Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/18/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 May 18, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn And Remotely via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting May 18, 2022 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Walter Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Melissa Matsunaka, Aubrie Brennan, Brad Yatabe • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek requested the Commission change the order of items two and three. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek stated Council will issue a proclamation for “A Day of Racial Healing” in honor of Hattie McDaniel on June 7th and it will be accepted by a relative of Hattie McDaniel. Additionally, she provided an update on the Civil Rights Historic Context Project. She also stated staff has issued a second round deadline of July 1st for applications for zero interest rehab loans. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 May 18, 2022 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 20, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member M Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the April 20, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. CONGRESO DEBRIEF (LATINOS IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION, NATIONAL MEETING, DENVER 2022) DESCRIPTION: This will be a short debrief about the 2022 Congreso, the national meeting of the Latinos in Heritage Conservation non-profit that held its 2022 annual meeting in Denver on April 28-30. City staff attended along with Jerry Gavaldon of the Museo de las Tres Colonias. After the debrief, there will be an open discussion among Historic Preservation Commission members and any attending community partners or members of the public about how the content and lessons of Congreso can be leveraged by the Historic Preservation program to better serve Fort Collins’ Hispanic residents and ensure their heritage and historic places are recognized, preserved, and shared with the broader community. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. Bzdek reported on the history of the 2-day Congreso conference held in Denver and discussed some of the topics covered during the meeting, noting the meeting always has an integrated focus on historical, cultural, and natural resources. Mr. Bertolini provided additional information on the topics discussed at the meeting, including the Denver Latinx community, the documentation of Hispanic heritage, and field visits. He discussed key takeaways from the meeting, including the area of ownership versus rental, particularly when addressing the equity challenges of preserving Hispanic history and associated places. Ms. Bzdek commented on the case studies discussed at the conference, including a digital pilot project in Texas. Mr. Bertolini commented on the importance of both historic and contemporary murals in cultural connections. Museo de las Tres Colonias Board Chair Jerry Gavaldon reported on his experiences at the Congreso conference. He discussed gentrification in Fort Collins. Member M. Dunn asked if there are any historic murals in Fort Collins. Mr. Gavaldon replied the Coca- Cola sign in Old Town has been around for decades and suggested an inventory of murals could be a good project. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 May 18, 2022 Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim asked if Commissioners could attend this conference in the future. Ms. Bzdek replied in the affirmative and noted the conference is bi-annual and occurs throughout the country. She also noted Councilmember Gutowsky has been to the conference in the past and she will be sent a recording of this discussion. Member M. Dunn requested additional information on a historic district in Denver that was discussed at the conference. Ms. Bzdek provided details regarding the public outreach and the district, which was recognized under criteria related to cultural significance. Chair Knierim asked how the Commission can help elevate this type of work within Fort Collins. Ms. Bzdek replied there are budget offers in that would support two additional staff positions, and if they move forward, Commissioners could comment before Council. [Timestamp: 6:09 p.m.] 3. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES – switched with Item 3 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. Mr. Bertolini provided information on the historic surveys that were completed over the past month and discussed Ms. Bzdek’s participation in the “Living Her Legacy” portrait unveiling. 4. 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW, REHABILITATION & ADDITION DESCRIPTION: This item is a conceptual design review of the applicants’ project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide feedback to the owner/applicant so they can apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness at a future date. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building, with other modifications to the building to allow for adaptive reuse. A previous version of the application of the project included demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building – that work is still proposed but based on approval from the HPC on February 17, 2022, is not included in this conceptual review. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) (**Secretary’s Note: Claire Havelda recused herself from this item and Brad Yatabe took her place as the representative from the City Attorney’s Office. Additionally, Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting this is a Conceptual Review of a new proposed addition design. He discussed the Commission’s previous approval of items related to demolition of the non- historic garage and constructing a new garage off the alley. He discussed the role of the Commission and noted it does have the option to move to a Final Design Review as the property has been posted. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the designation of the property and reviewed the timeline for the proposed project. He provided additional details regarding the new proposed addition design and stated staff’s analysis of the concept sketches is that the applicable rehabilitation standards are generally met. He provided information related to specific items on which staff is recommending the Commission focus its discussion. He stated the primary question from staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the window modification at the northwest corner of the addition. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 May 18, 2022 Applicant Presentation Brian Berkhausen, property owner, stated he believes this new plan will meet the applicable goals, standards and guidelines while still providing he and his wife the necessary space they will need to age in place at the home. He discussed the reversal of the staircase and provided additional detail regarding the new proposed plan. Jeff Schneider, representative of the property owners, provided answers to Commission questions from the work session, including the reason the roof pitch was not changed, noting the proposed window pattern is likely not exact, addressing the west elevation, ensuring the addition is different than the existing building, and addressing the removal of the northwest window for life, health, and safety issues, among others. Public Input Laura Bailey commented she was pleased to see the changed design was closer to meeting the applicable Secretary of the Interior standards; however, she had questions about the lower window. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Schneider commented the current window does not meet Code egress requirements, which is why it needs to be replaced. Member Rose asked about the maximum distance above the floor for the window Code requirement. Mr. Schneider replied it is 44 inches. Member Nelsen clarified the head weight and size of the window. Mr. Schneider noted he would need to provide exact measurements at a later date. Member M. Dunn asked if an addition that went straight across was considered as opposed to the proposed L-shaped addition. Mr. Schneider replied the proposal decreases the footprint to not exceed 30% and minimizes the mass. Member M. Dunn commended the new roof design as being subordinate; however, she stated the Commission’s concerns were more related to the design than the size. Mr. Schneider stated the applicants feel this design is subordinate to the existing home while still meeting the needs of the property owner. Member M. Dunn stated she would like to keep the windows if possible. Mr. Schneider commented on window changes from a previous plan and noted these changes are similar but are less visible from the street side and still meet egress Code requirements. Mr. Schneider commented on the likelihood the window would be covered by a bed headboard. Member M. Dunn asked if it would be possible to get the necessary egress with the current window, though a different type of window. She stated the interior layout is not part of the Commission’s concern. Mr. Schneider replied the longevity of the property and use of the space also needs to be considered in terms of life, health, and safety. Mr. Berkhausen commented on the desire to be able to access the space with a walker and stated moving the bed would make aging in place more difficult. Mr. Schneider noted having the ability to age in place is one of the City’s strategic housing goals. Member Rose commended the new plan but questioned the east elevation whereupon there will be the same roof pitch, part with new roofing material and part with the existing roofing material. He commented on the porch having a different roof pitch and questioned whether the same roof pitch could be employed on the addition to create a more definitive break between the existing and the new addition. Mr. Schneider replied that has been considered; however, the Commission has deemed the existing mud porch as non-historic; therefore, it is not being considered as a design element. Member Rose clarified he was referring to the street-facing front of the building and that porch. Mr. Schneider replied there is an offset of the main roof on the front of the home and architecturally, it would seem to be a disservice to the existing bungalow style. He also noted the entire roof will ultimately be replaced at some point. Member Rose suggested considering the roof pitch change. Member Nelsen asked if the entire window or just the glazing will be replaced in the bathroom. Mr. Schneider replied it would just be the glazing as the glass needs to be tempered per Code. He stated it is undecided if the glass would be obscured. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 May 18, 2022 Member M. Dunn asked Mr. Bertolini about his statement that there is precedent for window changes such as this and requested an example of the Commission allowing such a change for a locally landmarked property. Mr. Bertolini replied his use of the term ‘precedent’ was based on the Parks Service guidance for not disrupting the overall character. He stated it depends on the context, visibility, and the location of the windows and noted he is not aware of a City landmark example where a window change has been approved. Member M. Dunn stated differentiation is important for the addition, not for the existing windows at the rear of the historic house, and proportions are important there. She stated if the Commission can find a rationale with which it feels comfortable, that also fits within the Secretary of the Interior standards, that would enable the filling of the window and building the two new windows, the next concerns are related to the fill-in and whether the windows are in a similar proportion and are simple. Member Rose stated the flexibility provided in the City’s adopted Building Code could make for getting close to the maximum height above the floor and arranging proportions so they more closely conform to what is differentiated and yet compatible. He suggested there may be a way to create the necessary egress windows while still accommodating the preservation needs. Mr. Schneider replied changing out the window to be an egress window, that may or may not accommodate egress, would still require a variance from the Building Department. Mr. Bertolini noted those variances would be at the discretion of the Chief Building Official and they are typically applied when a character-defining feature is being threatened. Member Carlock commended the changes to the plan and noted the windows on the east side are not similar and do not line up with the band; therefore, there is already variation in the windows and the proposed change would be a reasonable adaptation to achieve the aging in place goal. Member Nelsen stated the actual window measurements are important. Mr. Schneider noted this plan is an overall concept to allow the Commission to weigh in on whether this will philosophically work. Mr. Schneider requested input on the brick grounding of the exposed foundation wall for the addition. Member M. Dunn supported the thin brick proposal. Member Rose commended the continuation of the band, though he suggested a colored stucco could be just as effective a treatment as the thin brick. Mr. Schneider replied that had been considered; however, he questioned whether having three different materials stacked on top of each other would be appropriate from a design perspective. Member M. Dunn commended the size of the new addition plan and noted design matters more than square footage. She stated it is worth exploring a more rectangular, simple form addition, inset perhaps on both sides with the bedroom behind the existing brick wall so the new windows can be exactly as desired and to allow the existing window to be maintained. Mr. Schneider stated the applicant team is attempting to be respectful of past conversations related to square footage. He stated a rectangular addition would be much larger than what is proposed and suggested the functionality of this proposal is greater than what would be provided by a rectangular addition. Mr. Berkhausen asked if it would be possible for Mr. Bertolini to do some research on the precedent of window modifications that have occurred at the federal level. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Mr. Berkhausen commented on the benefits of the proposed plan and asked if the north wall could be removed. Mr. Schneider noted removing that wall would allow for additional floor space flexibility and a smaller addition. Member Rose stated he does not believe the existing brick wall is a character-defining feature and it could be worth investigating its removal to provide changes to the addition that may be beneficial. Chair Knierim concurred and noted the brick wall would no longer be an exterior feature. Member Carlock stated the Commissioners commented in January that the retention of the brick wall was important to the reversibility aspect. Mr. Schneider stated that was his concern as well. Member M. Dunn stated she would rather lose the bricks in the back than the bricks that would be lost to the new windows. Mr. Schneider noted the back wall removal would be 96 square feet whereas the windows would be 8 to 10 square feet. Member M. Dunn reiterated her thoughts on a rectangular addition. Mr. Schneider replied he is concerned from an aesthetic and architectural nature that that would not be an appropriate feel and would not be complementary to the existing home.