responded to the Commission’s concerns from the 2015 review. He recognized the complexity of differentiating between the three separate buildings, and is comfortable with the result. Mr. Hogestad responded that the materials are varied on each building, and that the project was overly detailed and struggling for identity. Ms. Zink commented that the scale in relation to the historic buildings is reasonable, considering that the historic buildings are simple and traditional, and these are complicated, modern buildings. Chair Dunn referenced Section 3.4.7(F)(3), and asked the Commission members whether the project met the requirement to maintain the existing distribution of materials on the block. Mr. Hogestad said it meets the intent of the Code. Ms. Wallace said the materials fit well in the River District area, and she appreciated the nod to surrounding architecture. She wondered if the project’s application of the Code might be too literal. Chair Dunn said she was intrigued by the way the coloring of the corrugated metal felt familiar to the brick in some of the buildings in the area. Mr. Hogestad said the corrugation has a connotation of industry and warehouse, and prefers the color of this metal over galvanized. Ms. Zink said the metal also relates to the railroad tracks. Chair Dunn asked for comments relating to Section 3.4.7(F)(1). Mr. Ernest said while the new structure is quite dissimilar in size to the historic structures, he agreed with the Staff analysis that the stepped back massing and other setbacks have addressed that. Mr. Hogestad said the fine grain of detail actually helps to make the buildings appear and feel smaller. Chair Dunn said it complies well in terms of step backs and the placement of taller sections in the interior. She is concerned about the section behind the house, but it is interior, so it does comply with the Code. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern that the final details of how it comes together are missing, and they always ask for that in a final review. Mr. Hogestad said it could take months to develop that detail, and maybe in this particular instance, it isn’t necessary to wait for it. Ms. Zink commented that they usually have more generic detail, not that fine level of detail. Mr. Hogestad stressed the importance of the details to the execution and appearance of the project, adding that the finished product must look like what they are approving. Mr. Hogestad said he is confident the Applicant will figure out the solutions, and suggested they could move forward based on the assumption it will be well-executed. Chair Dunn requested comments about Section 3.4.7(F)(2). Ms. Zink said the alignment in this case is more general, and that the heights are similar enough. In terms of window patterns, Ms. Zink said the other buildings don’t have windows that establish a pattern. Mr. Ernest agreed. Ms. Zink said the windows and cornices fit in with the River District. Ms. Wallace said it is a new entity, so it can’t be matched up with anything comparable. Mr. Hogestad added that the window proportion is historic in nature. Chair Dunn commented that the signage acknowledging the Fort serves as a connection to the focal point required by Section 3.4.7(F)(4). Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Confluence project (PDP170001), 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: City of Fort Collins Page 4 May 17, 2017 • The project does not impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency. • The project design employs a massing strategy at the transition edges that is compatible with the historic context and situates taller elements at the interior of the project site. • The project includes primary building materials on the elevations immediately abutting historic properties that are reflective of the dominant historic materials. • The project provides multiple design elements that create visual ties to buildings within the adjacent historic context. Ms. Zink seconded. Mr. Hogestad recognized the huge effort to design this building, and again noted that it was not his intent to criticize the design work. He stated he’d never seen so much detail so closely tied to the Land Use Code and Design Guidelines. He hopes the Applicant will come back for a complimentary review of the proposed Fort Collins signage. Chair Dunn agreed. Mr. Ernest stated he would support the motion, commenting on the project’s compliance with the various sections of 3.4.7. He added that the Applicant also did a good job of applying the River District Guidelines without subordinating the Land Use Code provisions. The motion passed 5:0. **END EXCERPT**