Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 06/16/2021Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 June 16, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was held Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair remotely Michael Bello Walter Dunn Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting June 16, 2021 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Mike Bello, Kurt Knierim STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: “We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.” AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 June 16, 2021  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:37 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 19, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Nelsen moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the May 19, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Murray seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. 3. 308 CHERRY ST (LANDMARK DESIGNATION) DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street. APPLICANT: Kim Baker Medina, 308 Cherry Street, LLC Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. The nomination of the Thomas Property was a voluntary landmark nomination. The property was associated with the Thomas family, notably Virgil Thomas. It was nominated due to its association with African American history and its exterior integrity. This was Fort Collins’s first landmark nomination specifically recognizing African American history in the City. The Commission’s role was to determine if the property had significance and integrity and was therefore eligible for nomination. Applicant Presentation Kim Medina, property owner, gave the Applicant presentation. It was important to recognize the history of those who were not rich and famous, and she was thrilled to put forward this nomination to recognize the Thomas family’s contribution to Fort Collins history. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked how long Ms. Medina had owned the house. She purchased it in 2013 for her law office and would like to put a plaque up so others can visit and learn the history. Member Murray appreciated that no vinyl siding had been put on the house. Member Rose asked about why Staff had not included Standard 2 as it respects persons. Mr. Bertolini responded Staff had considered it based on Virgil Thomas’s many accomplishments but he did not exert long term influence. Staff had not verified if he truly was the first African American graduate of Fort Collins High. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 June 16, 2021 Chair Dunn asked Staff if it was possible to make this a discussion item when it goes before Council, instead of on the Consent Agenda, as is standard procedure with owner nominations. City Council and the general public would then have the opportunity to hear this story, part of the whole story of Fort Collins. Mr. Bertolini responded he could request it. Member Murray commented the home style was typical for the neighborhood and at the relevant time period the neighborhood was a hidden pocket of Fort Collins due to what were dead end streets. Commission Deliberation Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 1, events/trends, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report and Landmark nomination dated June 16, 2021, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through five aspects of integrity to a sufficient degree; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Member Nelsen seconded. Mr. Yatabe suggested adding language directing Chair Dunn to sign the written resolution from the Hearing Packet pages 46-47. Member Murray made a friendly amendment to Member Rose’s motion to direct the Chair of the HPC to forward the written resolution to City Council as found on page 46. Member Rose seconded the amendment. Member Nelsen seconded the motion as amended. Member Nelsen commented this was long overdue. Chair Dunn commented this item was monumental. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 6:07 p.m.] 4. 710 MATHEWS ST (FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to be approved or denied based on the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the missing historic front porch. The plan will generally follow historic photographs of the porch, but will not reconstruct the historic top brick wall and is proposing use of fiberglass columns in place of wood. APPLICANT: Anna Bernhard and Peter Workman (owners) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. Staff believed the proposed reconstruction of the porch was faithful to the Standards. However, the Applicant could not reconstruct the historic top brick wall due to lack of materials. Staff recommended approval of the plan because it was close to the original design of the house, with a condition for Staff approval of the joint sealer or expansion joint treatment to be used on the columns. Applicant Presentation Peter Workman, owner, was trying to be faithful to the historic photographs and reconstruct the porch as closely as possible. He was available for questions. Public Input None Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 June 16, 2021 Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked the owner if he had been able to locate brick to match the existing brick in order to build the half wall. Mr. Workman responded he had not had time to locate it. He would be doing the restoration himself and it would be too much to remove the caps and do masonry. Member Nelsen asked if a plan of protection was in place because she was worried about connections. Mr. Workman was working with a design engineer regarding the proper way to connect to the existing house and carry load correctly. Member Nelsen asked about flashing and protecting the house from water penetration. Mr. Workman responded the professional engineer also discussed flashing with him and acknowledged water could damage the foundation. Chair Dunn asked if there was evidence on the façade for the how the historical attachment had been done. Mr. Workman responded he had found none. He suggested bricks had been taken out of the half wall and put into the house and the caps had been flipped when the porch was removed. At the edges of the home there were traces of paint where the porch roof had been. Member Murray and Mr. Workman had noticed some bricks in the façade were a close match but not the originals, but perhaps the porch had been constructed of slightly different bricks. Chair Dunn asked if fiberglass was lighter than wood. Mr. Bertolini responded being lighter is one of the advantages over wood, but it is usually not loadbearing. Fiberglass usually requires a structural column inside of it, so they are consulting with a structural engineer. Member Murray commented the plan was fantastic. He hoped someday they would be able to rebuild the half wall. Based on the original design, the foundation should be able to support this plan with minimal engineering. Chair Dunn agreed and was glad they were sticking to the historical design as much as possible instead of adding more details. Member Murray commented wood columns are structural and do not need anything inside to bear weight. Member Nelsen agreed Staff conditional approval was warranted. Commission Deliberation Member Murray moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as written by the Staff issued June 16, 2021, including the one condition to Standard Number 7 that is included. Member Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 6:38 p.m.] 5. 821 WHEDBEE ST (NATIONAL REGISTER REVIEW) DESCRIPTION: Demolition of roof structure and removal of most Craftsman-style features to remodel building into a two-story dwelling of a neo-Victorian style. APPLICANT: Allison and Alexander Klug Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. The property was contributing to the Laurel School Historic District, not a City landmark. He gave a history and layout of the existing home, as well as an overview of the planned project. He also described the relevant Standards identified by Staff: Standard 2 – Historic Character, Standard 3 – Avoiding a False Sense of History, and Standard 5 – Preserving Historic Features. Due to the extensive changes proposed, Staff’s recommendation was the proposed work would render the property non-conforming to the Laurel School Historic District. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked if the owner believed the home would retain its historic character under the Standards after the changes. Mr. Bertolini had covered the implications of losing historic status with the Applicant, including the loss of tax credits. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 June 16, 2021 Chair Dunn commented on the wording of the letter to the Applicant, taking issue with the world “likely” because the Applicant would almost certainly lose historic status due to the extensive changes of the planned project. Member Nelsen commented it was not certain but Member Michell disagreed. Member Rose was in favor of eliminating the word “likely.” Mr. Bertolini would make that change. The reason for that wording was the National Park Service would make the ultimate determination on the historic status. Member Murray directed a comment to the Applicant that the issue was the Standards, not that the Commission did not like the proposed changes to the house or had a negative view of the Applicant. Commission Deliberation Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission issue the report as drafted by staff to be signed by the Chair, finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the F.D. Zabel Property at 821 Whedbee Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that the property will likely, permanently, lose access to financial incentives available to historic properties in Colorado, and that our findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time. Chair Dunn made a friendly amendment to strike the word likely and Member Rose agreed. Member Dunn seconded. Member Murray pointed out they could not say with certainty what the decisionmaker would do, but he was amenable to striking the word “likely.” He questioned why the word “likely” was used in the motion template, but Chair Dunn pointed out some properties have less modifications and could retain historic character. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 7:01 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bertolini presented an update on the Small Cell Facilities installation. He gave an overview of the new proposed language and how it would affect historic properties. He wanted to collect the Commission’s comments. Member Murray asked what the language that proposed towers could not be denied for proximity to historic properties meant. Mr. Bertolini explained that co-located towers could not be denied, and Staff was requesting this change to focus on towers that would be freestanding to preserve Staff time. Chair Dunn asked if Staff would still receive notification of co-located towers, and Mr. Bertolini affirmed. Chair Dunn asked if cell towers could be co-located on the same pole as other utilities or street lights. Mr. Bertolini said yes, but the tower had to be constructed for that purpose. The City was compressing the size of the towers, but that meant less carriers could use a single pole. Chair Dunn asked who owned the pole. Mr. Bertolini was not sure, it was a question for the City Attorney. Chair Dunn asked how it would change the look of Old Town at night because people like how dark it is. Mr. Bertolini responded that is why the City is encouraging co-location instead of new light poles. Member Murray asked if there would be poles with no lights. Mr. Bertolini said yes, there will be slightly larger poles with the light arm attached.