Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 12/14/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 November 16, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Regular Meeting December 14, 2022 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Meg Dunn, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Margo Carlock, Walter Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka Chair Knierim thanked Meg Dunn for her service on the Commission noting this will be the last meeting of her nine-year tenure. Member M. Dunn thanked the City for the education and training provided for the Commission members. • AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Bertolini stated there were no changes to the posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 November 16, 2022 • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA • 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2022. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 16, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. • 2. 416 N GRANT – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 416 N Grant. • 3. 1318 W MOUNTAIN – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 1318 W Mountain. Eric Guenther moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the December 14, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Jenna Edwards seconded. The motion passed 7-0. • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW-UP • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. 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: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. Jones discussed the design review of 200 Mathews, the Carnegie Library rehabilitation project. Additionally, she highlighted a historic survey that was completed for 325 Mulberry Street, which was found to be not landmark eligible. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Comments Member M. Dunn requested the inclusion in the information about 718 and 724 South College that one of the properties was found to be eligible by the Commission but ultimately not deemed so by Council. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 November 16, 2022 5. HARPER GOFF, EAST MYRTLE, & WEST OLIVE ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking comment from the Historic Preservation Commission for improvements to three alleys: Harper Goff, East Myrtle, & West Olive. APPLICANTS: Downtown Development Authority OWNER: City of Fort Collins Staff and Applicant Presentations Todd Dangerfield, Downtown Development Authority, discussed the history of the alley improvement project and the competitive process that was utilized for the three alleyways currently planned for improvement. He stated the three projects are at a 60% design and he commented on some of the proposed features. Mr. Bertolini stated this item is being brought before the Commission as Downtown alleyways are frequently in the vicinity of or abutting historic resources. He noted the southeast apron of the Harper Goff Alley will outlet into the west boundary of the Old Town Landmark District and the East Myrtle Alley will run directly along the west boundary of the Laurel School Historic District and along the alley side of several City landmarks. He stated there are no currently identified historic resources along the West Olive Alley, although one property is likely to become eligible. Cara Scohy, Norris Design, provided summaries of existing conditions in the three alleyways and discussed the proposed design themes and included elements in the projects. Public Input None. Commission Discussion Chair Knierim asked if the murals in the alleyways will be retained. Ms. Scohy replied in the affirmative. Member M. Dunn commended the whimsical design proposals and noted the Harper Goff Alley was formerly used as a city marketplace. She suggested a market theme could be worth using to acknowledge the history of the block. Additionally, she commented on the work of Harper Goff and suggested themes could be parlayed from those connections as well. Chair Knierim asked if the trash screens in the Easy Myrtle Alley will affect parking. Mr. Dangerfield replied trash dumpsters and the like are frequently already taking up parking spaces and these projects tend to formalize those situations and consolidate trash collection areas. Member Guenther commended past work on the alleyways and praised the proposed designs. 6. 220 REMINGTON – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed rear addition for the City Landmark at 220 Remington St., the Bode Property. The owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their plans based on their consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. APPLICANT: Ashley Stiles, Tribe Development Company, Fort Collins, CO (owner/developer) Chris Aronson, VFLA (design) (**Secretary’s Note: Member Nelsen withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 November 16, 2022 Staff and Applicant Presentation Mr. Bertolini discussed the project location and role of the Commission. He commented on the history of the Bode Property and its landmark designation and provided details on the proposed project. He noted the proposed window on the north elevation has been dropped and the applicant will be proposing an alternative solar tube or skylight for the needed daylight. Mr. Bertolini outlined the proposed materials and showed elevation renderings. He stated staff’s analysis is that the project is generally consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards and appears to meet the four requirements typically expected to be met for City landmarks: compatibility with the historic building, distinguishable from it, generally reversible, and subordinate to the historic building. Given the proposal to eliminate the north elevation window, Mr. Bertolini stated staff is recommending approval without conditions. David Carron, VFLA, discussed the current structure and proposed addition citing aspects that assist in relating the addition to the historic building. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim commended the thoughtfulness of the change of the window. Member M. Dunn concurred and also appreciated the change in roof form. She commended the setbacks from the historic building walls and expressed support for the project. Member Rose commended the project and its respect of the historic building. Member M. Dunn made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to the Bode Property at 220 Remington Street as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing, and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. Member Rose seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. 7. 323 S LOOMIS – APPLICATION FOR NON-CONSENSUAL FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION – HEARING 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jacqueline Zipser and Dr. Holger Kley. APPLICANT: Terri A. Berger, Resident; Thomas Steven Berger, Resident; Jeff Berger, Resident; Jerry L. Hubka, Non-Resident Staff and Applicant Presentations Ms. Jones outlined the role of the Commission and the process related to non-consensual landmark designation. She noted this hearing is centered around eligibility. She discussed the location of the property and discussed the architecture of properties in the Loomis Addition. She detailed the history of the property. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 November 16, 2022 Ms. Jones addressed the questions brought up at the work session. She noted there have been no successful involuntary residential nominations and only one other non-owner initiated landmark nomination for a residence, for 528 West Mountain Avenue in 2021, the nomination for which was ultimately rejected by City Council. She stated nomination applicants are not required to sign conflict of interest statements and she outlined the requirements for these petitions. She stated the City Code does not require any type of disclosure related to the possibility of involuntary designation when a property changes owners. Regarding the rationale for splitting up the designation procedure into two separate hearings before the Commission, Ms. Jones stated the idea is to separate a standards-based decision from a values-based decision. She noted there are 26 other cities in Colorado with a similar provision related to involuntary designation and it is a necessary aspect of creating a landmark district. Additionally, she noted the involuntary designation process creates an opportunity for compromise between the various parties. Regarding architecture, Ms. Jones stated this property is not the only example of the folk Victorian Queen Anne cottage in Fort Collins and there are 67 total Queen Anne style buildings in the Loomis Addition according to a survey report, 25 of which were found eligible for landmark designation and would be contributing to a potential district, and 53 of which were found eligible to contribute to a potential district only. Ms. Jones provided descriptions of the Queen Anne cottage, Tudor revival styles, and vernacular architecture and discussed examples of eligible and not eligible Queen Anne cottages from the Loomis Addition survey. She outlined the questions posed to the Commission regarding significance and integrity which would be necessary to determine the property to be eligible for landmark designation. She stated staff finds the nomination application is complete and meets the minimum requirements for documentation. Additionally, staff recommends the property is eligible under standard 3 for design and construction as an example of a Queen Anne cottage, but not eligible under standard 1. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified there was some interest by several people to be added to the petition, and the conclusion of the City Attorney’s Office was that the petition, as filed, cannot include additional petitioners; however, that does not prevent individuals in support of, or opposed to, the petition from providing public comment or submitting documents. Terri Berger stated this application is not meant to be adversarial to the homeowners and commented on previous residents of the home, including her parents. She commented on her family’s history with the home and stated buildings can and should be preserved to tell stories of times that came before us. T.S. Berger stated this home should be preserved for future residents of Fort Collins and northern Colorado. He cited the unique structure of the home and its architectural and decorative elements, specifically the roof pitch and curve, wide porches, abundance of decorative elements, Tuscan columns, spindling, and cross gables. He detailed aspects of the home that seem to show some attention was paid to various mathematical equations in its design. Opponent Presentation Angela Hygh, attorney, discussed the ownership history of the property and noted the listing for house stated this property could provide the opportunity for a custom home. She also noted the home inspection found a significant amount of damage to both the interior and exterior of the house. She clarified no application has been submitted to the City for designation of the property by any of its owners, including the estate beneficiaries, the applicants, who owned the property prior to its purchase by Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley, until the proceeds of the sale were paid to the estate and the sale was finalized. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 November 16, 2022 Ms. Hygh urged the Commission to keep in mind that the fundamental property rights of Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley are at stake and requested the Commission not make a finding the property is eligible for historic designation except upon a finding that the standards set forth in the Code for eligibility have clearly been met based on evidence in the record. She argued those standards have not been met. Regarding significance, Ms. Hygh agreed with staff that criteria 1, 2, and 4 have not been met and also stated criterion 3 has not been met because the standard for design and construction is quite high and the property fails to meet it. She noted the historic survey described the home as being ‘reminiscent’ of the Tudor revival style and ‘aligned’ with the Queen Anne cottage style. Regarding integrity, Ms. Hygh stated the property is no longer able to convey any significance because of a lack of integrity. She noted many of the materials are not original, including the Tuscan columns and back porch. Additionally, she noted there are multiple areas of the home contaminated by asbestos and the home smells strongly of cigarette smoke, both of which present health issues and would require complete abatement of the interior and potentially parts of the exterior. She discussed issues with the integrity of the home’s exterior, including foundation cracking. Public Input Amy Rosenberg opposed landmarking the property stating the property lacks integrity. She cited the cigarette smoke smell and likely termite infestation. Additionally, she stated the house is deeply affected by rot. Jeff Acker stated the mathematical information cited by the applicants does not warrant its significance. Bill Whitley supported the designation of the property. Andrew McCorkle opposed the designation of the property stating it was rightfully sold as a tear down. Appellant Rebuttal None. Opponent Rebuttal Ms. Hygh discussed staff research regarding the Queen Anne and Tudor revival styles. She stated most of the elements of both styles are not present on the property. She also noted uniqueness is not a criterion for eligibility and argued there is little significance related to former inhabitants of the home. Commission Questions Member Nelsen requested input regarding what falls under the purview of the Commission. Ms. Jones replied the role of the Commission is to determine the eligibility of the structure which includes its significance and integrity and the Commission is only to consider the exterior of the structure per Municipal Code Section 14-22. Member Guenther asked if the Commission can take into account a situation wherein the interior condition of the home prevents exterior rehabilitation. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the Code’s definition of eligibility references exterior integrity. He stated there could be some consideration of interior issues that could affect the existing integrity of the exterior or the ability to restore it. Member Nelsen asked Mr. Berger if he had any evidence the home’s builder considered the mathematical concepts he cited earlier. Mr. Berger replied it seems it must have been considered with the home was designed; however, he has no specific evidence to that end. Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 November 16, 2022 Member Nelsen requested clarification from Ms. Hygh regarding her statement that if the home is not Queen Anne cottage or Tudor revival style, it does not possess significance. Ms. Hygh replied the Code states a home must embody an architectural style and there is no evidence in the record that this home embodies either style and is instead a hodgepodge of various styles; therefore, it fails to meet the standards for significance. Member M. Dunn asked for the Code citation that specifically says a property with a mix of architecture cannot be significant. Ms. Hygh replied she is not aware of such a Code section; however, the Code does state a property must embody an architectural style. Member M. Dunn stated the style could be a mix of different styles, and vernacular architecture often is that mix. Ms. Hygh read from the Code related to properties needing to embody identifiable characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Carolynne White, co-counsel for the appellant, noted the Code states a property must embody a particular architectural style and the application is specifically for the property embodying a Queen Anne style. Member M. Dunn requested input from the Assistant City Attorney related to the application and what the Commission can consider in terms of architectural style. Mr. Yatabe replied Code Section 14-31(A)(1)(a) states that staff shall review applications for landmark designation to determine whether the listed resource satisfies the eligibility criteria contained in Section 14-22. He stated staff has reviewed the petition and found, under Section 14-22, that the property is eligible. He stated staff has some flexibility to determine whether a property is eligible for landmarking without necessarily having to concur exactly with the application petition and the Commission has similar latitude. Ms. White noted staff also recommended the property as an example of Queen Anne architecture in the staff report. Commission Discussion Member M. Dunn made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution to be signed by the Chair finding that, one, the A.J. Hood/Thompson property at 323 South Loomis Avenue is eligible to be designated as a Fort Collins landmark because the property possesses significance to Fort Collins under standard 3, design and construction, as an extremely rare, one-story house embodying a vernacular Tudor style Queen Anne cottage as supported by the analysis provided in the nomination document and attachments submitted by the applicant group on October 18th, 2022, and the staff report. And, the property clearly conveys this significance through integrity under all seven aspects of integrity as listed in Municipal Code Section 14-22(B), most especially through highly visible aspects of workmanship, design, and materials. Two, the Historic Preservation Commission adopts the findings of fact set forth in the staff report provided for this item, and three, that a second hearing before this Commission should be scheduled consistent with Municipal Code Section 14-33(C). Member Rose seconded the motion. Member Rose expressed concern regarding the hang-up on labels and stated it is unfortunate the home was tagged as a specific style when it is, in fact, a multitude of styles. He stated he does not believe the Code requires the Commission to identify an eligible structure by a specific style. He stated the home meets the significance criteria in Section 14-22 because that section very clearly gives license to interpretation. Member M. Dunn noted Fort Collins used to have more half-timbered buildings and this is the only single-story half-timbered building in Fort Collins she has ever seen. She commented on the agricultural, simple history of Fort Collins and stated this home is an example of that history. Member Guenther asked how the opponents are supposed to develop an argument in favor of their position if the Commission is going to adopt an ‘anything goes’ approach. He stated the opponents have done a more than adequate job of stating their position based on what is specifically articulated in the Code. Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 November 16, 2022 Member M. Dunn disagreed this is an ‘anything goes’ approach and stated the home is significant based on the knowledge of houses in Fort Collins, which is identifiable, clear, and objective based on the history of architecture in the city. She stated the architecture of this home embodies the significance of Fort Collins, especially at the time it was built. She noted the Code states a property must embody a type, period, or method and this home clearly embodies a period and method. Member Guenther stated that logic would then mean any home built in 1905 with unique characteristics should be eligible for historic designation. Member M. Dunn discussed the detail of her motion related to the style of the house and stated a home would not be landmarked if it did not embody something specific to Fort Collins. Chair Knierim commented on the examples provided in Section 14-22 related to design and construction significance, including residential buildings which represent the socio-economic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. He stated that phrase seems to describe this house. Member M. Dunn clarified this house is not being considered eligible for its significance related to people. Member Nelsen concurred with Chair Knierim’s comment about the Code section example and stated a second hearing will provide the opportunity to detail whether a non-consensual designation is justified. She stated the Code seems to support this property being eligible as a Fort Collins landmark. Chair Knierim noted the Commission does have a narrow charge in this hearing. Member Edwards agreed there are narrow parameters to this decision and, based on what she has heard, she would support identifying the property as being eligible for landmark status. Member Gibson questioned whether the integrity of the structure is enough to support eligibility based on design and construction regardless of its uniqueness, specifically design, materials, workmanship, and association. She stated the workmanship has been negatively affected by a lack of upkeep and maintenance. Member Guenther expressed concern with the narrow purview to which the Commission is confined. He stated he does not see a reason anyone who votes in favor of this motion would vote differently at a second hearing. He also stated he does not believe this property embodies a unique or specific architectural style and stated it is disingenuous for the Commission to not acknowledge the parameters provided by the application petition. Chair Knierim requested staff address the purpose of the two separate hearings. Ms. Jones replied the purpose is to separate the standards-based decision from more of a values-based decision. This meeting looks at the criteria for significance and integrity and whether the property meets those standards. The second hearing would allow the Commission to consider the policies and purpose statements in Sections 14-1 and 14-2 and whether the property meets applicable standards to such an extent that the designation is justified despite the will of the property owner. Member Rose stated it is unfortunate the home was not previously cared for in a way that would respect its value and he is sympathetic to the challenges of owning such a property. However, he stated the Commission is charged solely to examine the exterior of structures. He stated the Code is permissive in the sense that it requires the Commission to make judgments. He also stated there is no question this home represents some part of the story of Fort Collins. Member Gibson noted the Commission can take into consideration the effect on the exterior of the building should the entire interior need to be gutted. Mr. Yatabe concurred there are situations wherein that could be taken into account; however, he could not specifically say if this was one of those situations. Member Gibson stated just because this house is interesting does not mean it has integrity. Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 November 16, 2022 Member M. Dunn discussed the standards related to integrity and stated there is a preponderance of all of the standards in her opinion. Member Nelsen commented on the importance of this conversation to all parties in the room. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Edwards, Nelsen, Rose, M. Dunn, and Knierim. Nays: Gibson and Guenther. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 8. 1901 & 1925 HULL STREET – APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the staff determination of landmark eligibility for the residential properties at 1901 and 1925 Hull Street. On October 14, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the properties meet the requirements to be considered an “historic resource” under the City’s Land Use Code based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in intensive-level survey forms, with some supplemented staff research and analysis. When undergoing development review, historic resources (properties that meet the City’s standards to qualify as a City Landmark) are subject to the project approval requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Zell Cantrell, The True Life Companies (Representing Developer) Staff Presentation Mr. Bertolini discussed the properties at 1901 and 1925 Hull Street which were determined by staff to be landmark eligible. He noted this is a de novo hearing; therefore, the Commission will provide a new decision regarding the eligibility of the properties. He noted the decision of the Commission is appealable to City Council. Mr. Bertolini outlined the timeline of this process and the Land Use Code development review that is currently underway. He detailed the staff findings that the properties were significant based on design and construction and have sufficient historic integrity to convey that significance. He noted no public input has been received on the appeal. Appellant Presentation Zell Cantrell, The True Life Companies, thanked the staff for their professionalism and assistance in working through this process. He stated The True Life Companies is a real estate investment firm focused on delivering housing in underserved, high barrier to entry, or infill sites throughout the country. Mr. Cantrell discussed the property at 1901 Hull Street which was determined to be eligible under standard 3 related to distinguished design and construction. He showed photos of the buildings and stated both 1901 and 1925 have roof angle changes that would seem to indicate they had additions. He discussed other reports for homes deemed to be not eligible for landmark designation. Mr. Cantrell commented on the frequent mention of the semi-rural setting of the homes and noted the existing zoning map shows the properties, as well as many surrounding them, to be low-density, mixed-use neighborhood zoning, which would allow up to nine dwelling units per acre. The property to the north is designated as medium-density, mixed-use neighborhood which would allow up to twelve units per acre, including multi-family development. Additionally, he noted Swallow and Hull will ultimately be connected through the property to Taft Hill per the Master Transportation Plan. Mr. Cantrell briefly discussed the proposed project for the property which will include 54 single-family residences and a built-out street grid. Historic Preservation Commission Page 10 November 16, 2022 Public Input None. Commission Questions Member Guenther asked how long designations of eligibility would remain in effect if no efforts are made to designate the properties. Mr. Bertolini replied the Code specifies a finding of significance is valid for five years from the date of issuance. He stated the goal and intent of the Land Use Code pertaining to historic resources is that they not sit empty but are required to be incorporated in the development site; however, it is a possibility that the buildings do sit empty. Member Guenther asked Mr. Cantrell if they had considered any opportunities to incorporate the buildings into the design plans. Mr. Cantrell replied in the affirmative and stated 1901 Hull could potentially be left in its current position, although it does encroach into the future right-of-way for Hull Street. He stated 1925 Hull could be incorporated into the development in theory; however, he believes leaving them could be detrimental to the project. Member M. Dunn asked if this area is considered part of the Fossil Creek community. Mr. Bertolini replied this area is in what might be considered the upper end of Fossil Creek; however, most of the water is diverted off Spring Creek or the Poudre River. Member M. Dunn asked if there are any landmarked properties related to the Fossil Creek community. Mr. Bertolini replied he does not believe there are many landmarks in this part of the city but he will look that up. Member M. Dunn asked why the outbuildings were determined not to be eligible. Mr. Bertolini replied these two houses were found to be significant for their specific architecture and outbuildings are not generally found to be architecturally significant, which was the case here. Mr. Bertolini stated there are few current historic survey records at all for this area of the city and there are no landmarks in the quadrant. Member M. Dunn stated it is possible having two hearings could be helpful in this type of scenario. Mr. Bertolini replied that is technically the case here as the intent of this hearing is to consider significance and integrity and the considerations of value of preservation compared to the proposed project typically comes into play when the Commission would comment on a development application. Member Guenther requested staff input regarding the integrity issue relative to the rather large additions on both houses. Mr. Bertolini replied there is heavy emphasis on original construction with architectural significance; however, there is some allowance for alterations that are significant in their own right and these types of additions were quite common for farmhouses which is why staff found they did not detract from integrity or significance. He noted the Commission can reconsider that decision. Chair Knierim noted the Code language states a resource can be significant not only in the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also in the way it was adapted for a later period or the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Commission Discussion Member M. Dunn commented on cases wherein demolition permits were sought. She stated she agrees with Mr. Cantrell regarding most of his comments; however, she expressed concern about wiping out the history of an entire community given there are no landmarked properties in the area. She agreed there are likely other properties that better convey the history of the area and stated these properties may not have the desired level of significance. She suggested more surveys be completed in the area to make better decisions in the future. Member Guenther concurred and questioned whether the community would be well-served by preserving these properties. He agreed there is an important history for that part of town; however, there may not be any structures that should be retained to appropriately tell that story. Member Edwards questioned whether both properties have the same level of significance. Historic Preservation Commission Page 11 November 16, 2022 Member M. Dunn noted there is still a process the developer can use to demolish the properties even if they are determined to be eligible. She asked if something could be done in the development review process to ensure the history of the area is still referenced. Mr. Bertolini replied there are several criteria an applicant can use to seek a modification of standard to allow demolition or alterations. Member Rose stated the homes are very similar and not much is known about the history or previous occupants of either. He concurred the context is not going to be present for long given encroaching development. He stated he does not believe there is sufficient significance to warrant finding these properties eligible. Member Gibson stated she struggles with western vernacular architecture, and she is not sure these are the structures that would best represent the history of the area. Member Rose made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission find that 1901 Hull Street does not meet the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and is not an historic resource for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 based upon the following findings of fact and the Commission has determined the property does not posses either significance or integrity. Member Guenther seconded the motion. Member M. Dunn asked for input regarding integrity. Member Rose stated it is not known whether the property possesses any significant value in terms of workmanship. He noted it has been modified in a clumsy way and stated without significance, integrity does not matter. He also stated many of the aspects of integrity are not met anyway. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: M. Dunn, Guenther, Gibson, Rose, Nelsen, Edwards, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Member Nelsen stated that while the city’s agricultural history is important, this is not the house to tell the story. Member Guenther made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission find 1925 Hull Street does not meet the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and is not an historic resource for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 based upon the fact that the property does not meet requirements for historic significance and integrity. Member Gibson seconded the motion. Member M. Dunn stated she is struggling with this property more as the home seems to be more intact and does convey the sense of a simple farmhouse. Member Nelsen stated it conveys the sense of a simple farmhouse because it currently exists on a farm. Member M. Dunn suggested the possibility of moving the home to the open space area where 1901 exists. Member Rose stated the addition on the rear portion is an intrusion as it has a modern door and windows and different siding. He suggested the addition negatively affects the overall integrity. Member Guenther concurred with Member Rose. Member Gibson requested input from staff regarding the thought process regarding the addition. Mr. Bertolini replied staff’s finding relative to this property was that the rear addition has similar siding, similar window materials, and similar window patterning; therefore, it was deemed to be fairly consistent with the front of the house and was determined to be what would be expected to be seen on a vernacular farmhouse.