Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/22/2023Kurt Knierim, Chair Location: Jim Rose, Vice Chair Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Special Meeting March 22, 2023 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Bonnie Gibson, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose, Jenna Edwards ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Yani Jones, Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Jones stated there were no changes to the published agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Gibson made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2023 regular meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 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). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, reported on a design review for 612 South College Avenue which received a loan from the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program which opened for applications on February 14th. She also reported on development review activities for 1001 West Prospect, 2008 South College Avenue, and 220 and 216 East Oak. 3. 323 S. LOOMIS AVE., A.J. HOOD/THOMPSON PROPERTY – APPLICATION FOR INVOLUNTARY FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION (HPC HEARING #2) 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 Holger Kley. This is the second of two code-required hearings following a determination of eligibility in the affirmative by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on December 14, 2022. OWNERS: Jacqueline Zipser and Dr. Holger Kley COMMISSION’S ROLE AND ACTION: Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code charges the Commission with providing a recommendation to City Council on nominations for Fort Collins Landmark designation. Nominations that are not supported by the owner are processed under Sec. 14-33(b) and (c) of Municipal Code. Staff Presentation Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, outlined the role of the Commission for this hearing noting the discussion should be focused on whether the protection of the property as a City landmark would support the City’s preservation policies and purposes sufficiently enough to outweigh the objection of the property owners. If that is found to be the case, the recommendation would be sent to Council for a final decision. Ms. Jones provided some background information on the property and showed photos of the home. She outlined the potential outcomes of the hearing and provided suggested questions for the Commission to consider. She summarized the public comments received to this point which include seven in favor of the designation and 33 opposed to the designation. Applicant Presentation Terri Berger, applicant, commented on her grief around her mother’s death being the reason she did not complete the historic designation process earlier. She stated she had previously considered purchasing the home and was assured restoration was completely possible and there would be no health-related concerns about living in the property after restoration. She provided a quote from the Loomis Addition historic survey team regarding the home’s unusual architectural style and original condition noting the house was determined to be individually eligible for listing as a Fort Collins landmark, individually eligible for placement on the state register of historic places, and contributing to a potential national, state, and/or local historic district. She discussed specific features of the home and its architecture. Ms. Berger stated the job of the Commission is to save historic properties and noted the existing regulations allow for non-consensual designation. T.S. Berger discussed and showed photos of the other Queen Anne cottages that exist in the city and stated this home should be preserved. Owner Presentation Jacqueline Zipser, property owner, stated the sale price of this property reflected its value as a site for custom development and an historic designation would result in a drastic loss of equity. She discussed the desire to live in an accessible, energy-efficient, safe home and stated this house is currently uninhabitable given asbestos and smoke contamination. She commented on the unfairness of a governmental body, at the behest of someone who has her money as a result of the home purchase, forcing her to keep a contaminated and dilapidated structure and realize a significant financial loss. Caroylnne White, attorney for the property owners, noted the beneficiaries of the property owner, including the applicant, advertised this home for sale as a redevelopment site in 2021, which was an important factor in Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley’s purchase of the property. She discussed the disrepair of the home. Ms. White noted none of the applicants or any of the other estate beneficiaries applied for historic designation during the time that they owned the property nor were any plans for involuntary designation disclosed during or immediately following the sale; that only occurred after the estate approved the sale and it was finalized. She stated the role of the Commission is to decide whether the property is eligible to such a degree that it advances the policies of the City of Fort Collins’ historic preservation ordinance enough to outweigh the interests and rights of the property owners. She commented on the components of private property rights and outlined various reports regarding the asbestos and smoke contamination of the property. She stated the owners can never be certain the home is completely safe even if it were cleaned to the point of meeting state standards and passing inspections. She questioned whether the public policy of the City is furthered by forcing the owners to accept safety risks against their wishes. Ms. White provided a map of other Queen Anne homes in the area, noting many of them are already designated. She highlighted some comments made by former Commissioner Guenther questioning the non-consensual designation process and outlined information regarding involuntary designation in other municipalities. Ms. White outlined the public policies that must be met by designation to such a degree that those benefits outweigh the desires of the property owners. She detailed the policies related to prosperity, civic pride, and general welfare of the people noting the property in its current state has no value to the public given its degradation and contamination. Additionally, she stated designating this policy would endorse a situation wherein property owners who once owned a property can pass on the burden of taking care of the property to another owner. She stated designating the property would actively discourage private ownership. Ms. White outlined the concerns raised by members of the public who sent in letters. She stated she has never seen as many expressions of opposition to historic designation in her 25 years of representation in Fort Collins. She stated the input is indicative of the extent to which, in the eyes of the public, landmarking of this property would not foster civic pride, promote and encourage private ownership, or further the other public policies and goals set forth in Sections 14-1 and 14-2. Ms. White stated the Commission should only recommend landmark designation over the objection of the property owner when the historic importance of the structure is so great and so furthers the goals and policies, that it outweighs any overriding property owners’ concerns and wishes. She stated the applicant has not and cannot demonstrate that because it is not the case in this situation. She requested the Commission not recommend designation. Public Comment Amy Rosenberg stated the previous property owners neglected the property to the point that the basement is collapsing, and the entire house is overcome with instability. Additionally, the property is contaminated by the carcinogens of long-term smokers and asbestos. She also noted Ms. Berger did not seek to have the property landmarked when her mother was alive and living in the home. She noted Ms. Berger financially benefitted from the sale of the home and is now trying to force the new owners to make the property livable at their cost. She stated that is an abuse of the historic preservation process and opposed the designation of the property. Eric Peterson stated Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley are well-intentioned, thoughtful, intelligent people with integrity. He stated they can be trusted to build a house that fits within the character of the neighborhood. He also stated the Commission has substantial written basis for issuing a denial of the designation application and encouraged it to do so. Dave Rosenberg stated it is unreasonable for anyone with no real interest in a property to be allowed to forcibly prevent the removal of a dilapidated and dangerous structure so a new home that will enhance the neighborhood can be built there. He commented on the poor condition of the home. Peter Loritz stated he is shocked this process could have even started and encouraged the Commission to deny the application. Andrew McCorkle stated he lives next door to the subject property and opposed the involuntary designation of the home. He stated the home is not a monument to Fort Collins history and is not a landmark. Rachel Priess stated Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley would be some of the best neighbors anyone could hope to have. She stated her civic pride is greatly diminished by what has happened thus far in this process and stated neighbors should not make neighbors live in a toxic home. Dee Wanger commented on the contributions made to the community by Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley. She concurred with previous comments and stated whatever home is built will be of such great value beyond the City’s policy ideas might even suggest. Mark Wanger stated this issue highlights a public process that can be abused. He specifically noted the application, signed by family members, has resulted in thousands of dollars being spent, weeks of professional services, roomfuls of people hours, and intense stress. He also noted the listing for the property identified it for redevelopment. He stated this experience should trigger a process change to protect homeowners from this type of shameful action. Lisa Hoffman concurred with the comments made and stated this property is structurally unsound. She also noted the previous owners never sought to designate the property when they had ownership, and she opposed the involuntary designation. Alexa Dechenko concurred with all previous comments. Mark Martin concurred with all previous comments and stated the fact this can occur gives him pause when considering purchasing a home in Fort Collins. Staff Follow-Up Ms. Jones noted future uses of the property and how a landmark designation could limit options and marketability can be considered by the Commission; however, the Commission should be careful not to unreasonably speculate about specific future uses. Owner Rebuttal Ms. White concurred with most of the comments made by the speakers. She commented on the home’s lack of safety in terms of a physical, functional perspective and health perspective. She noted the only evidence in the record related to the health perspective shows the home cannot be made safe for inhabitants. Additionally, she stated the decision about safety should be made by the owners. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Berger stated she wished she would have sought historic designation when her family owned the house as she was told by a former Commission member that designation would have easily been approved; therefore, she questioned why it would not be approved now. She stated she understands the situation this has caused for the Commissioners and stated her application followed the rules of the Code as they are currently in place. Commission Questions Member Carlock commented on the property listing stating her interpretation was not that it stated the home could be demolished. She asked the property owners if they ever asked their realtor whether they could demolish the home. Ms. Zipser replied the listing identified the site as a location for a custom home, which they interpreted to mean a new home. She stated she did not believe the realtor specifically stated demolishing the home would be an option. Member Gibson asked the property owners if they intended to demolish the home when they purchased it. Ms. Zipser replied that was not necessarily the case and they went through a process with two different architects to preserve the façade; however, both plans were not feasible and were drawn up prior to receiving the information about the smoke and asbestos contamination. Member Edwards asked if the asbestos and smoke contamination issue came to light during the inspection process. Ms. Zipser replied the asbestos issue was not discovered prior to the purchase. Dr. Holger Kley replied the asbestos was discovered subsequent to sampling of the window caulking, floor glue, and wall materials, which is not the type of testing that is allowed during a standard home inspection. Commission Discussion Chair Knierim outlined the role of the Commission. He commented on the Code language in Section 14-1(B), specifically the word ‘cannot,’ stating he was unsure this meets that criterion. He stated the city will not suffer if this home is demolished. Member Rose stated the property probably would have been designated had the application gone through with the previous owners as there would have been no conflict of interest. He commended the owners on their efforts to attempt to preserve aspects of the home despite it being irredeemable by most measures. He stated Council needs to be involved in a discussion about the Municipal Code as this process places an unnecessary burden on people with good intentions. He stated the process can be highjacked, and he believes it was in this case. Member Gibson stated that while the house may be cute, there is no point in salvaging it if it is unlivable. She concurred the Code and process need to be addressed and stated moving forward with this designation would be a detriment to the community. Member Nelsen stated the owners have done what they can to preserve the home and concurred this would have been a different conversation if the designation was voluntary. She stated losing this home would not have a dramatic enough impact on the community to justify designating it against the owners’ wishes. Member Carlock stated it is clear it will take considerable effort to restore the home to a livable condition. She stated the home is unique and she can appreciate the applicants’ statements about the workmanship and what it represents about Fort Collins’ history. She also concurred the designation would have been much easier if it were voluntary. She stated she is favor of preserving buildings that are truly unique and contribute to the city’s historic context; however, in this case those considerations do not outweigh the owners’ rights. She commented on the Commissioners’ backgrounds and knowledge and stated she did not appreciate being lectured the way she felt occurred this evening. Member Edwards made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair finding that the designation of the A.G. Hood/Thompson property at 323 South Loomis Avenue will not promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Section 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a significant degree to justify designation of the property without the owners’ consent, and directing that the nomination process be terminated pursuant to Municipal Code 14-33(C). Member Rose seconded the motion. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Member Rose commended the commentary and thanked the members of the public who showed interest in this process and gave the Commission the impetus it may have needed to begin making changes to this process. Member Edwards encouraged the members of the public who spoke to take their concerns to City Council given that is the body that changes the Code language. Member Carlock commented on the need to have conversations with realtors regarding the possible ramifications of purchasing homes that are over 50 years old. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bertolini commented on upcoming Code changes and encouraged participation by Commissioners in drafting language. He also noted staff recently reached out to the Board of Realtors regarding training and also encouraged participation in that effort. Chair Knierim noted there are vacancies on the Commission. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair