Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/16/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 [February 16, 2022] Kurt Knierim, Chair This meeting was Margo Carlock held remotely Meg Dunn Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Meg Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan Chair Knierim 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 Ms. Bzdek stated she will be providing a staff report on the Linden Street project improvements prior to consideration of the Consent Agenda. There were no other changes to the posted agenda.  CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW Historic Preservation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 [February 16, 2022] Member Rose withdrew Item No. 2, 741 Lindenmeier Road – Single Family Demolition Notification, from the Consent Agenda.  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek stated the phase two improvements on Linden Street have recently begun and she provided a brief history of the project noting the Commission reviewed the full project and provided a certificate of appropriateness in December of 2019. She discussed the project to reconfigure Linden Street into a convertible street with parallel parking. She stated the project should be complete by July of 2022 and pedestrian access is being maintained during construction.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 19, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the January 19, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member Carlock seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:43 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 741 LINDENMEIER RD – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION The purpose of this item is to notify and inform residents of the possible demolition of a single family property over 50 years of age and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. Member Rose questioned whether there are alternatives to the immediate approval and subsequent demolition. He stated the materials provided indicate the home has a significant place in early Fort Collins history; however, he acknowledged the property is in derelict condition without much chance for rehabilitation. He stated he would like the record to more accurately reflect the status of the property as an historical artifact. Mr. Bertolini stated there is no Code structure for mitigation and nothing that would require that of the property owner. He stated demolition permits have yet to be requested and the owner could be asked for additional site access for documentation purposes. He stated securing funding for additional documentation could be an issue. Member Rose stated he would like to see interior photo documentation if possible, but stated he is not attempting to create undue hardship for the owner. Mr. Bertolini replied interior photos are available. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 [February 16, 2022] 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 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to issue, with or without conditions, or to deny, a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the 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) (**Secretary’s Note: Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest as he lives in the home adjacent to the subject property and has submitted comments as a private citizen.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He discussed the proposed project and noted the homeowner opted not to make alterations to the proposed plan following the conceptual review meeting in January. Mr. Bertolini outlined the role of the Commission as a decision maker for this item and detailed the historic designation of the property. Mr. Bertolini showed photos of the property, renderings of the proposed project, and discussed the proposal. He outlined the staff analysis which indicates the project does not meet all applicable rehabilitation standards, which he detailed. He noted the City is required to utilize the Secretary of Interior standards as its basis for review because they are adopted in the Municipal Code and having the design review based in those standards is a condition of a federal certification for the City’s Historic Preservation program. Mr. Bertolini outlined the public input received on the project and stated staff is recommending the Commission approve two of the proposals, for the egress windows and for the demolition of the non-historic garage and construction of the new two-car garage. He stated staff is recommending denial of the proposed addition. Applicant Presentation Alexandra Haggarty, counsel for the applicant, stated the proposal provides a good balance between historic preservation and promoting and encouraging the continued private ownership and use of historic sites. Brian Berkhausen, owner, discussed the history of his ownership of the property and detailed the proposed project which would retain the front-facing elements of the home while providing a rear addition to accommodate his needs moving forward. He stated the proposal retains 100% of the historic fabric of the house while making appropriate improvements that will sustain and maintain the viability and livability of the home for the next century. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 [February 16, 2022] Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction, provided additional details on the proposal and commented on the importance of preserving the open space on the lot between the home and the accessory structures. He also noted aspects of the plan promote City climate-related goals. He outlined the ways in which the proposal meets the applicable Secretary of Interior standards, including noting the reversibility of the addition. He noted the project has received signatures of support from several neighbors in the area. Ms. Haggarty noted the Code does not clarify how many standards must be met, or to what degree, in order to justify approval. She stated staff has found that eight of the ten standards are fully met or not applicable, and the other two are partially met. Regarding standard two, Ms. Haggarty stated the historic character of the property is retained and preserved with the addition and the proposal fully complies with zoning and Land Use Code requirements. Regarding standard nine, Ms. Haggarty stated the new addition is compatible with, distinguishable from, and subordinate to the existing building. She also noted the applicant will agree to a condition of approval that all landscaping remain in place and be replaced in kind if damaged. Ms. Haggarty discussed the ways in which the proposal meets other City goals while still retaining the historic significance of the home. Public Input Michelle Haefele requested the Commission deny the proposed addition as historic resources are irreplaceable. She suggested setback variances could be requested to ensure an addition is not visible from the front of the property. Laura Bailey, daughter of the previous homeowner, requested the Commission deny the proposed addition as its designation should mean the City will protect the home from significant changes in perpetuity. She also suggested the large front tree that will block the proposed addition could not be adequately replaced if it dies and stated the house would not have been designated if such an addition existed at the time. She commented on the number of comments received in opposition to the proposal. Gina Janett requested the Commission deny the addition and stated the house would not have been designated if the addition existed at the time. She stated the proposed addition would dramatically change the character of the home. Kevin Cook discussed Mr. Bailey’s desire to have the house designated so as to ensure the historic value of the structure would be preserved indefinitely. He questioned why the buyers purchased the home with the knowledge of the designation and questioned what credibility the Commission has if landmark status for a property is granted and then it becomes reversible or modifiable with the next owner. Loretta Bailey stated issues for the current owners could be easily solved without needing to make an addition. She also expressed concern the large tree in the front could not be adequately replaced if it dies. Karen McWilliams, former Historic Preservation Manager, stated she worked with Mr. Bailey to get this property designated and requested the Commission deny the proposed alterations to the home as they do a disservice to the memory of Mr. Bailey and to all other owners who have chosen to protect their homes through landmark designation. She commented on historic preservation being a city-wide value recognized by Codes and Council policies. She also disagreed with Ms. Haggarty stating all applicable standards must be met in order for this type of alteration to be approved. William Whitley requested the Commission deny the request for the addition stating the current plan significantly weakens the City’s designation standards, calls into question the City’s commitment to historic preservation, and sets a dangerous precedent. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 [February 16, 2022] Shelly Terry requested the Commission deny the request for the addition stating it should remain as it was when it was landmarked in order to represent history for future generations. She commented on her experience landmarking her home and stated allowing this would set a precedent. Asma Henry opposed the proposed project and disagreed with comments by the applicant team that the project promotes equitability and sustainability. Frederick Snyder discussed his experience in landmarking his home and stated landmarking properties is valuable for history. He questioned why buyers would purchase a landmarked home if they wanted to change it. Staff Rebuttal Mr. Bertolini clarified the Code requirement in Chapter 14, Article 4 of the Municipal Code, adopts the full set of standards, all of which need to be met or determined by staff to not be applicable. Regarding precedent, Mr. Bertolini noted the Code clearly states decisions on one property do not affect decisions on other properties. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Haggarty reiterated the property is not on a state registry and the Code only calls for the Commissioners to analyze the standards, not to analyze anything related to the City’s status as a certified local government. She also reiterated the Code does not explicitly state how many or how fully the standards must be met to approve an alteration and the applicant team believes all are met. She also noted any decision would not set a precedent per Code and stated this process exists to ensure that landmarked properties make changes in a reasonable way, not so that they do not change at all. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and all five members were present upon returning.) Commission Questions and Discussion Member Nelsen requested clarification regarding the Secretary of Interior standards and City Code provisions. Mr. Yatabe replied the Code states a proposal must meet the standards in order to be approved and, if a proposal does not meet the standards, it is denied. Member Nelsen asked if both chimneys are being retained in the proposal. Mr. Schneider replied in the affirmative and stated both are brick down to the basement level, which will remain. Member Nelsen asked about the bump out to the east and if it was added to emphasize standard nine. Mr. Schneider replied the design aimed to keep the simplistic rectangular design while meeting the setbacks on the west side and meeting Land Use Code standards related to differentiation. Additionally, the design aims to ensure the addition is differentiated. He noted it is not uncommon for additions to occur on the side of a property to meet Code requirements. Member Nelsen asked about the possibility of hyphening. Mr. Schneider replied that was considered; however, the design seemed to be a detriment to the existing structure. Member Nelsen asked if retaining the open space on the lot is more important than the massing as viewed from the front of the property. Mr. Schneider replied the design does not disrespect the existing structure and the preservation of the open space on the lot is more valuable than having the entire addition behind the home. He stated a narrow row house design would not be aesthetically pleasing and would require a number of Land Use Code variances. Mr. Berkhausen noted they are attempting to create a livable floor plan. Commission Deliberation DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 [February 16, 2022] Chair Knierim suggested limiting the discussion to the standards in question, particularly two and nine. Member Nelsen questioned whether the treatment of the addition is substantial enough that standard three would not apply. Member Carlock suggested that standard may not apply as the proposal does not attempt to add anything that one would perceive as historic. She stated the addition is clearly differentiated and is clearly not part of the original structure. Member Rose stated adding anything to this home takes away from the nature of the home being a bungalow and the applicant team has done as much as possible to try to accommodate a larger program of use into a space that is not appropriate. Chair Knierim stated character-defining features of the property include its small size and rectangular shape, and the proposal changes those features. Member Nelsen noted standard two states that the historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. Member Carlock stated the size of the addition is outside of the standards. Member Nelsen concurred and stated the simplicity of form and symmetry of the structure will be altered with the proposed addition. Member Dunn concurred and stated the proposed addition detracts from the original structure. Member Carlock stated she is supportive of the garage replacement proposal and would also support the staff recommendation regarding the egress windows. Member Rose concurred and stated those changes do not modify the character to an extent that the standard is not met. Member Nelsen also concurred and noted the garage that is proposed to be demolished was not part of the historic designation. She also concurred the windows that are planned to be replaced are not character-defining features and their replacement would not negatively affect the historic integrity of the structure. Chair Knierim also concurred. Member Nelsen suggested the Commission may want to further discuss standard nine. She stated massing, size, and scale have been determined to not be met and also stated the roof lines do not seem compatible. She noted the roof plate height is the same height all around which does not feel subordinate to the existing landmarked home. Member Carlock stated she believes the size of the addition is the main concern and that violates standard nine. Members discussed the proper way to make a motion or multiple motions. Member Carlock made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for proposed item two, installation of an egress window and modification of bathroom windows, and for proposed item three, demolition of the non-historic garage and construction of a new garage, at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval for item number one, the addition to the home, because it does not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: two and nine. The Commission further finds that other than the stated standard(s) not met, the denied alteration(s) meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. Member Rose seconded. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 [February 16, 2022] Member Rose asked if the items stated by Member Carlock were sufficiently clear. Member Carlock replied the items are numbered per the Staff Report. Member Rose requested the motion include a reference to the items as being in the Staff Report. Member Carlock suggested listing the items by descriptions rather than with numbers. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated the motion was fine either way, as part of the motion involves the discussion on it. Member Nelsen reiterated that part of the Land Use Code and City Code involves the Commission assessing whether or not an alteration meets all of the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. She stated the property was landmarked for design and construction and the Commission agrees the distinctive aspect of the home is the integrity of its form and its small size, and that the proposed alteration so significantly alters that key defining characteristic, that it cannot be supported and therefore the Code is not met. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 8:38 p.m.] OTHER BUSINESS o ELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Member Rose nominated Chair Knierim for Chair. The nomination was accepted unanimously. Chair Knierim commended Meg Dunn’s work as Chair. Member Nelsen nominated Member Rose for Vice Chair. The nomination was accepted unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair March 16, 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE