HomeMy WebLinkAboutOASIS ON OLIVE - PDP - PDP180003 - DECISION - HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPlanning, Development & Transportation
City
of
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Fort
College Avenue
Collinsrth
P.O.P.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134-fax
fcgov. com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 22, 2018
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
TH: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Pete Wray, City Planner
FR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager
RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Pertaining to Oasis on Olive (PDP180003)
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 Planning and Zoning Board shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written
recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission.
At its May 16, 2018 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the
development project known as Oasis on Olive (PDP180003). The Landmark Preservation Commission
adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-1 (Hogestad, Wallace absent; Dunn - nay).
"That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Oasis
on Olive project, P.D.P. #180003, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7 for the following reasons, so long as the conditions [below] are satisfied:
• The project does not negatively impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic
properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore complies with 3.4.7 (A) Purpose, and (B)
General Standard.
• The project design's overall height, setback and width is compatible with the historic properties in
the defined area of adjacency, and therefore, complies with 3.4.7(F)(1). The project's massing strategy
and use of similar materials and roof forms mitigate the negative impact on directly adjacent historic
resources.
• The project complies with 3.4.7(F)(2) through the use of gable and intersecting gable roof forms
and similar roof pitches to the historic resources. Additionally, the projecting garage on Olive Street is
similar in shape to the 316 West Olive building.
• The project design includes primary building materials reflective of the dominant historic
materials, and therefore complies with 3.4.7(F)(3).
• The focal and pedestrian points between the PDP gardens and the historic lots will be maintained,
and no fencing is proposed between this lot and the rear lots of 227 and 231 South Howes which this
lot was historically associated with. This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings'
setting and association, and so complies with 3.4.7(F)(4).
• The purposeful omission of fencing between the new and historic lots significantly helps to retain
and promote the historic buildings' setting and association with the historic rose gardens. To the extent
possible the historic rose beds and gardens will remain. Replacement trees will be approved according
to the requirements of the City Forester. For these reasons, the project complies with 3.4.7(F)(5).
Conditions:
1. Provide an identifiable entrance with a door into the building; if from a design standpoint that
is not feasible, then the LPC would accept an identifiable entry into the site (3.4.7)(F)(2).
2. Horizontal elements such as the roofline facia should align across the building (3.4.7)(F)(2).
3. The rose garden should be relocated to a location where it will get adequate exposure to the
sun so that the roses thrive; and the location should be in a place where it is a prominent feature
of the site (3.4.7)(F)(5).
4. The current conditions and location of the historic rose garden will be documented before
relocation (3.4.7)(F)(5).
In explaining her vote in opposition to the motion, Ms. Dunn noted that she supported the project; and that she
supported the conditions number 2, 3, and 4 (above), but felt that the design with the metal arch as proposed
in A4t already complies with the Code.
The Commission stated that it greatly appreciated the use of authentic Masonville stone on the project.
- 2 -