The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/17/2022 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1 Kurt Knierim, Chair Location: Jim Rose, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Meg Dunn And remotely via Zoom Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting August 17, 2022 5:30 PM Historic Preservation Commission AGENDA Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. This hybrid Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone and in person. The online meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join online or in person at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to queue at the podium to indicate you would like to speak at that time. You may speak when acknowledged by the Chair. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/99525863329. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 995 2586 3329. Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission for its consideration must be emailed to mmatsunaka@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to mmatsunaka@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 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. The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately with Commission-pulled items considered before Discussion Items and Citizen-pulled items considered after Discussion Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ● Approval of Minutes ● Items of no perceived controversy ● Routine administrative actions Packet Pg. 2 Page 3 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. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING 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). 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 5. McDOUX SHF CIVIL RIGHTS 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 • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at this time. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 17, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 20, 2022 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 20, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC July 20, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 4 Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 July 20, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers/Remote Via Zoom Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting July 20, 2022 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Yani Jones, Brad Yatabe, 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 Ms. Bzdek stated that there will be Community Meeting July 27, 2022, for a Civil Rights Historic Context Project that Historic Preservation will be embarking on and completing within the next two years. Purpose of the project is to better understand our community history and identify any historic properties that may be associated with this theme. Additionally, she introduced a new staff member, Yani Jones, that has joined the staff as a preservation planner. Historic Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 July 20, 2022 Ms. Bzdek provided an update on new Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) members joining in the fall and a mid-September team-building event. She indicated there will also be additional training in Historic Preservation for Commission members in November. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 18, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF 510 & 514 WOOD STREET – SINGLE -FAMILY DEMOLITION The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notices for 510 & 514 Wood Street. Member Carlock moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the July 20, 2022, regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Member M. Dunn commented on the consent calendar follow-up regarding the two houses slated for demolition. She noted that one of them is associated with the City’s Mexican-American, Hispanic Immigrant story. The other is a shingle house. Both houses have some significance to our community which will be lost by demolition. [Timestamp: 5:42p.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 two months. May and June’s Education and Outreach included a discussion on burnout among government historians and walking tours with PDT staff and Poudre Libraries. The walking tours involved Black and Latinx history. Mr. Bertolini provided additional information on the project with FCTV and the Black and African American Cultural Center at Colorado State University about the early Black History in Fort Collins. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 6 Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 July 20, 2022 Mr. Bertolini commented on the Historic Survey Highlights, including updates on the steady progress on College Avenue SHF-funded survey, concentrated between Mulberry Street and Laporte Avenue, which should be completed within the next month. Mr. Bertolini reported that four Development Review Findings were found Not Eligible due to lack of significance, some had significant losses of integrity, including 6824 S. College. Mr. Bertolini provided an update on projects that are not coming before the commission, including a rehab project that will begin shortly on the 1882 Tubbs and Cowan Block located at 247-249 Linden. This project will include masonry repair, targeted window and door replacement, a rooftop stair access addition, and a rear addition that staff did not have any concerns that it would meet the standards and was administratively approved. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn asked for clarification the Cienfuegos property, specifically if the rear addition is close to the ally. Mr. Bertolini replied that the ally is close but there is enough of an inset that the project is not encroaching on the ally. [Timestamp: 5:58 p.m.] 4. BALFOUR SENIOR LIVING DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of a five-acre site at the southeast corner of Harmony and Cinquefoil Lane for a senior living community. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic farmstead structures and construction of a 204,795 square-foot new building. Development site is in the Harmony Corridor; the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Balfour Senior Living, Louisville, CO Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting that this item first came to the commission in March 2020 and is returning with some adjustments based on the Commission’s comments, as well as comments received by staff during the staff development review process. She discussed the role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Ms. Bzdek provided additional details regarding the adaptive reuse of four contributing buildings and a new building for a senior living center. She provided information about the location and historical resources of the area. She indicated that the Historic Resource Assessment for the site has found it significant for its agricultural history. Ms. Bzdek 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 regarding the appropriateness of the proposed treatment plan for the historic buildings, as well as the design compatibility of the new construction. Applicant Presentation Lee Payne, representative of the property owners, gave the Applicant presentation. Mr. Payne provided answers to the Commission questions from the previous Commission hearing, addressed the concerns regarding Secretary of the Interior Standards requirements, specifically making changes to preserve some of the historic windows that were discovered during their inventory. Mr. Payne indicated there are many changes to the new construction. He addressed the Commission’s previous concerns with the windmills, water tanks, and arch at the entry, have all been eliminated from the project. He discussed other modifications to address the standards and suggestions. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 7 Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 July 20, 2022 Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn had questions about who competed the window study. She asked about the 1915 house being closer to the new construction than the barn after it has been moved. Mr. Payne replied that his staff studied the windows. He noted that the barn’s foundation is not suitable for adaptive reuse, is being moved, and will get a new foundation. The barn will be the closest to the new construction. Chair Knierim discussed Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Member M. Dunn asked if new windows will be framed with a similar border to how they are currently. Mr. Payne answered that the borders around the windows will remain. Member M. Dunn asked if the windows that are getting filled in with siding were from the 1970’s. Mr. Payne indicated that after reviewing all available information about those windows, it is hard to determine the exact date of the windows. Member M. Dunn asked about the simplification of the Northside barn door. Mr. Payne stated that they made no change to north side barn door but have made changes to the south side. Member Rose asked a question about the barn being attached to the canopy cover, whether that is the north or south side of the barn. Ms. Bzdek answered that the illustration is representative of the south side. Member Rose asked a question about the barn elevation. Ms. Bzdek clarified that south side elevation is the street side. Member Rose discussed the canopy that significantly changes the elevation and diminishes the view. He discussed the modifications to the appearance of the doors does not really provide a benefit based on the way it fits into the rest of the complex. Chair Knierim discussed the massing and building articulation from Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Member M. Dunn commented that the new widths fit the historic buildings better. She appreciated the improvement on the western end of the new building by the reduction. Regarding the massing next to the barn and whether the porch covering would be sufficient, she noted the most mitigating factor is that it is two ally-widths away. The distance helps meet the massing requirements. M. Dunn discussed that the porch roof adds horizontal line of connection. She discussed that it fits with Section 3.4.7- Massing and Articulation requirements. Member Carlock agrees with Member M. Dunn and their previous concerns were addressed. Regarding building materials, Member M. Dunn asked if the historic building had stone foundations. Ms. Bzdek answered that there is some sandstone. Mr. Payne answered that there are stone foundations on the primary farmhouse and is included on the new construction. Member M. Dunn asked if it would be rectangular sandstone. Mr. Payne answered that it will be irregular shaped, fieldstone patterning. Member M. Dunn asked for clarification on the manufactured stone in the new construction in the corners and edges. Mr. Payne replied that will be selectively used. There will not be seams, instead it will be wrapped around. They will be terminating the material change at inside corners instead of outside corners. Mr. Payne indicated that this process makes it look more monumental. Member M. Dunn agreed the look will be more authentic than wallpaper and more like stone. Chair Knierim agreed with Member M. Dunn that that is the goal in the code to make it look authentic. Regarding Section 3.7.4(e) – Shutters: Member Carlock asked questions about which buildings have shutters. Member M. Dunn answered the north side of the new construction is what concerned the Commission previously. Mr. Payne discussed compliance relative to window proportions. He noted the shutters on the barn will match type and not proportion. The scale is the fenestration patterns in proportions relative to the historic structures is the same, pursing a punched open pattern. Mr. Payne noted that there is a significant reduction of shutters throughout the project. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 8 Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 July 20, 2022 Chair Knierim noted that there are not too many shutters. Member Nelson commented that historically shutters would be sized to cover the windows. She discussed that shutters provide a level of character and texture and an easy fix to size the shutters to fit the windows. Member M. Dunn noted that oversized shutters indicate that it’s a modern building and could be a valid design element. Member W. Dunn agrees with Member M. Dunn that the modern shutter design does not detract from the historic building. Member M. Dunn asked about which part of Section 3.4.7 the Commission was being asked to review. Mr. Payne confirmed that this project complies with 1) similar window pattern, instead of 2) similar window proportions. Member M. Dunn noted that it does not comply with number three, solid to void. Regarding Design Details: Member Carlock believes the details are sufficient. Member M. Dunn believes the porch roof helps tie in horizontally with the roofs of the historic homes, which is sufficient. Member Rose appreciated that the updated design is a good response to the Commission’s concerns about the overall mass instead of the overall profiling of the roof. Member Rose commented that the scale is sufficient. He is conferned about where the canopy meets the barn and why there is a need for dominant change in the barn door. Member Guenther noted the variety of different materials and structures that are in the site plan. He expressed appreciation to the architectural team for blending the unique structures together into one site plan that flows. Member Guenther asked a question about the canopy as a covered walkway at the entrance. He commended the design and overall philosophy that is saving and showcasing the agarin history of Fort Collins. Commission Deliberation Member Rose moves that the commission recommend approval of the development proposal based upon the following format: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends to the decision maker the development proposal for The Overlander by Balfour finding that it is in compliance with the standards contained the Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 based on the following elements: The treatment of the four historic resources on the site meets the Secretary of Interior Standard for Rehabilitation, the design of new construction meets in terms of massing, building materials, and facade details that are compatible with historic context and does not create a problem with visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction and meets the requirements outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7, and the proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources. and is approved with no conditions. Member Guenther seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 6:47 p.m.] 5. 1306 W MOUNTAIN – ADDITION – 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 along with related rehabilitation. 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 application for approval. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 July 20, 2022 (*** Secretary’s Note: Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. ***) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting that this a Final Design Review of a new proposed addition. He discussed the Commission’s previous approval of the items related to the demolition of the non-historic garage and constructing a new garage off the ally. He discussed the role of the Commission and to consider whether the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 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 ins 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 questions form staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the window modification at the northwest corner of the addition. Applicant Presentation Jeff Schneider, representative of the property owners, provided answers to Commission questions from the work session, and discussed the design changes based on Commission’s concerns in May. He discussed the requirement of adding new windows and addressing the removal of the northwest window for life, health, and safety issues, among others. Mr. Schneider noted that the previous proposal of removing one window in the bathroom and adding two smaller windows in the bathroom, are closer to Mountain Avenue than the windows that he is proposing on the rear of the building. Public Input Eric Guenther commented that he believes the proposed addition meets the guidelines and should be approved without conditions. He commented that it meets the standards for scale, mass, materials, and general appearance. Mr. Guenther noted that the proposed interior changes will allow the applicants to age in place. Further, the northwest window changes will not have any impacts on the historic attributes, integrity, context, or characteristics of the home. Laura Bailey commented that she has concerns with the northwest windows. She believes that the windows break with the character of the home and are quite visible to traffic. She commented that she appreciated that the plan and design has been downsized considerably. She also noted that the livability of the interior space should not be addressed by changing the exterior historical character of the home. Commission Questions and Discussion Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office (“CAO”), indicated that the Applicant and Staff will be allowed to respond to public comments. No response from Staff. Mr. Schneider noted his position regarding the additional windows. Member Rose asked if the proposal for the casement windows, to meet egress requirements, includes a false meeting-rail. He expressed concerns about the appearance. Mr. Schneider replied that the grids are applied to the glass and not in-between the glass to simulate the appearance of a double-hung window. Member Nelson asked if the product is applied to both sides of the glass, as with simulated divided light. Mr. Schneider replied that individual panes are in-between the applied simulated divided light. Member Nelson asked if there is a shadow bar applied between the glass. Mr. Schneider replied there will be a spacer bar installed. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 10 Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 July 20, 2022 Member Carlock asked if there are other examples of other historic buildings approved with similar window configurations as this proposal, where one window has been in-filled and other windows have been substituted. Mr. Bertolini commented that there have been similar requests, but none approved. Ms. Bzdek replied that no projects have been approved with that similar situation in the past seven years. Member Nelson asked for clarification on the sill height and dimensions of the existing window. Mr. Schneider indicated the existing window meets code requirements for minimum height. He provided information about the existing window opening as a comparison with proposed windows. He indicated the proposed casement windows will meet egress requirements. Member Carlock commented that rearranging the furniture in the bedroom to accommodate the existing window would not allow the Applicant’s the ability to age in place. Commission Deliberation Chair Knierim addressed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. He commented that Application 2 on the I.T.S. 14 was helpful, and would allow the windows, based on the Standard’s guidance, Packet Pg. 21. Member Carlock Margo agreed that the windows would be compatible under this standard. Member M. Dunn had concerns about application of the standard in this proposal. Member Carlock commented that the addition of the windows would make the livability of the space critical and does not impact the character defining features. Member Nelson noted that the issue to make the space more livable is not within the Commission’s purview. She commented that there are other designs that could allow the applicants to age in place without impacting the windows. Member Carlock had concerns about the interior dimensions and placement of furniture under existing options. Member M. Dunn noted that there are inherent limitations with living in a designated home. She noted that the Commission had concerns about the addition of windows at the May hearing. She commented that the defining characteristics of the exterior are key when deciding to make alterations or additions to the exterior of the house. Member Rose commented that this project has made significant changes and been dramatically downsized. He noted that one window has been made a character defining feature. Member M. Dunn addressed the downsizing of the project and that the code does not require the windows to be altered. Member M. Dunn moves that the historic preservation commission approve all plans and specifications for the Jackson/Bailey property located at 1306 W. Mountain, except the proposed changes to the NW bedroom windows, finding that all but the window proposal met the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval of the proposed treatment of the windows on the northwest bedroom’s west wall, which would inappropriately result in the removal of a historic window and the creation of two new window openings, which does not meet Secretary of Interior Standards 2 or 5, nor follow the guidance in Standards Bulletin #14. Member Nelson seconded. Commission Discussion Member Nelson noted that this project is smaller home where each window occupies a larger percentage of the façade, the windows are visible from the street, and the windows are character defining features. She commented that the historic material is unnecessary to remove, and the applicant has not established a need to deviate from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Member W. Dunn commented that the windows are important features of the home. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 11 Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 July 20, 2022 Chair Knierim commented on the balance of modern livability and historic character defining features. Member Carlock, Member M. Dunn, and Member Nelson commented on egress issues with the current window and existing opening. Member M. Dunn noted that the Standards try to make the building functional, address any code requirements and to keep the structure intact. Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office, outlined the procedure in the event of a tie vote. He reviewed the role of the Standards in the Commission vote on the motion presented. The motion passed 4-2. [Timestamp: 7:56 p.m.] (***Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at 7:56pm – 8:06pm. ***) 6. 1802 N COLLEGE – APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILTY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation of the commercial property at 1802 North College Avenue. On April 22, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property was landmark eligible based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in intensive-level survey site forms. When undergoing development review, landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPLICANT: Darren Haun, H & H Properties, LLC (Property Owner) (***Secretary’s Note: Member M. Dunn disclosed that her friend contacted her to comment on Item 6. Member M. Dunn directed her friend to the correct public comment procedure and promptly notified Claire Halveda, City Attorney’s Office. ***) Staff Report Jim Bertolini presented the staff report noting that this is an appeal of the staff finding of the determination of eligibility. Mr. Bertolini discussed the role of the Commission and noted this is a De Novo hearing to provide a determination of eligibility for The City of Fort Collins Landmark designation. Mr. Bertolini discussed the background of the project and reviewed the timeline. He provided additional history of the property and reviewed the applicable Land Use Code and Municipal Code standards. He discussed updated policies regarding staff public engagement and updated public comments. Mr. Bertolini reminded the Commission to consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building. He stated that the primary questions from staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the determination of eligibility. Applicant Presentation Jeffrey Cullers, counsel for the Applicant, gave the Applicant presentation and provided a history of the property ownership. He clarified that the current property owners are H&H Properties, LLC. He discussed the current condition of the property and reviewed the applicable criteria for determination of eligibility. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 12 Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 July 20, 2022 Regarding the significance standard, Mr. Cullers noted that while the building is fifty-one years old, the Perez family opened the restaurant in the building in 1969. He noted the staff finding that the Perez family is associated with the historic trend but argued that the building is not significant nor associated with the historic trend. He discussed that the restaurant is not making any culinary contributions or otherwise having influence in the community outside of the restaurant itself. Mr. Cullers noted that staff provided evidence that Pobre Pancho’s is associated with institutionalized racism against Latinx people in Fort Collins but argued that the Perez story is not unique. He indicated that the family is associated with the historic trend of immigration, and the building is associated with the family, but the path is attenuated if the Commission determines eligibility based on the family’s association with the restaurant. Mr. Cullers noted that the restaurant survived a long time in a difficult industry but there is no evidence that the restaurant influenced the development of Fort Collins. He indicated that the success of the restaurant does not equate to a historical trend. Mr. Cullers detailed the Appellant’s response to the staff report. He discussed that there is no evidence that the building and the restaurant are associated with a historic trend of general migration of Latinx people to the City, State, and Nation. He discussed that Pobre Pancho’s is not associated with institutionalized racism against Latinx people in Fort Collins. He argued that the building is not associated the settlement of Latinx people north of the Poudre River because of gentrification due to the staff report and historic survey making many assumptions. Mr. Cullers discussed the Integrity standard based on the seven factors in the staff report and staff finding. He argued that the Perez family did not build the building and the integrity is not met because the building is generic, with no associations with Mexican culture or food. Mr. Cullers compared the building with other buildings known for Mexican, Latin, or Southwest influenced art-style. Mr. Cullers concluded by indicating that Pobre Pancho’s significance and legacy is not associated with the building. He discussed the practical application of a determination of eligibility. He discussed other ways of honoring the Perez family and asked the Commission to find that the building is not eligible as a historic landmark. Public Input Mark O’Donnell, Real Estate Broker Colorado Commercial, Fort Collins, Colorado. He has assisted H&H Properties, LLC, in the sale of 1802 N. College Ave., as the seller’s agent. He discussed the marketability limitations of the property if the property is eligible for designation. He discussed the hardship of H&H Properties, LLC running a restaurant on the property. Mr. Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office, (“CAO”) commented on distinction between designation of the property and eligibility for designation. Monica Bird, Frank Perez’s daughter, Fort Collins, Colorado. She discussed the history of the building and clarified the pictures that were shown by Mr. Cullers during Appellant’s presentation. She discussed the history of Frank Perez and his family. She discussed that the building has significance to the family as a physical representation and reminder of perseverance against racism. Ms. Bird noted that Frank Perez was a direct symbol of the Latino community, and the building has significance. She asked the Commission to determine the building is eligible for landmark designation. Mary Perez, Frank Perez’s wife, Fort Collins, Colorado. She discussed the history of the restaurant and the history of Pobre Pancho’s moving to 1802 N. College Avenue. She discussed the history of the Perez family. She noted that the building does have a significant history. She discussed that her family’s heritage in the building. She discussed that the building is eligible because the business ran for 51 years with a Hispanic owner. James Aron, Fort Collins, Colorado. He discussed his association with the restaurant and the Perez family. He noted that he loved the restaurant and Frank Perez. He noted that the building should be eligible for landmark designation because of the legacy of Frank and his family in Fort Collins. Emelia Perez, Frank Perez’s daughter, Fort Collins, Colorado. She indicated that she worked at Pobre Pancho’s since she was in junior high. She discussed the history of the building. She noted that the restaurant was a family, serving three generations. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 13 Historic Preservation Commission Page 10 July 20, 2022 Carol Tunner commented on her history as a Historic Preservation Planner with the City of Fort Collins. She noted that Pobre Pancho’s is an institution that needs to be designated. She discussed her history with the restaurant. She noted that it was a locally owned business. She asked the Commission to find the building eligible for designation because Frank Perez and his family are influential in the Hispanic community on N. College Avenue. Blossom Sanchez commented that she has lived in Fort Collins for thirty-two years. She discussed her history with the building and her family. She noted that before the Latino community was in the area, the land was Native land. She noted the land is historical. She asked the Commission to find the building eligible for landmark designation. Asher Haun, principal owner H&H Properties, LLC, and Pobre Pancho’s. He commented on his history with the restaurant and with the building. He noted that he employs people from many different cultures and closing the restaurant was not bias based. He asked the Commission to find that the building is not eligible for landmark designation. [Timestamp: 9:51 p.m.] Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn asked Jeff Cullers to clarify his comment about Fort Collins’ use of police power. Mr. Cullers replied that he didn’t mean to use that term to include criminal justice. Member M. Dunn asked Mr. Cullers about institutional racism in Fort Collins. Mr. Cullers replied there is no evidence that the City behaved in a negative way toward the Perez family with permitting the restaurant or inspections. Member M. Dunn asked about assumptions in the historic survey. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, discussed policies and procedures the Commission may follow. Ms. Bzdek discussed the evidence in terms of the historical record and general procedure with reliance on historic survey reports in making determinations. Member Guenther asked for clarification on the process and about the implication of determination of eligibility. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, commented on the eligibility determination in the development review process. Member Guenther commented about the current physical condition of the property and on the implications if the property is eligible for designation. He discussed the future resale of the property if the integrity of the building is diminished. Mr. Bertolini discussed that an eligibility finding is neutral for owners but follows the property. He noted that the intention of the designation would be for owners to leverage resources for building maintenance. He further discussed modification of standards under the Land Use Code. Ms. Bzdek commented that a determination of eligibility will stand for five years but can be reevaluated if the circumstances change. Member Carlock commented about the possible outcomes on the property and clarified that Land Use Code 3.4.7(D) would apply and require preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic resources. Mr. Bertolini noted that an eligible property would be treated under this code as if it were a landmark. Ms. Bzdek noted that if a property has been designated a landmark, the Historic Preservation Commission or staff will be involved in the design review process. Member Nelson commented that significance for design and construction is more is different than significance for events and trends. Mr. Bertolini reviewed the standards for events and trends. Chair Knierim commented that the building should retain its eligibility because it tells a story that has historically been under told. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, commented on procedural aspects. Member Guenther asked about restrictions on type of businesses that can be on the property if designated. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, clarified that the use of the property is not necessarily affecting the historic character defining aspects of the exterior features. Member Guenther commented that an eligible designation on the property may not preserve the historic legacy and trends if there aren’t restrictions on the type of use on the property. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 14 Historic Preservation Commission Page 11 July 20, 2022 Mr. Yatabe, CAO, discussed making alterations to the property and not the use of the property would be under the Commission’s purview if a property was eligible for designation or designated. Mr. Bertolini reviewed the Rehabilitation Standards. Commission Deliberation Member Nelson commented about the link between significance and integrity. She noted the building is representative of place and events, not exterior architecture. Ms. Bzdek discussed the continuum of opportunities for storytelling and maintaining history through specific places. Member Carlock commented about the Perez family’s heartfelt comments. She noted that a different memorial such as a museum exhibit might be a better way to tell their story. Monica Bird discussed that their story will be best told by finding the building eligible for landmark designation rather than a street sign or museum exhibit. Mr. Cullers discussed the burdens upon the Appellant if the property is deemed eligible for designation. He offered a different definition of integrity for the Commission to consider. Member M. Dunn commented on the history of change of uses in other buildings in Fort Collins and discussed that a change of use does not mean a change of history. She commented on the issues of distinctive architecture or lack thereof. She noted the purpose of landmarking is to have a physical artifact in order to preserve local history. She discussed the relevant pattern and events, as well as the significance that supports the eligibility of the building. Chair Knierim noted that the plainness of the building is significant in itself. The building tells a story. Member Rose noted the heart-wrenching comments received. He discussed the practical, reasonable, balanced, and cost-efficient opportunities for properties. He noted the far-reaching aspects of an eligibility determination. Chair Knierim discussed the parameters the Commission may use to make decision. He noted that the Commission has police power. Member Nelson commented about significance of events and trends and that the building represents the work the family has done to build a community. The building serves as a wayfinding. Member Carlock noted that the building has significant significance but has concerns how the story will live in the building in the future. She is concerned that an eligibility designation will unduly impact the current owners. Member Nelson noted that an eligibility designation has not been documented to the Commission as a depreciation of assets. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, discussed Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, significance and integrity, and the role of the Commission. Member M. Dunn moves that the Historic Preservation Commission find the commercial property at 1802 N. College Avenue eligible, as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following three findings of fact: 1) The Pobre Pancho’s building is significant to the history of Fort Collins and the local Latino community under criterion 1 – Events, for its association with a Mexican immigrant family that established a restaurant business reflecting the spread of Mexican foodways, and which also speaks to the changing taste of local non-Mexican residents who came to embrace the flavors of Mexico, and also the site’s association with (perhaps even leading the trend) towards Mexican-American and Hispanic businesses moving north along 287 north of Fort Collins beginning during the 1960’s and a pattern of development that is still evident today; 2) The Pobre Pancho’s building is also significant to the history of Fort Collins and the local Latinx community under criterion 2 – People, for its association with four generations of the Perez family including Amelia Perez, Frank and Mary Perez, Monica Bird, and Karolyn Bird, who made their mark upon our local history through the Mexican restaurant business; and ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 15 Historic Preservation Commission Page 12 July 20, 2022 3) The Pobre Pancho’s building retains integrity and clearly conveys the functional and humble nature of the family-owned restaurant while still displaying some lovingly added decorative embellishments showing the importance of the building to the Perez family and the Fort Collins community that enjoyed dining in the Pobre Pancho’s establishment. Walter seconded. Commission Discussion Chair Knierim noted the Commission’s role in the determination of eligibility, supported the Motion as presented. Member Nelson noted she supported the Motion. Member Rose discussed the contents of the Motion. He noted that a truthful story needs artifacts and tangible evidence. He noted that he supported the Motion. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, discussed Motions practice. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 11:07 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS - Jeremy Hudson, public comment on Item 6. He commented on behalf of Raising Cane’s and noted he does not support a finding of eligibility. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 17, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1316 WHEDBEE ST STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. 1316 Whedbee Street Historical Background The property at 1316 Whedbee Street was built in 1931. The owner at the time was Lowell Little. Shortly after construction, by that September, the basement of the house was being advertised as available for rental to college students at the CAC. There is no detailed survey record for this property. Construction History • 1931 – Residence first constructed as a five-room brick home • 1937 – construct one-car garage of brick (20x12) w/ cement foundation, composition roof, and brick exterior • 1945 – built a chicken house (built by Will Kath) • 1950 – paint roof on residence w/ lead & oil • 1968 – Garage & kitchen additions • 1982 – reroof • 2000 - reroof Residents (to 1972) - 1933-1936 – Arthur & Monita Anderson; Arthur was a student at the CAC early in their ownership (c.1933). - 1938 – Edwin C. & Mildred Stratton; Edwin was the manager at the Securities Credit Corporation, 174 N. College Ave. - 1940 – Nathan C. & Olive Bell; Nathan was a salesman at Ideal Furniture, 217-229 Linden St. - 1948-1963 – William F. & Elizabeth Kath; William was listed as retired by 1950. By 1959, William had passed away but Elizabeth remained at the property. - 1964-1972 – Thomas & La Rue Meagher; Thomas was a custodian for Poudre Valley High School in 1964, and was later an engraver for Craft Trophy Co. Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 1316 Whedbee St, 1948, Larimer County Assessor image Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 1316 Whedbee St, 1978, Larimer County Assessor image Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 1316 Whedbee St, from owner Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 5 1316 Whedbee St, from owner ATTACHMENTS Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 17, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING JULY 7, 2022 TO AUGUST 3, 2022) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION 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). Specific to project review, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on the HPS’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and HPC for their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the HPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within two weeks of staff denial. Beginning in May 2021, to increase transparency regarding staff decisions and letters issued on historic preservation activities, this report will include sections for historic property survey results finalized in the last month (provided they are past the two-week appeal deadline), comments issued for federal undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act (also called “Section 106”), and 5G wireless facility responses for local permit approval. The report below covers the period between July 7, 2022 to August 3, 2022. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting items and events from the previous month. Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 Education & Outreach Activities Part of the mission of the Historic Preservation Services division is to educate the public about local, place- based history, historic preservation, and preservation best practices. Below are highlights from the last month in this area. Program Title Sponsor- Audience-Partner Description # of Attendees Date of Event/Activity Civil Rights History Context – Community Meeting City of Fort Collins – all residents This was the first community meeting for the SHF-funded Civil Rights Historic Context. McDoux introduced the project and answered questions along with staff. 26 in person and 12 online July 27, 2022 Museo de las Tres Colonias; Remudding City of Fort Collins; Museo de las Tres Colonias This was a 2-day community event sponsored by several City divisions with community involvement to educate on adobe, and to fully remud the Museo exterior. 20+/- July 29-30 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 172 N. College Ave – Northern Hotel Awning sign on existing retractable awning. Contributing property to Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved July 11, 2022 425 E. Laurel St. – J.M. Glick House Landmark Rehab Loan – Porch, fascia, & wood trim repair with some replacement in-kind. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Articles IV and V. Approved – Loan awarded July 13, 2022 525 Whedbee St. – T.S. Jones House In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) July 20, 2022 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 2820 W. Elizabeth St. Project Development Plan; Mixed residential development; Design compatibility with potential historic property at 2820 W Elizabeth (separate parcel) met pre-emptively. Historic survey waived. July 27, 2022 1839 Hyline Drive Preliminary Development Review; Residential development on 3 agricultural parcels with c.1920s farmhouses. Historic survey will be required for all three properties. July 27, 2022 Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 Near E Frontage Rd (I-25) and Vine Drive Preliminary Development Review; 25 Vine Industrial Center – multi-building industrial complex. Historic survey for nearby 4217 E Vine farmhouse waived; no overlap with Historic Influence Area August 3, 2022 Historic Property Survey Results City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the reporting period for any historic survey for which the two-week appeal period has passed. Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized N/A National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Note: Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small cell/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do not appear in the table below. National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment Issued N/A Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3) Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower’s installation. These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers. This report section will summarize activities in this area. Between May 5, 2022 and July 6, 2022, staff processed a total of 7 5G/Small Cell tower requests. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 24 1 Staff Activity Report Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner & Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission August 17, 2022 Education & Outreach Highlights • NCPH – Burnout & Government Historians online discussion • Museo Adobe remudding, July 29 & 30 • Note: Women’s Suffrage Events Coming Up! • Aug. 10 – Museum of Discovery – RSVP • Aug. 22 – Walking Tour (HPS & PLD) - RSVP 2 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 3 4 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 Design Review Highlight: LRL Award • 425 E. Laurel St. • J.M. Glick House • Landmarked 1998 • Contributes to Laurel School HD • Porch repair (trim, fascia) 5 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 17, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 723 W. OLIVE ST. (PARSONS/MORGAN HOUSE & ATTACHED GARAGE) – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVEIW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT 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/OWNER: Chris Orton RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed concept plans are generally consistent with US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff recommends that the Commission give consideration to the proposed addition roof and whether the over-framing of the garage as proposed is consistent with Rehabilitation Standards #2 and #9. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). In this hearing, the Commission shall conduct a conceptual review of, and provide preliminary feedback regarding, sketches and other information about the proposed project as established in 14-54(a)(2)(a), based on the provided information from the 2007 Landmark nomination, the applicant’s design review application, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The intent of the conceptual review is to allow the applicant to finalize their project and commission construction drawings for the project in a manner consistent with the Standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Date of Landmark designation: October 16, 2007 • Built in 1924 by G.B. Irwin • Proposed work includes a rear frame addition of 420 square feet, removing the garage bump-out and expanding the existing mudroom. The proposed addition design has gabled roofs with a product simulating the appearance of cedar shingles in the gable ends, lap siding, a sliding glass door exiting into the backyard, and simple awning and double-hung windows. Also proposed, for the second project phase, is a 1.5-story, gabled 2-car garage with upper studio. The design includes simple fixed, horizontal sliding, and sash windows as well as four-light windows in two dormers and a skylight. The siding appears to mimic that on the proposed rear addition, and other features like the belly band are carried over into the garage from the addition. There are also solar panels shown in the design. Packet Pg. 28 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Staff note: The original text has been modified to account for the actual construction date of the house and garage from building permit records and for clarity. The 2007 nomination provides the following description (amended): The Parsons/Morgan House is a Bungalow that was built in 1924.0F1 It is a one story, wood-framed, side-gabled building and rests on a concrete foundation. The siding material is metal, but it most likely has wood siding underneath. The roof is covered with non-historic composition shingles and is at a shallow pitch. The front and rear eaves, as well as the side overhangs, protrude roughly one-and-a-half feet beyond the exterior walls of the building and are boxed. A beige brick chimney, located on the northeast corner of the house, protrudes roughly four feet above the roof. Prominently featured on the north side of the house, directly over the front door, is a small gable- and-valley porch cover. Evenly spaced on either side of the front door are matching sets of three double-hung windows. The eastern exterior wall displays three windows of varying styles and sizes, as well as an exposed chimney. The western exterior wall displays five windows of varying styles and sizes, three of which are located on a distinctive hipped bay. The southern façade includes a mudroom of unknown age (not shown on 1943 Sanborn map). The house is accessed in the front by a concrete staircase flanked by decorative iron handrails and posts, an alteration from the original Craftsman timbers. The house also features a small garage located on the southwest corner of the building, which was built soon after the house in 1924. This is a front-gabled, single car garage with horizontal siding and a composition shingle roof. This historic garage dates to the home’s period of significance, and was a part of the designation application The origins of the Bungalow can be traced to the American and English Arts and Crafts Movements of the 1880s and 1890s. Bungalows made their first appearance in the United States on the eastern seacoast. Initially they were popular as inexpensive summer cottages. This building form spread throughout the country throughout the first three decades of the twentieth century. The most prominent advocate for this movement in America was Gustav Stickley (1858-1942). Stickley was an architect and furniture designer as well as the publisher of a monthly magazine called The Craftsman. Stickley’s ideas would become the guidelines for American Bungalows of all styles, including the Craftsman style. The buildings were modest in size and scale. Typically, the buildings were wood framed and one to one-and-a-half-stories tall. The buildings emphasized their horizontal elements and remained grounded with low-pitched roofs and wide rectangular or square footprints. Often, a large front porch was included. Typically, the exterior walls and gable ends were composed of different materials to add contrast and visually break up the otherwise simple structure. The most-used materials for this purpose were stucco, horizontal lap siding, or shingles. As a further holdover from the early Arts and Crafts movement, Bungalows were composed of regional materials matching the colors and tones of the surrounding environment. With all or most of these features included, the final result was to be a building which “stressed comfort and utility…and a lack of pretension” (Colorado’s Historic Architecture, pg. 40). 723 W. Olive holds true to many of these criteria. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property to date include: • 1925 – Barn constructed on property (demolished, date unknown) • 1970 – Re-roof (wood shingles to composition) • 1986 – Re-roof (asphalt shingle over existing) • 2013 – Re-roof (asphalt shingles) • 2019 – Re-roof (asphalt shingles) • Date unknown – Mud room (not shown on 1943 Sanborn map) • Date unknown – Garage bump-out at rear (garage aligns with original building permit dimensions without the bum-pout) 1 The original building permit describes the house as “Colonial” – The porch columns were removed sometime between 1948 and 1968, based on Tax Assessor photos. Packet Pg. 29 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: This property has undergone Design Review on past occasions for in-kind roof replacement. In 2019, an exploratory removal of a section of the metal siding was approved through Design Review, but there is no record of the completion of that project. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: None DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for a proposed rear addition, including 420 square feet and a detached 1.5 story garage/studio. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: • Visuals to include example siding/window/door types and info on over-framing shown in plans (requested by staff on 7-6-2022 and received on 7-15-2022) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: [be sure to provide direction about the most salient Standards to help direct discussion] Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The property is retaining its historic use. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Elements of the property that will be altered, obscured, or removed by the addition are on the rear of the property and are not considered character-defining to the property’s architectural importance. Compliance with this Standard could be improved by more clearly differentiating the roofline of the historic garage from the roof framing of the historic structure. TBD SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken . The addition will have sufficiently differentiated materials and window patterning to make it distinguishable from the historic building via Y Packet Pg. 30 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 simplified window configurations and use of siding with a wider reveal. Similar choices in the design of the proposed garage/studio keep it from being mistaken for a historic alley-loaded garage. SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The mudroom that is proposed to be expanded and modified as part of this addition is not a character-defining feature of this property and was added at an unknown date. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Character-defining features of this property are predominantly on the front of the building. Although historic materials would be removed as part of this project, including siding and several windows, as well as the mudroom and garage bump-out, these rear-facing elements are not character-defining to the Bungalow type, for which this property is significant. Y SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. N/A SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. It is unlikely that excavation for the proposed addition or garage/studio will reveal archaeological resources, but the applicant/owner should note this requirement. Y SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction 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 and its environment. As noted above, although historic materials would be removed to allow for the proposed addition, these materials and features are located on the rear and are not character-defining in relation to the significance of the property. The proposed addition is differentiated via simplified window patterns and different lapboard reveal. In general, the addition appears compatible with the architectural features, scale, and massing of the property and its environment, being largely screened from view from West Olive Street by the historic portion of the house and garage. The project could improve its differentiation from the historic house and garage by incorporating a clearer distinction between the new/old rooflines, which would also minimize impact to the historic property’s integrity of design. Y (with notes) Packet Pg. 31 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 The proposed garage/studio building is 30” taller than the ridge of the existing house according to submitted materials – Because of the location of this proposed structure at the back of the lot, it has minimal impact on the appearance of the historic home from the street. SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The proposed addition is located on the rear of the existing house and would not remove character-defining features or elements that would be difficult to reconstruct if the addition were reversed in the future. Elements that would be removed to accommodate the proposed addition include six-light windows, the siding material, and the mudroom and garage bump-out of unknown date. The design currently includes an added beam and post at the east side of the garage to prevent need to deconstruct the garage roof, and the design also uses or enlarges several existing window/door openings for entries. The proposed new garage/studio would not impact the integrity of the historic property if removed in the future. Y INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY None FINDINGS OF FACT: Because the request is for conceptual review of the proposed addition, staff has not provided findings of fact. As noted in the Standards analysis above, the project is generally consistent with the Standards, although improvements could be made related to the relationship between historic and addition roof lines. RECOMMENDATION: Because the request is for a conceptual review, staff does not have a formal recommendation at this time but is generally supportive of the concept design. As noted above, staff would encourage discussion of the roof over- framing. SAMPLE MOTIONS Upon receiving a request for a conceptual review, if the Commission finds that sufficient information is provided at the time of conceptual review to fully evaluate the project, and that no further substantive review is necessary, the Commission may elect to proceed to final review. In that event, the following sample motion has been provided. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work for the Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage at 723 W. Olive St. and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design Review Application Form 2. 2022 Proposed Plans 3. 2007 Landmark Nomination Form 4. Photos of Property 5. Applicant Responses to Work Session Questions (pending) 6. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 32 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. Reminders: Complete application would need all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing and proposed. The following attachments are REQUIRED: □Complete Application for Design Review □Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) □Color photos of existing conditions Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate demolition application will need to be approved. Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense). Chris Orton 723 W Olive St,Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 chris.orton@colostate.edu N/A The project has two phases. Phase 1 is building a master suite on the back of the existing house and enlarging the existing mudroom in order to bring the stairs to the basement into code compliance. Phase 2 consists of building an alley loaded detached garage with an art studio above. These will be under 2 seperate permits but their construction timing would ideally overlap. We would like to start both projects this fall and have them finished by spring 2023. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Mudroom Mudroom expansion The existing mudroom will be expanded to the south approximately 3 feet. The expansion will require the removal of the existing roof and ceiling structure and the existing south wall, both the foundation wall above grade and the frame wall. We will preserve the east and west walls. The primary reason for the expansion is to increase the safety of the stairs to the basement. They are currently extremely steep with treads that measure approximately 7”. We are unable to expand them into the basement because of headroom constraints. It is unclear whether the mudroom is an original feature of the house. It was likely added to the house later to enclose a set of exterior stairs to the basement. New Master Bedroom & Bath New master bedroom and bath addition The house is currently a one-bedroom house with a non- conforming bedroom in the basement. We are proposing to add a new master bedroom and bath to the rear(south) of the house and existing garage. The addition will have similar roof lines as the existing structure but will be easily distinguishable. For example, the original siding and trim material has been covered with a metal siding that looks like lap siding (from a distance) but we plan to use a modern equivalent of lap siding with a different reveal pattern than the existing. We also plan to use cedar shingles (or a paintable equivalent) in the gables of the addition which the current structure does not have. The overall size and massing of the addition is in keeping with the existing house. The roof lines are similar but slightly lower so when viewed from the street or alley the addition will not overwhelm the original the house. The addition is being designed in such a way that if desired, it could be removed and the original structure could be restored. We will over-frame a portion of the east side of the garage roof but we will not deconstruct the roof. The east wall of ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Property Name_____________________ Extra Worksheet Page Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) [Continuation Sheet] If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide individual costs for each feature. Feature __ Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature __ Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. New Master Bedroom & Bath(continued) New master bedroom and bath(continued) the garage will not be removed. It will act as an interior wall between the master closets and the garage but will only support the garage roof. And finally, by adding this new bedroom and bath it will make the house more functional for this owner and other owners in years ahead. It is common in Old Town Fort Collins for these older homes with few bedrooms to be turned into short term rentals because they become impractical for a family of average size to live in. By adding this bedroom, it will help to keep it functioning in its historic purpose as a family residence. Detached Garage & Art Studio New detached garage and studio The proposed garage with art studio above is phase 2 of this project but will get underway shortly after phase 1 is started. It will be under a separate building permit. The proposed garage will also expand the functionality of the property for the current owner and for future owners. Most families have multiple cars and the existing garage, while historic, is not very functional for modern cars except for the most compact. It will be converted to a bike garage and still maintain its historic features. The new structure will use the same materials on the exterior as the addition in features A & B and will have similar roof and eave details. The main ridge of the roof will be approximately 30” higher than the main ridge of the house but because it is located at the rear of the lot it will not be visible from most locations on the street and sidewalk. Orton Residence B C ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 36 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALKEXISTING PATIO EXISTING GARAGE LOT LINELOT LINELOT LINE LOT LINE 5'-0"5'-0"5'-0" WEST OLIVE STREET ALLEY15'-0"VERIFY4'-2" 47'-6"140'-0"Site Plan - Existing 1 A2Site 1 SETBACK LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE KITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM BATH MASTER BATH BEDROOM OFFICE FIREPLACEMUDROOM 25'-3"40'-9"7'-0"2'-0"10'-10"12'-5"14'-0"13'-3"11'-0"2'-6"2'-0"2'-10 1/2"10'-3"21'-3"3'-0"W/D 18'-9"EXISTING GAZEBO & CONCRETE PAD 11'-6" X9'-6"22'-6"29'-6"35'-0"EXISTING PINE TREE 16'-0"EXISTING HOUSE 18'-0" UNUSED TELEPHONE POLE AC ELEC METER 60'-6 1/8"20'-0"7'-10" SHARED ENTRY RAMP TO DRIVEWAY N scale: 1" = 20' Orton Residence 723 West Olive St Fort Collins, CO 6/29/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 37 REMOVE/RE-USE EXISTING GAZEBO SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALKEXISTING GARAGE LOT LINELOT LINELOT LINE LOT LINE 5'-0"5'-0" WEST OLIVE STREET ALLEY15'-0"VERIFY47'-6"140'-0"5'-0" PHASE 2: NEW 23' X 26' GARAGE W/ STUDIO ABOVE PHASE 1: APPROXIMATE ADDITION FOOTPRINT (420 SQFT) NEW PATIO AREA 5'-0"15'-0"NEIGHBORS GARAGE 717 W OLIVE 25'-0" NEIGHBORS GARAGE Site Plan-W/New Garage & Addition Footprints 1 A2Site 2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 717 WEST OLIVE HOUSE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEKITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM BATH MASTER BATH BEDROOM OFFICE FIREPLACEMUDROOM GARAGE 25'-3"40'-9"7'-0"2'-0"10'-10"12'-5"14'-0"13'-3"11'-0"2'-6"2'-0"2'-10 1/2"10'-3"21'-3"3'-0"W/D 18'-9"EXISTING HOUSE 15'-0"10'-0"13'-6"6'-0"PINE TREE TO BE REMOVED 15' DRIVEWAY N ADDITION WILL NEED TO ADHERE TO CURRENT SIDE SETBACK OF 5'. WILL BE OFFSET FROM EXISTING GARAGE BY APPROXIMATELY 10" scale: 1" = 20'26'-0"CAN WE REMOVE THIS POLE? DOES NOT APEAR TO BE IN USE FENCE FENCE EXISTING GARAGE TO THE WEST AT 725 W OLIVE 28'-0"AC Orton Residence 723 West Olive St Fort Collins, CO 6/29/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 38 KITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM EXISTING MASTER BATH BEDROOM OFFICE FIREPLACEGARAGE/BIKE STORAGE MOVE DOORLOT LINE7'-10"VERIFY 3'-0"EXPANDMUDRMNEW PATIO AREANEW MASTER SUITE Main Suite Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'A1 1 Existing House & Garage: 1315 sqft New Master Suite: 420 sqft 24'-3"19'-1"DOWNDOWN CLOSET 6'-0"3'-0"18'-3"9'-6" 36"X72" SHOWER LINEN CAB BELOW WINDOW 14'-9"CLOSET SHLVS SHLVSEXISTING GARAGE BUMPOUT GIVEN TO MASTER BATH 13'-0"10'-5"9'-3"9'-10" HIGH AWNING WINDOW 7'-0" vanity SHLVS 8'-4"X4'-2" 8'-4"X4'-7" W/D 4'-2" 10'-3"LOT LINEBENCH W/HOOKS ABOVE. SHOE STORAGE BELOW. OR BUILD NEW CLOSET REMOVE EXISTING SHOWER AND REPLACE WITH W/D & UTILITY SINK MASTER BATH 25'-3"BENCHN 10" SHELVES ABOVE SINK UTILITY CLOSET DBL BARN DOOR SLAB ON GRADE IN THIS AREA ONLYCOAT HOOKSFRAME FLOOR WITH CRAWLSPACE BELOW VAULTED CEILING LOCATE ON DEMAND WATER HEATER & PASSIVE RADON VENT HERE THESE STAIRS MAY NEED TO BE REBUILT TO BRING UP TO CODE CONVERT FULL BATH TO 1/2 BATH REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW 1 STEP(MAX)CRAWLSPACE BELOW FLAT CEILING TO BASEMENT 3' RELOCATE AC UNITOrton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022 EXISTING SIDEWALKSLAB ON GRADE FRAME FLOOR A1 FLOOR PLAN NEW POSTS AND BEAM TO CARRY NEW ROOF SYSTEM. MINIMIZE LOAD ON GARAGE 30"x42" DH WINDOWS 72"X84" SLIDING DOOR 36"X24" AWNING WINDOW ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 39 Existing-Viewed from Southeast 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA2 1 New Master Suite & Extended Mudroom-Viewed from southeast1 A2 SCALE: NTSA2 2 View From Street directly in front of Garage 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA2 3 MAIN ROOFLINE IS SETBACK FROM GARAGE FACE APPROXIMATELY 18' MASTER SUITE ADDITION EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING MUDROOM EXPANDED MUDROOM NEW ROOFS OVER MASTER SUITE AND MUDROOM MATCH EXISTING ROOF SLOPE (EITHER 7/12 OR 8/12) EXISTING ROOF PATIO AND SIDEWALKS NOT SHOWN MATCH EAVE DETAILS OF EXISTING ROOFS MATCH EAVE DETAILS OF EXISTING ROOFS DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALKS NOT SHOWN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE APPEARED TO HAVE CEDAR SHINGLES IN THE GABLES SO WE WOULD LIKE TO CREATE A SIMILAR LOOK ON THE ADDITION USING A PAINTABLE JAMES HARDIE PRODUCT. EXISTING HOUSE Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, COOVER FRAME ON EAST SIDE OF GARAGE IS SET BACK FROM FACE OF GARAGE 3' 1X6 LAP SIDING WITH 5" REVEAL 1X10 BELLY BAND 1X4 CORNER BOARDS AND TRIM 2X6 WINDOW SILLS W/TOP SURFACE SLOPED FOR DRAINAGE THE WEST FACE OF THIS ROOF IS IN SAME PLANE AS THE EXISTING ROOF. WE CONSIDERED DROPPING IT BELOW THE EXISTING FASCIA AND SOFFIT BUT IT CREATES AN UNDESIRABLE DRAINAGE CONDITION. SEE ROOF PLAN, SHEET A3. NOTE: THIS VIEW IS WHAT A 6' TALL PERSON WOULD SEE STANDING AT THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY. 7/15/2022 A2 BUILDING IMAGES 30"X42" DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS (NO GRIDS) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 40 RIDGERIDGERIDGE8/128/12 8/12RIDGE 8/128/12 RIDGE VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY8/12 OVER FRAME THIS SECTIONRoof Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'A3 1 NEW BEAM AND POSTS ADJACENT TO EXISTING GARAGE WALL TO CARRY NEW ROOF SYSTEM. ONLY WEIGHT OF OVERFRAME TO BE ADDED TO GARAGE ROOF AND WALL.NEW BEAM AND POSTSOVER-FRAME THIS AREA TO SHED WATER OUT OF HORIZONTAL VALLEY Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022 Perspective of Roof from South1 A2 SCALE: NTSA3 2 MATCH PLANE OF EXISTING ROOF HERE OVER FRAME THIS SECTION EXISTING GARAGE ROOF EXISTING HOUSE ROOF A3 ROOF PLAN EXISTING GARAGE ROOF EXISTING HOUSE ROOF EXISTING RIDGEOVERFRAMING TO SHED WATER FROM VALLEY ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 41 SubaruForesterNew Garage Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1' A4 1 Footprint: 598 sqft **Ceiling ht of upper floor needs to be under 7'-6". Also restrictions on east and west wall ht's and eaves.Chevy Colorado26'-0"23'-0" 8'X7' GARAGE DOOR 7'-9 1/2" KILN UP TO STUDIO 3'-1"11'-8"9'-7"1A5SECTION LINE 6'-4"LOCATE DOOR ON EAST SIDE OF GARAGE SO THERE IS A STRAIGHT SHOT UP STAIRS AND BETTER SNOW MELT DURING WINTER MONTHS N LANDING 26'-0"23'-0" DOWN TO GARAGE 9'-9"6'-6"9'-9"546 SQFT ART STUDIO CEILING SLOPES DOWN TO 3'-10 1/2" 2'-0" 5 1/2" 8'X7' GARAGE DOOR New Studio Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1' A4 2 Area: 546 sqft1A55'-6 1/2"11'-0"5'-6 1/2"DORMER WINDOWSSHED ROOF BELOW DORMER WINDOWS SOUTH FACING WINDOWS 1'-6"1'-6"5'-11"NON-COMBUSTIBLE WALL SURFACES HERE. CAN PUT THE KILN WITHIN 18" OF THE WALL. IN SOME CASES CAN GET AS CLOSE 9"BEAMBEAM 6'-6"DORMER WINDOWSTHIS DORMER MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. NEED TO CHECK WITH FC PLANNING CEILING HEIGHT OVER TOILET = ~6'-4" 7'-9" COUNTER 7'-6" CEILING HEIGHT CEILING SLOPES DOWN TO 3'-10 1/2" 2'-0"2'-0"2'-6"8'-3"8'-3"Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022 A4 GARAGE & STUDIO PLANS 1/2 BATH NEW GARAGE 596 SQFT ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 42 9 12 GRADE 7'-6"GARAGE ART STUDIO Garage Section A2A5 1 scale: 1/8" = 1' EXISTING GRADE SLAB ON GRADE EAST FACING DORMER CEILING HT.DORMER WALL RECESSED 2' 2'-0" ENGINEERED TRUSSES 2'OC 3'-10 1/2"6"13'-0"8'-0"2'-6" ROOF UNDER DORMER WINDOWS.2'-6"6"1'-0 5/8"RIDGE VENT 23'-0"9'-0 5/8"3'-10 1/2"MAX EAVE HT.23'-0 3/8"(24' MAX)3'-1" MAY NEED TO CLIP THE CORNER OF THIS DOOR DOOR TO STAIRSWEST FACING DORMER CAN PROBABLY REDUCE FLOOR JOISTS TO 9.5" TJI Garage from SE1 A2A5 3 Garage from NW1 A2A5 2 Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022 A5 GARAGE SECTION & IMAGES ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 43 Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022A6Lot Perspective~30" EXISTING HOUSE @ 723 W OLIVE STPROPOSED NEW GARAGE WITHART STUDIO ABOVEPROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING HOUSEPHASE 1:PHASE 2:HEIGHT DIFF BETWEEN GARAGE AND EXISTING HOUSEView from SE after both phases completed 1A2SCALE: NTSA61ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 44 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 45 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 46 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 47 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 48 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 49 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 50 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 51 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 52 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 53 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 54 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 55 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 56 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 57 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 58 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 59 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 60 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 61 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 62 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 63 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 64 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 65 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 66 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 67 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 68 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 69 723 W. Olive St. – Rear Addition and Garage/Studio Landmark Conceptual Review August 17, 2022 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner Location Map – 723 W. Olive St. 1943 Sanborn Map ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 70 Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed addition •Do the project concepts meet the Standards? •Where could improvements be made for final review? •If elements are inconsistent with the Standards, how can they be corrected? • Provide informative feedback for owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • If project information is sufficient and Commission is confident it meets the Standards, can proceed to final review in this meeting. Property Background • City Landmark • Designated October 16, 2007 • Standard 3 •Bungalow • Period of Significance undefined (1924) • House & Garage constructed in 1924 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 71 Rear (south) addition proposed, including expansion of existing mudroom and addition of new master bedroom and bathroom (approx. 420 sq. ft.) Proposed Project – Phase 1 New detached 1.5 story, 2-car garage with studio above proposed – At south end of lot, alley-loaded Proposed Project – Phase 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 72 Site Plan – Existing Site Plan - Proposed ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 73 Proposed Floor Plan Exterior Model – Rear Addition Existing Proposed ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 74 Exterior Model – View from Street Model and Plan – Addition Roof ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 75 Exterior Model – Detached Garage/Studio Site Model – Proposed Alterations ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 76 Staff Analysis Project is generally consistent with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Appears to be: • Compatible • Distinguishable • Generally reversible (related to character-defining features) • Subordinate Addition portion of project could be improved with clearer distinction/offset between new/historic rooflines. Responses to Work Session Questions (to be added after work session) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 77 Suggested Discussion Questions • Is the addition adequately differentiated from the historic house? (especially related to rooflines) • What materials would be most consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for proposed windows, door, etc.? • Do you have any design concerns for the proposed garage/studio? Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed addition •Do the project concepts meet the Standards? •Where could improvements be made for final review? •If elements are inconsistent with the Standards, how can they be corrected? • Provide informative feedback for owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • If project information is sufficient and Commission is confident it meets the Standards, can proceed to final review in this meeting. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 78 723 W. Olive St. – Rear Addition and Garage/Studio Landmark Conceptual Review August 17, 2022 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 79 DATE: STAFF: August 17, 2022 Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager REGULAR SESSION ITEM 5 Historic Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Overview of Civil Rights Historic Context Project by McDoux Preservation, LLC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. ATTACHMENTS 1.PowerPoint Presentation ITEM 5, PAGE 1 Packet Pg. 80 AGENDA 1.About This Project 2.Terms and Concepts 3.Scope and Methodology 4.Community Engagement & $& ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 81 PROJECT TEAM &" & # ABOUT THE PROJECT Goal: Develop 7 historic context narratives for the Civil Rights Movement in Fort Collins as part of the Full Story Fort Collins initiative Timeframe: May 2022–May 2024 Funding: Grant from History Colorado’s State Historical Fund %''!!!& &' '( & ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 82 TERMS AND CONCEPTS Historic preservation Civil rights movement Intersectionality Historic context study WHAT IS HISTORIC PRESERVATION? FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY Process of deciding what places and spaces are important because they help tell the story of our nation, state, or community AND Process of deciding what the community wants to protect for future generations and how to do that ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 83 WHAT IS THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT? Civil rights laws are enacted to guarantee full and equal participation in American society for people who traditionally been discriminated against, based on some group characteristic. In the United States, the Civil Rights Movement is most often associated with discrimination against African Americans, but many groups have struggled to be treated fairly and equally, without discrimination. This project includes civil rights activism and legislation through 2020. FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY INTERSECTIONALITY People who are members of more than one minority group may face additional discrimination and have more difficulty proving that they have been discriminated against. Intersectionality recognizes that people experience discrimination differently, depending on the various ways they are marginalized. FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 84 WHAT IS A HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY? FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY Technical document used in historic preservation Establishes the background information needed to help understand the history of a type of property, group of people, or set of related events Limited to a geographical area and specific time period Identifies types of associated properties within those limits May identify individual buildings, sites, or cultural landscapes that are eligible for the National Register, National Historic Landmark, or local historic designation OTHER HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDIES FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY People of the Poudre (Indigenous, 1500–1880) Latinx/Hispanic People in Fort Collins Asian Americans in Fort Collins Black/African Americans in Fort Collins Pride: LGBTQIA+ People in Fort Collins Work Renders Life Sweet: Germans from Russian in Fort Collins Woman’s Suffrage Movement: 1880–1920 Sugar Factory Neighborhoods https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/research-projects ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 85 SCOPE Theme: Civil Rights Time period: 1860–2020 Geographic area: Limited to Fort Collins, including CSU WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY? Seven groups of people: Asian American/Pacific Islander Black/African American Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) Indigenous LGBTQIA+ Religious Minorities Women FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 86 CIVIL RIGHTS THEMES FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY Voting rights Housing Access to equal education Public accommodation (integrated public spaces) Equal employment Criminal injustice (violence, police harassment, incarceration) Immigrant rights American Indian civil rights HISTORIC CONTEXTS WILL HELP US: Identify important people, places, and events associated with the struggle for equality and the Civil Rights Movement Tell the Full Story of Fort Collins history Build a more inclusive list of designated local landmarks and historic districts and nominations to the National Register of Historic Places Identify opportunities for further investigation and documentation Guide future planning decisions by the City of Fort Collins FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 87 WHAT WILL BE IN THESE HISTORIC CONTEXT DOCUMENTS? FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY Introduction History of discrimination and the civil rights movement in Fort Collins Definition of the context, including thematic, temporal, and geographic parameters and a discussion of intersectionality Timeline of events List of notable persons associated with the civil rights movement in Fort Collins Discussion of associated property types Inventory of individual sites Bibliography WHAT ELSE WILL BE PRODUCED? FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY Recommendations for interpretive strategies for non-extant sites Identification of, and recommendations to address, potential institutional barriers to designating civil rights sites ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 88 METHODOLOGY 1. Research a. Archival/historical information b. Info shared by individuals c. Community Ambassadors d. Research Partners e. Stakeholder interviews 2. Historic context documents 3. Interpretive strategies 4. Inventory of 100 potential landmarks/historic districts COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 89 FORT COLLINS CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STUDY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Project website and regular email/social media updates Community Ambassadors Committee Interviews with Research Partners (academic scholars) Interviews with stakeholders (community leaders) Community members can share information with us Community opinion survey Review and comment period for draft historic context documents More community meetings to keep you up-to-date! FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager 970-224-6078 preservation@fcgov.com Project email address: fortcollins@mcdoux.com https://www.fcgov.com/ historicpreservation/civilrights ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 90