Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/17/2021Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 [November 17, 2021] Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Walter Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Kevin Murray And Remote Via Zoom Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting November 17, 2021 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, 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.” Chair Dunn commented on the recent passing of Barbara Fleming, local historian.  AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated there were no changes to the posted agenda.  CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. Historic Preservation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 576C6922-B475-45D6-84C1-8645F97C69E9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 [November 17, 2021]  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 20, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. APPROVAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S 2022 WORK PLAN The purpose of this item is to approve 2022 Work Plan of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Knierim moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the November 17, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 5:41 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 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. 4. 1306 W MOUNTAIN AVE – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a conceptual review of the applicants’ project, identify key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Alexandra Haggarty (legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) Recusals Chair Dunn stated she has visited the home, but it will not affect her judgment. Member Murray stated he had been good friends with the former owner, however; he will look at it as a historic house. Staff Report Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini presented the staff report. He showed photos of the property and discussed the proposal. He stated the Commission should consider evidence regarding the proposed work and whether it meets the City’s adopted standards for designated historic properties. DocuSign Envelope ID: 576C6922-B475-45D6-84C1-8645F97C69E9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 [November 17, 2021] Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the property and its designation and commented on the conceptual review timeline. He detailed the proposed project which includes exterior demolition of the northeast corner of the house to attach a new addition of just over 1,000 square feet. He stated the majority of the main level windows are proposed for repair. Additionally, the project proposes to demolish the non- historic garage and construct a new garage closer to the alley but will retain the historic garage. Mr. Bertolini stated staff’s analysis is that the project does not meet all applicable rehabilitation standards, specifically those related to the degree of demolition of historic brick at the northeast corner of the house and the size of the addition. He noted most written comments received have been opposed to the project due to the size and scale of the addition. Applicant Presentation Alexandra Haggarty, attorney for the applicant, gave the Applicant presentation. She commented on one purpose of historic preservation, and a role of the Commission, being to further the public interest in the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of significant sites. She also commented on the goal to promote and encourage continued private ownership and use of such sites in a way that public policy goals can be met. Brian Berkhausen stated the goal for this project is to provide for single-level living and he commented on the steep stairs to the basement, that do not meet code, which houses the only shower in the house and the laundry room. He stated the proposed project maintains 100% of the street frontage of the house and he provided information on the revised plans that have been presented. Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction, stated this projects meets all Building Codes, the Land Use Code, and Our Climate Future goals of maintaining existing housing stock and making it more energy efficient. He provided information on the ability to reverse the changes and discussed the architecture of the proposed addition. He noted modifications were already made to the back wall at some point. Ms. Haggarty noted an addition cannot be denied simply because of its dimensions and disagreed with the staff finding that the proposal requires too much demolition of historic material and is not subordinate. Additionally, she stated many of the letters received in opposition to the project appear to have been based on a previous plan or on a misunderstanding of the current plan. She discussed the ways the proposed project meets the standards to retain the historic character of the property, preserve distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques, having an addition that is compatible with, distinguishable from, and subordinate to the existing building, and making the changes reversible. Public Input Laura Bailey, daughter of the previous owner, stated this proposal still does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards and does not represent balance. She stated she would not have sold the home if she thought changes such as this could be made. She stated these types of bungalow homes were intended to be modest, simple, symmetrical, and compact and this proposal would undo those hallmark features and would disrupt the hardscape to yard ratio. Shelly Terry expressed concern about how much the current plan changes the nature of the house. She stated vegetation cannot be depended upon to hide the addition. She commented on the reason the home was originally designated. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn directed the members to the character-defining features listed in the Staff Report and noted the damage of those features would eliminate the reason for a landmark. Member Bello asked if the recommendations in the Staff Report are based on the revised plans. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn suggested starting the discussion with standard 4 specifically as related to the historic back porch which staff stated would not be required for retention in order to meet the standard, although it would be encouraged. Vice Chair Knierim stated there are bigger features on which to focus as the porch was added later and is not a character-defining feature. Member Rose agreed, but asked if the date of the construction of the concrete stoop is known as it is unusual and should not be discounted as being unimportant. DocuSign Envelope ID: 576C6922-B475-45D6-84C1-8645F97C69E9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 [November 17, 2021] Chair Dunn stated the rear porch has gained historic importance. Member Murray stated he does not see the concrete stoop as being that important or necessarily a character-defining feature. He also noted the 1968 garage is old enough to have historic significance; however, he believes it is not necessary to save. Chair Dunn summarized the comments that members feel comfortable with the removal of the back porch. Member Nelsen stated there is some historic value to the mudroom addition; however, it may not necessarily be a character-defining feature and she is comfortable with the removal of the back porch. Chair Dunn commented on rear-facing mudrooms often being removed to make room for an addition. Chair Dunn requested input regarding standard 6. She noted the historic basement windows are being planned for replacement with egress windows and one bathroom window will be removed. Member Bello asked if the basement windows are all on the sides and rear of the house. Mr. Schneider replied in the affirmative. Member Bello asked why the windows are being removed. Mr. Schneider replied it is necessary to comply with building codes for bedrooms and life safety. Member Murray expressed appreciation for the proposal to repair some windows instead of replacing them all. He questioned why the windows are being replaced in the basement if the stairs are too steep for access. Mr. Schneider replied the plan would also replace the stairs to meet standards. Chair Dunn noted the work being done on the house requires it to be brought up to Building Code standards. Member Nelsen commented that depends on the amount of work being done and existing non- conforming items can remain. She asked about the current basement windows. Mr. Schneider replied they are common three foot by foot and a half awnings with no window wells. Chair Dunn asked if the proposal is to remove two windows and replace them with one egress window. Mr. Schneider replied there are two egress windows planned for the west side, one will be added on the back side, and two on the east side. He stated there is an option wherein two of the existing windows could be kept. Chair Dunn asked what is planned for the lower level below the addition. Mr. Schneider replied it will just be a crawl space with no windows. Chair Dunn suggested the egress windows could go in the addition space so as to avoid affecting the historic windows. Mr. Schneider replied the reduction in the main floor footprint has necessitated retaining the stairs in the same location. Member Nelsen commented on the importance of balancing historic preservation with the residents’ safety and suggested the egress windows should be made as non-intrusive as possible. Mr. Bertolini noted the installation of egress windows on a landmarked property is not typically something staff would bring before the Commission as basement windows are not generally determined to be character-defining features. Chair Dunn suggested members discuss standard 2. Member Nelsen stated it is acceptable to remove the non-historic garage in the context of making the property usable. She expressed appreciation for the planned retention of the historic garage. Member Bello agreed. Chair Dunn asked about the proposed garage design. Mr. Schneider replied the main difference is it will have a double door rather than two single doors; however, the same north-south gable lines will be maintained as will the character and style. He stated it is very similar in size to the existing garage. Member Nelsen stated the proposed design of the new garage may ultimately make it difficult to differentiate the old from the new. Member Murray commented the addition affects the spatial features of the property due to its size. Mr. Schneider noted the addition includes a concrete slab that will encompass the current concrete patio. DocuSign Envelope ID: 576C6922-B475-45D6-84C1-8645F97C69E9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 [November 17, 2021] Member Bello asked how much of the non-public view is considered in maintaining the historic character of the property. Chair Dunn replied the visual impact of the property is not the primary issue; the character of the house is the primary issue. Member Murray stated leaving part of the rear wall intact could be helpful in better meeting the standards. Mr. Schneider replied the flow of the floor plan works much better with the removal of the ten-foot section. Member Nelsen asked about the floor area ratio of the proposal. Mr. Schneider replied it is at the maximum which is why the expansion had to go to the east. He noted a variance was approved for the extra garage square footage. Member Nelsen stated the landmarked home that was purchased does not seem to meet the needs of the buyers and it seems a change in character is needed to meet those needs. Chair Dunn requested input regarding standard 9. Member Murray commented on a guideline that additions be subservient to the main house in the range of 33% size. He noted this addition would be 95%. He agreed this house may not fit the needs of the buyers and suggested hiding some of the addition in some way would be helpful. Mr. Schneider noted the guidelines are not codified and the definition of subordinate is ‘smaller than,’ which is accurate. He stated the design changes have made it less impactful to the existing home. Chair Dunn stated the desire is to have additions be 50% or less of the existing property per direction from the state. Member Rose commented on the definition of a bungalow and stated it is difficult to discount the affect of the addition to the frontal symmetry of the home. He stated there would be some merit in examining what could be achieved on the north side and with a different arrangement of interior space. Vice Chair Knierim questioned how much could be added to the house before it is no longer considered a cottage bungalow. Member Nelsen agreed that is a concern and noted there is more to this than just what can be seen from the street. She noted the property is landmarked and stated its scale is part of its character. She stated a more modest addition to the rear rather than the side seems more appropriate. Chair Dunn commented on using basement space as much as possible as it does not affect the look of the house at all while still adding functionality. She stated the complexity of the proposed roof line changes the character of the house. Chair Dunn requested input regarding standards 5 and 1. Member Nelsen stated the scale of the proposed addition is difficult to reconcile. Mr. Berkhausen noted the neighbors on both sides have expressed support for this plan and stated these changes will make the property viable for future generations. He thanked the Commission members for their time and thoughtfulness. Ms. Haggerty thanked members for their time. She noted many of the standards have some grey area which allows for each project to be considered individually to create a balance between preservation and functionality. [Timestamp: 7:49 p.m.] (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief break at this point in the meeting to allow for a change in legal counsel. A roll call vote was taken upon reconvening and all were present.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 576C6922-B475-45D6-84C1-8645F97C69E9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 [November 17, 2021] 5. 201 S COLLEGE AVE – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to approve the roof rehabilitation of the clay tile roof at the former Post Office at 201 S. College Avenue, confirming that the work will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The applicant is proposing to rehab and salvage the vast majority of clay tile as feasible, will be replacing and adding insulation for the membrane flat roof, will be replacing the lining for the internal gutter and downspout system, and is proposing potential replacements for the distinctive clay hip tiles in the event the existing tiles are damaged during removal. APPLICANT: Barbara Eibach, Brinkman Construction (owner); Nick Dillen, Formula Roofing (contractor) Staff Report Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner, presented the staff report for this item which is related to rehabilitation of the roof at the former Post Office building at 201 South College Avenue. He outlined the role of the Commission for final design reviews and discussed the history of the property. He provided information on the proposed project to rehabilitate the clay tile roof and noted replacement tiles, if needed, have been sourced from an historic clay tile company. He stated staff’s analysis is that the project meets the applicable rehabilitation standards and staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project. Applicant Presentation Barbara Eibach, Brinkman Real Estate Management, stated this project has been ongoing for about four years and the contractor has experience working on several historic properties. Nick Dillen, Formula Roofing, stated the aesthetic of the roof will be maintained and sufficient quantities of the necessary tiles and hips have been sourced to ensure that. He stated there is about a three- inch rise on the flat section of the building that will be removed and replaced to bring it up to Code. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Vice Chair Knierim asked where the tiles were sourced. Mr. Dillen replied they were found in Illinois at a salvage yard. Member Murray asked if there is a flat roof under the tile. Mr. Dillen replied in the negative and stated there is underlayment directly under the tile with decking below that. Member Murray asked about insulation installation. Mr. Dillen discussed the insulation of installation on the flat section and stated some ventilation will be added using custom fabricated vents. Members discussed the roof ventilation and gutters. Mr. Dillen noted the internal gutter system has been functioning well; however, the intrinsic copper will all be replaced as part of this project. Chair Dunn asked if tax credits are being used for the project. Ms. Eibach replied they have not yet looked into that. Mr. Bertolini stated staff can assist with that information. Commission Deliberation Member Rose commended the process and its documentation. He stated he has never seen a project as well detailed and documented. Chair Dunn concurred. Vice Chair Knierim made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the roof rehabilitation at the historic Post Office at 201 South College Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 8:30 p.m.] DocuSign Envelope ID: 576C6922-B475-45D6-84C1-8645F97C69E9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 [November 17, 2021] OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn noted Members Bello and Murray will have their last meetings next month. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair December 15, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 576C6922-B475-45D6-84C1-8645F97C69E9