Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/17/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 August 17, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado And Remotely Via Zoom Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting August 17, 2022 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 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, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Maren Bzdek provided an update on the new HPC members. She discussed a proposed Executive Session and staff retreat in October to coincide with the scheduled Work Session. Member Carlock noted that combing both events would be efficient. Member M. Dunn suggested that HPC policies, procedures, and processes could be discussed at the Executive Session. She also suggested a review of Chapter 14 and Standard 3.4.7 would be helpful. Ms. Bzdek clarified format and proposed purpose of October staff retreat. Member Guenther would like to discuss goals and purpose of HPC. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 August 17, 2022 He would like to submit questions for dialogue. Chair Knierim would be interested in attending this meeting. Member Carlock had questions about budget requests. Ms. Bzdek discussed that the next opportunity to provide input is when the City Manager presents the recommended budget. Claire Halveda, CAO, noted that the first public budget hearing is September 6th. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:41 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 20, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. 1316 WHEDBEE STREET - SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 1316 Whedbee Street. Jim Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the July 20, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Meg Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:42 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING DESCRIPTION: Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code- required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Mr. Bertolini reported on the activities on the past couple of weeks. He provided Education and Outreach highlights, such as the Civil Rights Community Meeting, Museo Adobe remudding, and the upcoming Women’s Suffrage Events. Ms. Bzdek discussed her gratitude for the internal partners that worked together to have successful community events such as the Museo remudding project. She asked HPC members for ideas about other buildings in the community that the HPC may be involved in for the next round. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 August 17, 2022 Mr. Bertolini provided a Design Review Highlight for 425 E. Laurel Street. He indicated that the J.M. Glick House was a successful landmark loan applicant and completed a porch repair, which included trim and fascia. Mr. Bertolini provided an update on the City’s landmark rehab loan program. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn asked for clarification on the budget for the Museo project. Ms. Bzdek discussed that there was budget support from the internal partners, such as the Equity Office, Parks, Facilities, Operation Services, Museo Board, Historic Preservation, and Neighborhood Services. Member M. Dunn asked about the remudding cycle. Ms. Bzdek replied that the recommendation is every two to three years. She indicated that the consultants suggested a remudding cycle of every five to eight years due to successful drainage mitigation, a new roof, and gutters. She discussed that the cycle may be moved up due to vandalism and other issues with the building. [Timestamp: 5:58 p.m.] 4. 723 W OLIVE - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition and detached garage/studio for the City Landmark at 723 W. Olive St., the Parsons/Morgan House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the HPC. APPLICANT: Chris Orton Staff Report Yani Jones presented the staff report. noting the applicant is seeking the Commission’s input regarding the design’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. She detailed the architecture and history of the building and showed several photos of the building and surrounding properties. She noted Ms. Jones mentioned certain aspects of the proposal and noted staff’s recommendations are included in the staff report and they have particularly highlighted the rear addition, including the expansion of the existing mudroom and addition of a new master bedroom and bathroom for an additional four hundred twenty-seven (427) square feet. She discussed that Phase 2 of the project would include a new detached 1.5 story, two-car garage with studio above. It would be an ally-loaded garage at the south end of the lot. She discussed information related to specific items on which staff is recommending the Commission focus its discussion. She stated that the primary questions from the staff for the Commission is to provide informative feedback for the owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim asked the Commission to discuss the Secretary of Interior Standards in order. For Standard 1, Chair Knierim does not see any different proposed use from the historical use. Regarding Standard 2, Chair Knierim sought input on whether the historic character of the property would be retained and preserved. Member M. Dunn asked if the historic garage will be keeping the front door or is being changed. John Litschert, architect for the Applicant, replied that the project will be keeping a garage door and may restore to historic imagery. It will not be changed to a man door. Member M. Dunn asked if the short addition on the rear will be preserved. Mr. Litschert replied that it will become part of the master bedroom. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 August 17, 2022 For Standard 3, Chair Knierim asked the Commission if the project will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use, or give a false sense of history. No Commission comments. For Standard 4, Chair Knierim asked if the changes to a property that have acquired historical significance will be retained and preserved. No Commission comments. Regarding Standard 5, Chair Knierim asked for comments regarding distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques being preserved. Member M. Dunn asked if the project is losing any windows other than those on the rear of the property. Mr. Litschert answered that they are not losing any windows and may salvage them if they’re in good shape. Member M. Dunn asked it there will be any repair on the historic windows. Mr. Litschert replied that they are leaving the windows for now as they are in good shape. He indicated that all of the windows on the northeast and west sides have storm windows which are in good shape. For Standard 6, Chair Knierim commented that they have discussed whether deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Regarding Standard 7, Chair Knierim discussed that this standard does not really apply, where chemical or physical treatments will be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Regarding Standard 8, Chair Knierim asked whether archaeological resources will be protected and preserved. He noted that unless the excavation for the garage and studio reveals archaeological resources, this standard should just be noted. For Standard 9, Chair Knierim asked for comments or concerns on whether the new additions, exterior alterations, or related new constructions shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property, the new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property. Member Carlock asked for clarification about the square footage of the main house. Mr. Litschert noted that the main house is listed at 1315 square feet. Minus the mudroom, he noted that it’s about 1100 square feet. Member Rose had a concern with massing and overall scale of the garage and proximity to the house. He noted that the additional attachments helped with understanding of the overall massing. He also had concerns that the garage could pull away from the house a bit more for better differentiation but may not be practical due to the narrow lot and alley. He commented that the dominant view from the street is still the historic house, so his concerns are largely mollified. Member M. Dunn agreed with Member Rose that having the garage and house on the historic building be the dominant view from the street will help conceal most of the new construction. She has a concern about the roof form. She wondered if the roof form can be simplified. She commented that Old Town seems to have mostly simple historic buildings, and additions and new construction seems to be too complex. Member Nelsen commented that she understood how the roof form took shape based on the constraints of the site. Mr. Litschert clarified that they were trying to preserve exterior seating space and it made the most sense to have that on the east side to connect to the kitchen/living space. They moved the addition to the west side. He noted the trouble with attaching a new roof to a historic building. Their approach to match the existing roof lines, slope, and gable, seems like the best way to keep historic features visible while still getting the addition on. He noted that they could drop roof slope on the garage to match the main house. Member Nelsen commented that the difference between 9:12 and 8:12 at the back of the lot is not significant considering it’s located at the back of the lot. Member M. Dunn asked about the possibility of the addition by the historic garage having a hipped roof. Member Nelsen commented that a hipped roof is probably not doable on the north side. Mr. Litschert indicated it is possible on the south side. Member Nelsen noted that they may have trouble meeting R-value for insulation but may be doable depending on approach. Mr. Litschert will explore bringing the roof line down a bit. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 August 17, 2022 Member Rose commented that changing roof slope on new garage is not critical. He would like distinction from house and addition. He commented a distinct roof pitch helps with distinction. He is supportive of keeping the gables throughout since that’s the dominant roof form and use other methods to differentiate. Member Nelsen asked Member Rose for clarification about his comments. Member Rose noted that his comments were all pertaining to the new, stand-alone garage addition. Member Guenther commented that he agrees with Member Rose that the project is integrated yet distinct both with the main structure roof line variations and the distinct set up with the addition. He noted that the site flows very smoothly. He had concerns about the position of the addition and if it could be pushed farther back, but the site constraints seem to rule that out. Chair Knierim agreed that the Applicant has met Standard 9 and appreciated the thoughtfulness and engagement with the standards. Member M. Dunn asked if the Applicant will need to get a variance for the back 50% Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Mr. Litschert indicated that this project clears. The head height ratio is too low to count against FAR. Regarding Standard 10, the reversibility of this project, Chair Knierim asked for comments and suggestions. Member M. Dunn commented that she liked the studio with the new garage as great way to add space on historic property without adding onto the historic building. Member Nelsen agreed with Member M. Dunn. Chair Knierim reviewed the questions Ms. Jones suggested. Member M. Dunn asked if the siding will be the same or differentiated. Mr. Litschert replied that the siding will be a little different. The siding will be lapsiding but not metal. It will likely be 1x6 with 5” reveal. Member M. Dunn commented that that will differentiate but still fits the theme. Chair Knierim asked for any questions about materials. Member M. Dunn has questions about the metal-clad windows on the new addition. Chair Knierim noted that the metal-clad windows are on the new addition and differentiated so he is ok with it. Member Carlock had concerns with the size of the new addition in comparison to the property and crowding the tiny lot. Mr. Litschert noted that remaining exterior space will remain. Member M. Dunn commented that she is 98% this meets the Standards. She is interested in roof alternatives. Member Rose commented that with the additional information provided and the challenges related to the site, it meets the Standards very well. Chair Knierim agreed with Member Rose. Member Guenther agreed that it is very reasonable adaptation and done thoughtfully. Member Guenther would like to explore options of moving the garage closer to the alley to increase the usability of the green space. Public Input None Commission Deliberation [Secretary’s Note: Member Rose’s Motion and Member Guenter’s Second, was withdrawn after Commission Discussion and advice by Ms. Havelda, CAO.] 723 W Olive will proceed to Final Design Review before the HPC. [Timestamp: 6:58 p.m.] Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 August 17, 2022 5. MCDOUX SHF CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION: This will be a short presentation to introduce the Commission to the background, methodology, and timeline that will be used to carry out the Fort Collins Civil Rights Historic Context project over the next two years. The City has received a grant of $86,600 from the State Historical Fund to support the work. After the overview, there will be an open discussion about how the Historic Preservation Commission can contribute to the project outcomes to better serve Fort Collins residents and ensure their heritage and historic places are recognized, preserved, and shared with the broader community. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager McDOUX: Steph McDougal, McDoux Preservation, LLC Jenn Beggs, McDoux Preservation, LLC Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn had questions about the time period covered. She thought that one hundred sixty years seems like a lot. Ms. McDougal noted that discrimination is still happening, and the time period covered in the study will shape the understanding of the present. Member M. Dunn had concerns that the recent items aren’t in the purview of the HPC. Ms. Bzdek described the broader applicability of the project beyond just historic preservation. Ms. Bzdek noted that the HPC can recognize buildings that are less than fifty years old. The City is not limited to fifty years on historical interpretation. Member M. Dunn asked about the funding. Ms. Bzdek indicated that the City’s funding match comes from the general appropriation specific to this project. Member M. Dunn was curious about the final product. Ms. McDougal noted that they don’t know what the final product will look like. They can only report on what they do find, go where the data takes them. She indicated that education discrimination is going to be a larger theme. Member M. Dunn asked if they visited the school district archive. Ms. McDougal discussed that they had visited the archive not but may need access during the project. [Timestamp: 7:50 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Knierim mentioned that the Friend of Preservation Awards ceremony the previous evening was wonderful, and the Honorees felt grateful to be honored. Member Guenther asked if the Coloradoan would have coverage of the event. Member M. Dunn indicated that they have the information. Ms. Bzdek noted that staff is working on expanding the permanent presence on the website for the awardees. Ms. Bzdek discussed that Saving Places Conference during the first week of February 2023, has been moved to Boulder. It will be a hybrid conference, with one more month to submit proposals for agenda items.