The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/15/2023 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Jenna Edwards And remotely via Zoom Anne Nelsen Andy Smith Tom Wilson Staff Liaison: David Woodlee Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting November 15, 2023 5:30 PM Historic Preservation Commission AGENDA Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 143, 2022, 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/95421717693. (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 954 2171 7693. 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 preservation@fcgov.com at least 48 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 preservation@fcgov.com at least 48 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. 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 • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2023 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 18, 2023 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 Page 3 • 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 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). 3. 426 E. OAK ST. (HOTTEL/HOFFMAN HOUSE AND ASH PIT) – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed new ADU for the City Landmark at 426 E. Oak St., the Hottel/Hoffman House and Ash Pit. The proposed new 2 bed/2 bath building would be 914 square-feet and a single story. 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: Applicant/Owner – Katherine Herr STAFF: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 4. 425 E. ELIZABETH ST. (GEORGE AND ANNIE SPENCER HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of proposed alterations to the City Landmark at 425 E. Elizabeth St., the George and Annie Spencer House. Alterations include raising of the house and a rear addition, among other repairs and alterations further described in the following staff report and attachments. 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: Applicant – Taylor Meyer, VFLA Inc. Owners – Karla and Scott Oceanak STAFF: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Page 4 5. 816 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. (ISAAC W. BENNETT HOUSE) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed sunroom addition and deck for the Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 W. Mountain Ave. The owner has waived conceptual review (attachment 5) and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Owners – Nathalie Rachline and Alan Braslau STAFF: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 6. ADOPTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S 2024 WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to discuss and adopt the Historic Preservation Commission’s Work Plan for 2024. 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 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY NOVEMBER 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 18, 2023 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 18, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC October 18, 2023 Minutes – DRAFT Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Anne Nelsen Andy Smith David Woodlee Staff Liaison: Tom Wilson Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting October 18, 2023 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose, Andy Smith, Tom Wilson, David Woodlee ABSENT: None STAFF: Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Bertolini 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 ,7(0$77$&+0(17 '5 $ ) 7 Page 2 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 20, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Gibson moved, seconded by Carlock, to approve the consent agenda for the October 18, 2023 meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Smith, Wilson, Woodlee, Rose. 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). Mr. Bertolini reported on staff activities since the last Commission meeting, including a design highlight of the rehabilitation of stained-glass panels at 123 N. College Ave, which is currently the Opera House Block, and an update on the survey projects the survey specialist, Rebekah Schields, has completed at Collamer-Malaby corner of 303-317 N. Meldrum, finding that it is Landmark District eligible. He noted that Ms. Schields has begun a survey at Laurel & College, and the results are expected in 2024. Mr. Bertolini also mentioned that the Hispanic Heritage Month programming has concluded and included several walking tours for the public and City employees. Mr. Bertolini commented on the new Historic Preservation Newsletter is up and running, and will generally include upcoming events and activities, HPC agenda overviews, and much more. 3. 209 CHERRY STREET – MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Development application at 209 Cherry Street for a seven-story multi-family mixed- use building to infill the currently vacant lot. The property is immediately adjacent to the history Fort Collins Municipal Railway Trolley Barn/Car Barn. The HPC will review design compatibility under LUC 3.4.7 and make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Chris Aronson (design professional, VFLA); Ashley Stiles (owner, Tribe Development Co. 244 N. College Ave, Ste 130, Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Presentation Mr. Bertolini commented on the Commission’s role to provide a recommendation to the decision maker, the Planning & Zoning Commission, regarding the proposed development, relative to the project’s compliance with the design compatibility requirements of Section 3.4.7, Table 1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. He provided the background of this project, having first come forward to the Historic Preservation Commission as a conceptual review on November 16, 2022. ,7(0$77$&+0(17 '5 $ ) 7 Page 3 Mr. Bertolini outlined that the proposed project would construct a new, seven-story, 112-unit residential building. He gave a summary of the project site and noted that the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Trolly Barn is within the Historic Area of Adjacency and is the primary design reference for the project. He provided background on the Trolley Barn Historic Significance under Standard 1, History, and Standard 3, Architecture. Mr. Bertolini noted that the site plan includes extra separation because the Trolly Barn is setback from its property line significantly, there are regional utilities running through the alley that has separation requirements, and that the applicant is building a municipal pedestrian spine through the area. He outlined the differences in the renderings that were presented at the conceptual review in November 2022, and the current renderings. He noted the Mason Street frontage has shifted from a commercial frontage to a townhouse frontage. Mr. Bertolini outlined the staff’s analysis of LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #1, Width and Massing, as the standard having been generally met. For Item #2, Stepback, he indicated that the project has generally meets the intent of the code provision. Regarding Item #3, Durable Materials, he noted that the staff’s analysis is that the proposed materials on the lower two stories (brick), meets this standard. For Item #4, Dominant Materials, the staff’s analysis is that the project complies with this standard by proposing to use brick on two aspects. Mr. Bertolini outlined the compatibility requirement for LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #5, Widows/Fenestration. He noted that the applicant meets this standard by matching the proportion of the windows on the Trolly Barn. Regarding Item #6, Reference Lines, staff indicated that the project generally complies with the intent of the standard. He discussed the standard is not cleanly met but site sloping and the vaulted Trolley Barn roof make a strict alignment difficult. Mr. Bertolini reviewed Item #7, Visibility, and noted that the staff’s analysis was that the project complied with the standard since most of the views of the Trolly Barn would not be obstructed by the development. The obstructed view of the Trolly Barn would be the east rear and is not a primary concern. Applicant Presentation Don Bernholtz, VFLA, represented the applicant and presented the project to the Commission. He discussed the goals for the project are creating a sense of place, thoughtful spaces, and to enhance the community experience. He discussed the project site as being located within a dense urban structure that has been developed to the south and to the east. He noted that the project will celebrate the site’s corner presence. Mr. Bernholtz outlined the historical progression of the Trolley Barn. He discussed the window proportions in massing in the project will be similar to the Trolley Barn. Mr. Bernholtz outlined the materials that will be used in the project. He noted that the project will utilize a blend of historic and newer materials in a contemporary fashion. He discussed the urban perimeter space. He also presented the design progression of the project and noted the project will have a strong visual presence. He discussed the massing of the project will relate to the massing of the Trolley Barn. He noted the alley space has been revised with additional stepback due to the utilities and culvert underneath the alley. The most recent measurement is 73’-3” of separation. He noted that stepbacks have been integrated into the design at the third floor to relate to the scale of the Trolley Barn. Mr. Bernholtz discussed the views from several elevations. He also presented the floor plans in relation to the formal stepbacks. He discussed the use of brick in the exterior. Mr. Bernholtz also outlined the window proportions in 209 Cherry are similar to, and related to the window proportions utilized in the Trolley Barn. He further discussed the subterranean parking plan. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Page 4 Commission Questions and Discussion Commissioner Nelsen asked Mr. Bernholtz to clarify the landscaping plan. Mr. Bernholtz noted that a stepback in the alley is planned, however, Tract A, to the west side, is not under the same ownership group and not part of the project. Commissioner Nelsen asked the Applicant to discuss the window proportions. Nelsen had concerns about the numbers presented. Mr. Bernholtz noted they have a field verification of the proportions. Nelsen asked the Applicant how they chose the windows on the Trolly Barn for their proportion measurements. Mr. Bernhotlz indicated that the design is for the windows in the project to relate to the Trolley Barn and not to replicate the Trolley Barn. They discussed that the project will not use the same muntin pattern as the Trolley Barn. Commissioner Nelsen asked the Applicant to discuss the horizontal reference lines. Mr. Bernholtz discussed the eyeline following the cornice of the Trolly barn and the subtle cues of 209 Cherry Street massing. They discussed the connection between the two-stories and the one-story Trolly Barn. Commissioner Carlock asked about the color of the brick. Mr. Bernholtz noted that the red brick color did not fit the overall design. They discussed the materials of the building, including prefinished synthetic wood siding and metal panels. They also discussed the articulation of the façade and the use of materials to reduce the mass. They discussed that the material change on the fourth floor was a design element and does not have any articulation or stepback. Commissioner Nelsen asked staff to explain their position of the building articulation under LUC 3.4.7. Mr. Bertolini discussed the staff’s position of looking at the larger geometric form and due to building having residential units, they gave less consideration to the articulation. Nelsen and Bertolini discussed the staff’s analysis that the project creates a gradual transition up to the height of the new building and is not a precise or direct ledge across. They discussed the strict reading of the code language not being met. Chair Rose asked the Commission to discuss Massing and Building Articulation. Commissioner Nelsen discussed that she thinks the massing and articulation does not comply with the code provision. Chair Rose discussed the intent of the code. Regarding building materials, the Commission discussed the referential materials used in the project and noted that the number of materials has been reduced. Regarding fenestration, Chair Rose discussed the different ways to determine proportions. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification of Commissioner Nelsen’s position. Nelsen indicated that the project transitions and articulation are technically compliant, but the project does not contain a lot of strong references or connections. Commissioner Smith suggested having similar window muntin patterns may make the design more compliant. Mr. Bertolini noted the intent of the code was to allow for design flexibility and not force strict derivative designs. Commissioner Carlock discussed her position on the fenestration. She noted the differences in purposes of the two buildings, residential versus commercial, would be difficult to make the designs match. She discussed that she believes the design complies with the intent of the code whereby the design tries to mimic the Trolly Barn without being exact. Vice Chair Gibson agreed that the proportions appear similar. Commissioner Wilson discussed the stepback in the alley as being large and exceptional. Chair Rose agreed that the large stepback is a positive design change from the previous versions and this version of the project’s adjacency is less impactful to the historic resource. Commissioner Nelsen disagreed and discussed that a larger stepback would require a closer articulation based on visual perception. She discussed the horizontal reference lines are not compliant especially with the larger than required stepback. Commissioner Carlock thinks that the horizontal reference lines are compliant when you consider the chimneys on the Trolly Barn and the difference in slope of the two lots. Commissioner Nelsen would like to see a stronger connection that would tie the two buildings together. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Page 5 Commissioner Woodlee discussed his position of the horizontal reference lines, taking into consideration the most viewed elevations of the building. Chair Rose agreed with Commissioner Nelsen that something more could be done with the design regarding the horizontal reference lines. Commissioner Nelsen agreed that the Trolly Barn will not be impacted but noted that the design could have done much more to be compliant. Chair Rose discussed that the Trolly Barn’s identity is in the barn doors on the Howes Street side. Chair Rose noted the design complies. Commissioner Smith thanked the Commission for their discussion on the window proportions and liked the design of the new building. Commissioner Nelsen noted the limited purview of the Commission and discussed that the project meets the letter of the Code. Commissioner Gibson moved that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Planning & Zoning Commission approval of the mixed use building at 209 Cherry Street, finding that the proposal complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and complies with the design compatibility standards contained in the Land Use Code sections 3.4.7 (E), Table 1. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Smith, Wilson, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Timestamp 7:10pm Heather Jarvis, CAO, noted that Commissioners need to hold all discussions, regarding matters before the Commission, on the record. ** Secretary’s Note: The Commission recessed from 7:11pm – 7:17pm ** 4. TOWNHOMES AT 220 E. OAK STREET – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Development application at 220 E. Oak Street to include demolition of all existing structures, construction of fifteen (15) 3 and 4-story townhomes with a center garden courtyard. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Laurie P. Davis (owner/design professional), ldavis@davisdavisarch.com STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner ** Secretary’s Note: Commissioner Anne Nelsen was recused from this item. ** Staff Presentation Mr. Bertolini commented on the Commission’s role to provide initial design feedback under LUC 3.4.7. He provided background on the project summary for the multi-family building on the northwest corner of Matthews and Oak Street. He noted that it will be three to four stories and about fifteen townhomes. He discussed the Historic Area of Adjacency. A Historic Survey of 216 & 220 E Oak found both properties as Not Eligible, and demolition is permitted in this case. Mr. Bertolini noted that 137 Matthews – McIntyre House, is the primary historic resource identified by staff for the purpose of applying the design compatibility standards. The key features are the brick walls, Italianate-style windows, Gable ell form, and distinctive canted bay window. Mr. Bertolini outlined the proposed site plan and current concept sketches. Mr. Bertolini went though the requirements of Land Use Code 3.4.7 and applied the criteria to the project. Regarding Item #1, he noted staff’s concerns about lack of articulation between units and suggested an inset to break up the east wall face. Regarding Item #2, he indicated there is an increased setback in lieu of a stepback. He noted that a Modification of Standards for may be warranted under “As good or better than…” in LUC 2.8 to get a larger setback away from the building. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Page 6 Mr. Bertolini did not discuss Item #3 and Item #4 but recommended the use of brick. Discussing Item #5, he noted that it is unclear if this standard is met. The present window pattern appears to be comprised of sliders and patio windows. Mr. Bertolini outlined Item #6. He noted that the horizontal alignment looks promising but more explicit alignment is encouraged. Regarding Visibility, Item #7, the staff’s analysis is that this project complies. Commissioner Woodlee and Mr. Bertolini discussed that the chimneys have been removed from the McIntyre House. Applicant Presentation Randy Shortridge, AUWorkshop, represented the applicant and presented the project to the Commission. He discussed the existing site and provided a site context, including a discussion of the McIntyre House’s opening proportions, bay window, and raised front porch. Mr. Shortridge outlined the reference property at Zoric Cleaners Alley Frontage and the relationship to the project site. He noted the L’Avenir Townhomes, across the street, is very similar in the vertical massing and scale to the project. Mr. Shortridge outlined the adjacency responses by adding setback and reducing massing, as well as increasing separation at the Southwest corner at the alley. He presented the preliminary materials, which will include dark gray brick on the ground floor, and wood-grained fiber cement in the upper stories. Commission Questions and Discussion Commissioner Edwards asked the Applicant to explain their choices of building materials and how they relate to the reference materials on the McIntyre House. Mr. Shortridge noted that the wood-grained fiber cement does not reference the McIntyre House and will not try to replicate that reference property in the upper stories. Commissioner Carlock asked the Applicant for clarification on their potential use of Zoric Cleaners as a reference property. Mr. Shortridge discussed that the project would have increased separation and reduced massing on the alley because Zoric Cleaners is a one-story building. The project may not reference the architectural character of that building in the final plans. Commissioner Gibson asked the Applicant for clarification regarding fenestration. Mr. Shortridge indicated that more details will be presented. They discussed that there is no intention for any stepback in the second and third story. Mr. Shortridge noted there will be inset porches and inset balconies. They discussed different scales to view buildings. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification of a Modification of Standards and the requirement of stepback. Mr. Bertolini noted that the Modification of Standards would be in lieu of the stepback requirement. ** Secretary’s Note: Mr. Shortridge and Mr. Davis presented their model/display to the Commission. Utilizing the model, Commissioner Carlock and Mr. Davis discussed the scale and relationship between the project and the other buildings on the property line. They also discussed possible insets. Commissioner Woodlee asked the Applicant for clarification on the Zoric Cleaners reference property’s rounded corners. Mr. Davis noted that the only reference will be to the scale and not architectural features. Chair Rose asked the Commission to discuss the differences in the model, and the sketches in the packet, regarding the articulation. He noted that he did not have any issues with the building massing or articulation after viewing the model. Mr. Shortridge discussed that they will use insets and possibly bay windows. Regarding building materials, Commissioner Carlock asked for clarification on the amount of weathered steel that will be utilized. Mr. Shortridge noted that it will not be a major material. Commissioner Gibson noted that she did not have enough information on the project’s fenestration to discuss the issue. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Page 7 Chair Rose discussed the increase of visibility as being an improvement. Commissioner Gibson noted that the McIntyre House still feels that the historical resource is not visible enough. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Bertolini discussed the code requirement basing the design compatibility standards on the McIntyre House. Chair Rose appreciated the Applicant’s approach to the design with respect to the scale and articulation. He noted the vast architectural influences surrounding the property and the difficulty in trying to conform. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bertolini noted the upcoming educational event in partnership with Historic Larimer County, on Sunday, November 19 at 2:00pm, at 222 Laporte Avenue, in the Colorado River Room. It will be a hybrid meeting. The presentation will be showcasing the work of William Robb and modern architecture. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. ,7(0$77$&+0(17 '5 $ ) 7 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING OCTOBER 5, 2023 TO NOVEMBER 1, 2023) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager 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. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting recent items and events. Agenda Item 2 Item 2, 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 Walking Tour: Alta Vista & Sugar Factory City Staff (ENCORE & others) Walking tour of Sugarbeet Park, Alta Vista, and Romero House/Museo for City employees 15 October 6, 2023 Hispanic Heritage Month Cargill In-person presentation to company employees about Hispanic history and historic sites in Fort Collins 25 October 11, 2023 Historic Preservation & Economic Vitality Larimer County Planning Walking tour of downtown Fort Collins, discussing how preservation supports economic sustainability and vitality 15 October 20, 2023 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 806 Peterson St. (H.R. Owen Residence) Dormer addition – Does not meet Standards, but compliance not required for single-family residential NRHP property. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved October 12, 2023 216 Pine St. (216 Pine St.) Sign. Contributing property to Old Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved October 17, 2023 213 Linden St. (Loomis Block) Painting already painted features. Contributing property to Old Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved October 18, 2023 901 Whedbee St. (O.W. Neiswanger House) In-kind reroofing (asphalt shingles). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved October 19, 2023 1316 W. Oak St. (Jasper Loomis House) Egress windows. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved October 27, 2023 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 1516 Remington St. Conceptual Development Review: Adaptive reuse for fraternity house Advised on status of property (Eligible); most alterations generally within Standards; likely to remain staff review October 19, 2023 160 W. Mountain Ave. Preliminary Development Review: Adaptive reuse for mixed use commercial Advised on survey requirement (property is Undetermined); most alterations are inspired by pre-1969 modification of building October 25, 2023 920 S. Overland Tr. Preliminary Development Review: Demolition of existing house for 8-unit cottage court Advised on survey requirement November 2, 2023 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 2601 S. College Avenue Eligible (Appealed by Applicant) Yes October 17, 2023 2627 S. College Ave. Not Eligible Yes October 17, 2023 132 W. Thunderbird Dr. Not Eligible Yes October 17, 2023 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 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 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. Within this period, staff processed a total of 6 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 3 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Headline Copy Goes Here November 15, 2023 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner,Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner,Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation SpecialistMaren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Historic Preservation Commission Staff Activity Report Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Design Review Highlight 1316 W. Oak St. (Jasper Loomis House) Landmark Rehab Loan Awarded • Convert 2 basement windows to egress windows of same sliding window type without impacting brick foundation facing *Landmark Rehab Loan funds are still available for 2023! 1 2 ,7E0 A77ACH0EN7 1 Headline Copy Goes HereEducation and Outreach Highlight 3 • Economic Sustainability Walking Tour with Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Planning staff Headline Copy Goes HereJoin Our Newsletter! 4 • Get monthly updates and information from Historic Preservation Services directly in your inbox such as: • Upcoming events/activities • Historic Preservation Commission agenda overviews • Notification of historic surveys in progress and completed • Notification of single-family residential demolitions • Local preservation financial support program open/close notifications • Landmark spotlights • And more! • Scan the QR Code, or go to https://www.fcgov.com/subscriptions/#group_id_2, to sign up by toggling on the “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter! 3 4 ,7E0 A77ACH0EN7 1 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 425 E. OAK ST. (HOTTEL/HOFFMAN HOUSE AND ASH PIT) – 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 new ADU for the City Landmark at 426 E. Oak St., the Hottel/Hoffman House and Ash Pit. The proposed new 2 bed/2 bath building would be 914 square-feet and a single story. 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: Applicant/Owner – Katherine Herr RECOMMENDATION: Because this is a conceptual design review, staff does not have a formal recommendation, but finds the application generally meets the Standards. 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 2001 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: January 2, 2001 • Built c. 1886 for Isaac Hottel (Andrew Jackson Hottel first resident) • Proposed work includes: o Demolition of non-contributing garage structure at rear of property o Construction of 1-story, 914 square-foot detached ADU at the northeast side of the property, by the alley. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The following description is synthesized from a 1998 survey form by Jason Marmor and the 2001 Landmark nomination: The Hottel/Hoffman House is a two story, wood frame building clad with clapboard. The complex design of the building consists of two major sections with intersecting, steeply pitched, clipped gable roofs; one clipped gable Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 faces front on the west side of the façade. The clipped gables have cornice returns and paired scroll-sawn Italianate cornice brackets which decoratively support the boxed eaves. Added to this unusual roof form are a series of ornate gabled dormers. These gabled dormers are of different sizes, and they all feature very steeply pitched roofs with returning eaves supported by pairs of scroll-sawn Italianate cornice brackets. Other distinctive features include a canted bay window, also with Italianate cornice bracket embellishment on the roof, and a projecting open front porch on the east part of the façade with a shed roof supported by Tuscan columns. The windows are narrow double-hung wood sash units with ornate surrounds featuring elaborate milled wooden lintels with a vertically projecting central, semicircular element. The Hottel/Hoffman House also has two interior chimneys of red brick, including a tapered chimney that exits the clipped gable roof near the end of the house. c. 1900 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 1909 Sanborn Map 1917 Sanborn Map Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 1925 Sanborn Map [Add brief description of the non-contributing structure to be demolished and state briefly why it is non- contributing/why it was excluded from the designation] ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property include: • c. 1886 – House constructed • c. 1900 – Outbuilding constructed (seen in photo above; design modified at unknown later date) • 1908 – Enclosed front porch removed and rear addition, including back porch • Between 1917 and 1925 – Construction of open front porch • 2003 – Reroofing • 2005 – Porch reroofing • 2008 – Exterior woodwork repair • 2010 – Reroofing • 2013 – Porch stabilization, repair of columns, steps, decking, skirting, and trim HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW AND USE OF INCENTIVES: This property underwent design review for several Landmark Rehab Loan awards, including the porch reroofing (2005), exterior woodwork repair (2008), and the porch rehab (2013). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for a new detached ADU. This project would include demolition of non-contributing garage structure at rear of property and the construction of a 1-story, 914 square-foot detached ADU at the northeast side of the property, by the alley. The building features gabled roof forms and two hipped- roofed open porches with square columns. The dominant window type proposed is 1/1 hung windows. The primary cladding material proposed is cementitious siding with 6” reveal and trim. Asphalt shingle roofing is also proposed. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items (For information requested during the November 8, 2023 HPC Work Session, see Att 8): • 10/26/2023 – Staff requested the applicant describe the material of the windows on the proposed new building. The applicant responded 10/30/2023 that the proposed material is Fibrex (composite Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 material). PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 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 residential use, which is proposed to be expanded through a detached ADU. 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. The 1886 Hottel/Hoffman House is significant for both its history and its architecture. The home is associated with two individuals involved with the milling industry in Fort Collins. The house’s first resident, Andrew Hottel, arrived in Fort Collins in 1876 and worked for sixteen years at the Lindell Mill. He left Fort Collins in 1892 to work as a manager at the Lamar Milling and Elevator in Lamar, Colorado, and the property passed to John Hoffman. Hoffman also worked for the Lindell Mill, and he lived in this house with his wife, Frances Coy, daughter of John Coy. Soon after buying this house, Hoffman built and operated the Hoffman Feed Mill on Riverside Avenue. He enlarged the mill and expanded its use to include flour processing in 1900. He and his family lived in this house until John’s death in 1955. The house also has significance for its architecture. It is a well- preserved and locally rare example of a two-story, wood-frame Italianate residence. It has character-defining features like the highly decorative carpentry elements, such as the cornice brackets, the circular design elements on the window lintels, as well as the narrow double-hung wood windows, unusual dormers, and steeply pitched gables. Additionally, the c. 1890 ash pit is a contributing feature on this property. This brick, concrete-coated structure is dome-shaped and about three feet high and about four feet wide. It is a locally rare example of a once-common part of domestic life, trash incineration, and is the only known extant example of this form of ash pit in the city. Because the proposed detached ADU is situated at the rear of the property and is unlikely to physically impact the historic features on the property or disrupt the relationship between the house and ash pit, this standard is met. Y Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 6 The accessory building at the rear of this property was specifically excluded from the Landmark designation of this property, and so its removal still meets this standard. 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. . Because of the differentiation of the proposed ADU from the historic house, through the use of modern materials like the cementatious siding and trim, for example, the proposed alterations avoid creating a false sense of historical development on the property. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The accessory structure that is proposed for demolition is not a contributing feature on this property, and so this standard is met. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Because of its location on the rear of the lot, it is unlikely that the construction of the proposed new ADU/carriage house would harm the historic house or ash pit; however, staff recommends that submission of a Plan of Protection be required prior to building permit issuance to ensure that contractors are aware of the location of the ash pit to prevent any accidental damage. TBD 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. There is not reason to believe that there is a likelihood of uncovering archaeological resources during any excavation needed for the proposed ADU, however, the property owners should note this requirement, and should any archaeological resources be uncovered, contact Historic Preservation Services immediately for assistance. 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. TBD Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 7 Again, although damage is unlikely, staff recommends that submission of a Plan of Protection be required prior to building permit issuance to ensure that contractors are aware of the location of the ash pit to prevent any accidental damage (staff can provide a template form). The design of the proposed ADU is compatible with the existing historic house because several elements of the historic house have been carried over, such as the gabled roof forms, one-over-one windows and the form of the back porch with its hipped roof and square columns. It is located at the very rear of the lot, and although it would not be entirely hidden behind the existing house, the depth of the lot and the one-story height of the proposed structure make its visual impact from the street minimal. Choices like the use of a modern cladding material with a slight variation in reveal and the shallower pitch of roof clearly identify the proposed structure as new construction. 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. Because the proposed ADU is not attached to the historic house, it could easily be removed in the future without disrupting the house or ash pit. Y 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. RECOMMENDATION: Because the request is for a conceptual review, staff does not have a formal recommendation at this time but finds the concept design generally meets the Standards. Staff does recommend that when the application undergoes Final Design Review, that the HPC consider adding the condition of approval that a Plan of Protection be submitted prior to building permit issuance to minimize risk of damage to the historic ash pit on site. 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 proceed to Final Review of the proposed work on the Hottel/Hoffman House and Ash Pit at 426 E. Oak St. If the motion is passed, then the item moves to final review, during which the Commission may choose to make a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The item can also be continued to a later date. SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Hottel/Hoffman House and Ash Pit at 426 E. Oak St. because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 8 SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed on the Hottel/Hoffman House and Ash Pit at 426 E. Oak St. because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code, subject to the following condition: • The applicant shall submit a Plan of Protection for the historic resources on site prior to building permit issuance. SAMPLE MOTION TO DENY CERTIFICATE AND DENY PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Hottel/Hoffman House and Ash Pit at 426 E. Oak St. because the work does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design Review Application Form 2. Proposed Drawings and Photos 3. 426 E Oak ILC 4. Siding, Trim, Roofing Product Sheets 5. Photos 6. 2001 Landmark Nomination Form 7. Staff Presentation 8. Responses to Work Session Questions 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: Ƒ Complete Application for Design Review Ƒ Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) Ƒ 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 ŵĂǇ 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). Katherine Herr 9702324727 9702324727 426 E. Oak St. Fort Collins CO 80524 katherine.acott@gmail.com N/A The proposal is to build a carriage house on the alley side (north side) of the lot, and to plan for a future separate detached garage. The reason to build the carriage house is that Amanda Acott, Katherine's daughter, is special-needs and requires 24/7/365 home care. Katherine has been providing that care, and a day will come when that is no longer sustainable and a live-in assistant will be required. The carriage house will be a 2 bedroom / 2 bath unit with a standard kitchen. We have planned it using the proposed zoning code (as opposed the current code) in anticipation of the new code being adopted by City Council. ,7(0$77$&+0(17 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. This page is NA. See accompanying architectural plans. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 FULL-LINE PRODUCT COLLECTION ,dVbAHATddTUYbVcdAA 2 | AlluraUSA.com ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Beyond the appeal of the products. For more than 75 years, Allura has been building its enviable reputation by Making the Material Difference — focusing on the things that make a real difference for our customers. We begin by providing service through a team of professionals dedicated to exceeding your expectations. We’re adamant about ensuring you get the right material in the right location at the right time. To do so, we offer a full line of building materials that deliver the distinctive look and unsurpassed performance you demand. Unlike wood, vinyl and other traditional building materials, Allura Fiber Cement products resist damage from hail or termite attacks, resist rot, are noncombustible, and are free from manufacturing defects. They are also suitable in both hot and cold climates and are fire resistant. What’s more, Allura products feature realistic wood grain and textures, come in an incredible array of colors and are paintable for unlimited design possibilities. When it comes to the natural look you want with none of the hassles, Allura fiber cement products are all you need. • Durable, engineered to endure harsh weather and high-wind climates • Noncombustible, Class A fire rating • Superior aesthetics • Factory pre-primed • Distinctive, more realistic textures • 30-year limited warranty • Best ROI for homeowners* for 8 years in a row * According to Remodeling Cost vs Value Report AlluraUSA.com | 3 Weather-resistantRot-resistantTermite-resistantImpact-resistant Noncombustible ,dVbAHATddTUYbVcdAA LAP SIDING 4 | AlluraUSA.com ,dVbAHATddTUYbVcdAA Combining the appearance and workability of wood with the durability of specially formulated fiber cement, Allura Lap Siding not only looks great but lasts considerably longer than traditional exterior wall cladding or vinyl siding. DESIGNER’S CORNER Our Traditional Cedar texture features a deep, realistic wood grain appearance for an unbeatable classic style, while the Smooth texture creates a cleaner, modern aesthetic. You can even customize your design utilizing our extensive range of widths. No matter the style, Allura Lap Siding has got yours covered. Traditional Cedar Smooth AVAILABLE TEXTURES * * 1¼" min. overlap with all Lap Siding. Check market availability, as products may vary. Thickness Width Length Exposure 5 ̸16"5¼"12'4" 5 ̸16"6¼"12'5" 5 ̸16""7¼"12’6" 5 ̸16"8¼"12’7" 5 ̸16"9¼"12’8" 5 ̸16"12"12’10¾” AlluraUSA.com | 5 Classic style. State-of- the-art performance. LAP SIDING* ,dVbAHATddTUYbVcdAA 12 | AlluraUSA.com TRIM ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Thanks to our special fiber cement formulation, Allura Trim has all the advantages of wood and none of the hassles. It looks like wood yet is incredibly durable. It won’t rot, warp or splinter and is designed to significantly outperform wood in every way. Best of all, there is no need for special tools on the job site. Our Trim can be cut with the same saw blades and installed with the same tools normally used for wood products. Why bother with wood? Trim provides the look and long-lasting protection you need to bring your home that all-important finishing touch. TRIM FEATURES • Available in reversible Cedar/Smooth board for added versatility • 15-year limited warranty DESIGNER’S CORNER Nothing brings the look of your home together quite like Allura Trim. Its clean lines, exceptional durability and paintability provide the ultimate in beauty and versatility. Allura Trim is the perfect finishing touch. Industry-leading 15-year Transferable Trim Limited Warranty All available in 12-ft. lengths *Check market availability, as products may vary. Tie it all together. AlluraUSA.com | 13 Nominal Width* Size Thickness 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 8" 10" 12" 7̸16"7 ̸16"    4/4 ¾"       5/4 1"        8/4 1½"  ,dVbAHATddTUYbVcdAA We protect what matters most™ GAF shingles and roof accessories are made to work together. They provide a system that’s built to protect homes—so the people who live inside them can enjoy what matters most. The one-stop guide from North America’s largest roofing manufacturer Residential Reference Guide 415172_RESGN100-0223_Residential-Reference-Guide_US-ENGLISH_R2.indd 1 2/11/23 5:13 PM ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Tab le o f Con t ent s LRS Pages Technology Index 3 GAF Lifetime† Roofing System LRS 4–5 GAF Shingles 6–19 Timberline® Lifetime† Shingles Collection LRS Timberline HDZ® O 8 Timberline® UHDZ ™O 9 Timberline® NS O 10 Timberline® CS O 11 Designer Lifetime† Shingles® Collection LRS Grand Canyon®O 13 Camelot® II O 14 Grand Sequoia®O 14 Woodland®O 15 Slateline®O 15 SBS Modified IR Shingles Collection LRS Timberline® AS II O 16–17 Grand Sequoia® AS O 16–17 3-Tab Shingle Collection (Excluded from LRS) Royal Sovereign®18–19 Shingle Specifications Chart 20–21 GAF Roofing Accessories LRS 22–27 Leak Barriers O 23 Roof Deck Protection O 24 Starter Strip Shingles O 25 Cobra® Attic Ventilation O 26 Ridge Cap Shingles O 27 Other Products 28–31 Master Flow® Ventilation Products 28 WeatherSide™ Fiber-Cement Siding 29 ThermaCal® Building Envelope Insulation Panels 30 LIBERTY™ Self-Adhering Roofing System 31 2 415172_RESGN100-0223_Residential-Reference-Guide_US-ENGLISH_R2.indd 2 2/11/23 5:13 PM ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3 2 1 4 ® Shi n gle s LR S 4 7 2 5 1 6 3 Timberline® UHDZ™ 1 23 4 Most Popular Colors: Barkwood OOOO Charcoal OOOO Pewter Gray OOOO Shakewood OOOO Slate OOOO Weathered Wood OOOO Timberline HDZ ® 1 234567 Most Popular Colors: Barkwood OOOOOOO Charcoal OOOOOOO Hickory OOOOOOO Hunter Green OOOOOOO Mission Brown OOOOOOO Pewter Gray OOOOO 1 OO Shakewood OOOOOOO Slate OOOOOOO Weathered Wood OOOOOOO Harvest Blend Colors: Appalachian Sky OOOO OO Nantucket Morning OOOO OO Golden Harvest OOOOOOO Cedar Falls OOOOOOO Regional Colors: Biscayne Blue O Birchwood2 O OOOO Copper Canyon2 O Driftwood OO Fox Hollow Gray OO Golden Amber1,2 O Oyster Gray OOO Patriot Red O Sunset Brick O White2 O Williamsburg Slate OO Color Availability 1 Limited availability. 2 Rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) and can be used to comply with 2019 Title 24, Part 6, Cool Roof Requirements of the California Code of Regulations. 4 7 415172_RESGN100-0223_Residential-Reference-Guide_US-ENGLISH_R2.indd 7 2/11/23 5:14 PM ,7(0$77$&+0(17 Ti mbe rli ne® Shi n gle s LRS Now with GAF Time-Release Algae-Fighting Technology and LayerLock® Technology, Timberline HDZ® offers everything you can expect from an architectural shingle roof, and more. 8 4 Barkwood Driftwood Golden AmberPatriot Red Sunset Brick Biscayne Blue Oyster Gray Fox Hollow GrayBirchwood White Mission Brown Pewter GrayCharcoal ShakewoodHickory Slate Hunter Green Available regionally Williamsburg Slate For more details visit gaf.com/TimberlineHDZ 1 15-year WindProven™ limited wind warranty on GAF Shingles with LayerLock® Technology requires the use of GAF Starter Strips, Roof Deck Protection, Ridge Cap Shingles, and Leak Barrier or Attic Ventilation. See GAF Roofing System Limited Warranty for complete coverage and restrictions. Visit gaf.com/LRS for qualifying GAF products. For installations not eligible for the GAF Roofing System Limited Warranty, see the GAF Shingle & Accessory Limited Warranty. NOTE: It is difficult to reproduce the color clarity and actual color blends of these products. Before selecting your color, please ask to see several full-size shingles. LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY TERM † STAINGUARD ALGAE PROTECTION PLUS™ LIM I T E D W A R R A N T Y 25 1 Cedar Falls Golden Harvest Nantucket Morning Appalachian Sky Weathered Wood Copper Canyon 415172_RESGN100-0223_Residential-Reference-Guide_US-ENGLISH_R2.indd 8 2/11/23 5:15 PM ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones 426 E. Oak St. (Hottel/Hoffman House & Ash Pit) – Detached ADU Conceptual Landmark Design Review 11-15-2023 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Location Map – 426 E. Oak St. 1925 Sanborn Map 1 2 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed new structure •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. Headline Copy Goes HereProperty Background 4 • City Landmark • Hottel/Hoffman House & Ash Pit designated January 2, 2001 • Architectural and Historical Significance •Italianate architecture •Association with Andrew Hottel and John Hoffman, both who contributed to the milling industry in Fort Collins • Also contributes to the Laurel School Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places (1980) 3 4 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Project 5 Demolition of non-contributing accessory building and construction of 914 square-foot, one-story detached ADU at rear (north) side of property. (possible future garage shown on site plan not within current scope) Non-contributing accessory building proposed for demo Site plans:Existing (left)Proposed (right) Headline Copy Goes HereFloor Plan 6 N 5 6 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 South (facing house) & North Elevations South Elevation North Elevation House rear (north) elevation Headline Copy Goes Here 8 West & East Elevations West Elevation East Elevation House west elevation 7 8 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Additional 3D Drawings Headline Copy Goes HereMaterials 10 • Existing siding material is wood siding with5” reveal (below) • Proposed siding is a smooth cementatious siding with 6” reveal • Proposed roofing material is class 4 asphalt shingles in a gray color • Proposed window material Fibrex (composite) 9 10 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 11 Staff Analysis • Project shows consistency with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. • Appears to be: • Compatible • Distinguishable • Reversible • Subordinate Headline Copy Goes Here 12 Work Session Questions or Requests for Information 1. What specific architectural links did you intend between the historic house and the proposed new building? 2. What is the height of the new building compared to the historic house? 3. Can you mark the location of the ash pit on the site plan? 11 12 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 Suggested Questions for Discussion • Staff recommends that a condition of approval be that a Plan of Protection be submitted prior to building permit issuance to minimize risk to the ash pit when construction is occurring on site – Do you think that is necessary? Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed new structure •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. 13 14 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones 426 E. Oak St. (Hottel/Hoffman House & Ash Pit) – Detached ADU Conceptual Landmark Design Review 11-15-2023 15 I7EM 3, A77ACHMEN7 Historic Preservation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6078 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Responses to Work Session Ques�ons Address: 426 E. Oak St. (Hotel/Hoffman House & Ash Pit) Project: Conceptual Landmark Design Review for detached ADU During the November 8, 2023 HPC Work Session, commissioners posed ques�ons or requested addi�onal informa�on to inform their discussion during the regular mee�ng. These ques�ons are below: 1)What specific architectural links did you intend between the historic house and the proposed new building? a)Writen response not received 2)Can you mark the ash pit loca�on on the site plan? a) 3)What is the height of the new building compared to the historic house? a)Writen response not received ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 425 E. ELIZABETH ST. (GEORGE AND ANNIE SPENCER HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVEIW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of proposed alterations to the City Landmark at 425 E. Elizabeth St., the George and Annie Spencer House. Alterations include raising of the house and a rear addition, among other repairs and alterations further described in the following staff report and attachments. 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: Applicant – Taylor Meyer, VFLA Inc. Owners – Karla and Scott Oceanak RECOMMENDATION: Because this is a conceptual design review, staff does not have a formal recommendation, but finds the application generally meets the Standards. 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 1995 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: July 31, 1995 • Built c. 1893 by George Alfred Spencer • Proposed work includes: o Raising the level of the existing house 18-24 inches onto a new basement foundation, including basement egress windows, and associated modifications to the porch stairs o Reuse of the foundation stones in a raised garden bed around the porch; o A new west side basement access stair with railing; o A new 580 square-foot addition on the rear elevation that includes demolition of an existing mudroom; o A new exterior access door on rear elevation of metal-clad wood material; Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 o Removal of glass block window and vent on rear elevation gable end and infill to match existing fish-scale shingles; o Removal of 3 non-historic skylights and roof infill; o A new dormer on the east side of the house to accommodate a bedroom egress window; o Infill of boarded up door opening on façade with siding to match rest of house; o Existing window repair and storm window replacement; o Front door and transom repair and screen door replacement; o Replacement of double-casement window on east elevation (non-original window) with another double-casement window of metal-clad wood material; o Siding repair and painting; o In-kind reroofing (asphalt shingles) ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The following description is synthesized from a 1997 survey form by Jason Marmor and the 1995 Landmark nomination: The George and Annie Spencer House is a 1.5 story Queen Anne cottage. It has a steeply pitched roof; the hipped roof has a large front-facing gable. Both the front and rear gable are decorated with fish-scale shingles and sunburst designs. There is a prominent canted window bay on the first-floor center of the façade. The exterior is wood clapboard siding. The façade features a wide, open porch with square-sided posts on bases with inset rectangular elements as well as a balustrade railing with turned spindle balusters. The porch roof has an ornate cornice treatment, with a frieze panel consisting of a series of repeated rectangular elements containing central circular elements. Along the bottom of the frieze panel are repeated scrollwork elements as well. The top of the porch roof is enclosed by a low balustrade railing of turned spindle balusters spanning square-sided posts with finials. Fenestration on the house primarily consists of one-over-one wood windows. 1948 Tax Assessor Photo Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 1968 Tax Assessor Photo 1939 page added to 1925 Sanborn Map ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property include: • c. 1893 – House built • Between 1939 and 1948 – Full-width single-story enclosed rear porch/mudroom replaced with partial- width single-story enclosed porch/mudroom (comparison of 1939 Sanborn Map and 1948 Tax Assessor sketch) • After 1948 – Window replaced with different size/type on east elevation (1948 Tax Assessor photo) • Between 1948 and 1968 – Door opening on east side of façade closed (1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor photos) • Between 1948 and 1968 – Front porch removed (1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor photos) • Between 1948 and 1968 – Wood siding covered with metal siding (1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor photos) • 1958 – Permit #2003 – 2-car garage built on rear of lot Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 • c. 1960 – Small approx. 10 x 4 foot addition to rear of house (1995 Landmark Nomination) • 1982 – Permit #09056 – Reroofing (asphalt shingles) • 1987 – Permit #26737 – Reroofing house and garage (asphalt shingles) • 1994 – Metal siding removed (1995 Landmark nomination) • 1995 – Permit #0952403 – Front porch rebuilt HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: This property underwent design review in 1995, when the front porch was rebuilt according to historic design of the porch. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: In 2023, this property received two Design Assistance Program grants: • Structural engineering consultation related to the foundation and structural integrity of the building if it were raised onto a new foundation to accommodate a basement (see attached report) • Architectural conceptual sketch for rear addition (presented tonight) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for a rear addition as well as a number of other exterior repairs or alterations: • Raising the level of the existing house 18-24 inches onto a new basement foundation, including basement egress windows, and associated modifications to the porch stairs • Reuse of the foundation stones in a raised garden bed around the porch; • A new west side basement access stair with railing; • A new 580 square-foot addition on the rear elevation that includes demolition of an existing mudroom; • A new exterior access door on rear elevation of metal-clad wood material; • Removal of glass block window and vent on rear elevation gable end and infill to match existing fish- scale shingles; • Removal of 3 non-historic skylights and roof infill; • A new dormer on the east side of the house to accommodate a bedroom egress window; • Infill of boarded up door opening on façade with siding to match rest of house; • Existing window repair and storm window replacement; • Front door and transom repair and screen door replacement; • Replacement of double-casement window on east elevation (non-original window) with another double- casement window of metal-clad wood material; • Siding repair and painting; • In-kind reroofing (asphalt shingles) REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items (see Attachment 8 for responses to questions/requests for info from the November 8 Work Session): • 10/26/2023 – Staff requested the applicant answer the following questions (responses received 10/27/2023 in blue): o How do you know that the proposed dormer is the smallest it can be for egress?  Technically speaking the dormer could be narrower because an emergency egress window is only required to be about 24” wide (20” clear opening). However because we’re removing the skylights in that room, this window is the only means for natural light in that room, so it would be preferrable to make the window bigger so the room isn’t so dark and cave-like. o How do you know that the existing storm windows are non-original?  A window repair expert that specializes in historic windows said he believes the storm windows are not original. Additionally, several storm windows are missing.  Is the existing screen door also non-original? (If it’s likely original, can I please have a photo of it to show the extent of deterioration?) • We believe the screen door is not original. It is mounted outside of the entry door doorframe, also the glass panel that goes in the screen door has divided lights are not used anywhere else in the house. It appears the screen door is Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 mid-century style. I’ll go take a picture and send it to you later. (photos received 10/31 and added to Attachment 3 – Photos) o What is the material of the proposed storm/screen replacements?  The replacement storms would be painted wood frames. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 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. The 1893 George and Annie Spencer House was designated for its architectural and historical importance, as a representative example of a Queen Anne Cottage and as a contributing part of the Laurel School District, one of the first houses built on Elizabeth Street. Some of the most distinguishing features of this house include the prominent and highly decorated front porch, the front-facing bay window, the one- over-one wood windows, and the gable-end imbricated shingles and sunburst design. Although raising the height of the house to accommodate a basement will alter the appearance of the house to some extent, it will still appear to be a 1.5 story Queen Anne Cottage. The foundation stones being removed are not currently visible from the street due to the grading of the lot, and they will be repurposed in a raised garden bed. The installation of a raised garden bed also minimizes alterations the character-defining front porch because the balustrade will not need to be raised due to the change in surrounding grade. The mudroom on the rear elevation is not a part of the original design of the home and is therefore not considered a character-defining feature. Its removal therefore still meets this standard. The skylights, louvered vent, glass block window, and kitchen window proposed for removal are all non-historic materials, and so their removal still meets this standard. The new basement entry stair on the west elevation is visible from the street, but because it will connect to the new basement foundation, it will not physically impact the existing house. Due to the simple nature of the railing, its visual impact is also minimal. Y Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 The most significant change proposed that is visible from the street is the addition of an east-facing dormer. However, this alteration is required by the building code to create a means of egress for bedroom use and the minimum size is impacted by requirements for light/glazing. The hipped roof profile of the dormer does alter the roof form visible from the street, but a hipped roof dormer is compatible with the character of the house. 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 . Because the added features, like the proposed dormer, addition, and side stair, are sufficiently differentiated through materials and/or design, this project avoids creating changes that create a false sense of historical development. Y 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 demolished to accommodate the new rear addition is not an original feature of the house; it was modified sometime between 1939 and 1948, and then further modified in the 1960s, according to the Landmark nomination. For that reason, removal of this feature still meets this standard. 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, and the proposed rear addition will not cover up the gable-end details that are present in the south-facing gable. Some materials known to be non-original are proposed for removal and replacement or infill, such as the glass block window and vent in the rear gable, the kitchen window, skylights, and roofing material. Some additional existing materials are proposed for removal and replacement, including the existing house’s storm windows and front screen door. The applicant noted that they consulted with a window specialist, and that they do not believe the existing storms to be historic, and some are missing. They also do not believe that the screen door is original due to the design being inconsistent with other elements of the house. Some existing wall material will also be lost for a new exterior door and to enlarge an existing door opening (currently inside the mudroom) to connect the main house to the addition; both alterations are on the rear elevation. Because of the minimal impact on character-defining features of the home, staff find this standard met. 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. Y Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 7 Siding and window repair is proposed as part of this rehabilitation project rather than replacement to address any deterioration. The storm windows are proposed for replacement with fixed wood frames with light-weight storm/screen inserts. The applicant consulted with a window specialist who did not believe the storms to be original and noted that some of the storms are missing. As described in the application, an insert half the size of the existing 1/1 window would be lighter weight for ease of use as the property owners age in place. The material and design would be compatible with the existing house. Because of the compatibility of the design of the proposed storm windows with the historic home and because the alteration would support the continued use of the home, staff find this alteration meets this standard. 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. There is not reason to believe that there is a likelihood of uncovering archaeological resources during the excavation of the basement foundation or for the proposed addition, however, the property owners should note this requirement, and should any archaeological resources be uncovered, contact Historic Preservation Services immediately for assistance. 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. Although historic materials would be removed to allow for the proposed addition, raising of the foundation, and new exterior door, these materials and features are either not currently visible or are located on the rear and are not character-defining in relation to the significance of the property. The proposed addition is differentiated from the historic house through its use of lap siding with smaller reveal, and use of window types that differ from the historic portion (casement, fixed, awning vs. typically one-over-one double-hung windows). The addition also appears compatible with the architectural features, scale, and massing of the property and its environment. For instance, the materials proposed are appropriate (e.g., wood lap siding, metal-clad wood windows, asphalt shingle roofing to match existing), and the pitch of the gable matches the existing rear gable. Additionally, due to the shorter height of the addition and it being slightly inset from the wall plane of the existing house, it is entirely screened from view from East Elizabeth Street. Raising the height of the entire house 18-24” does not pose a danger to the structural integrity of the existing house, according to a recent evaluation performed by a structural engineer (attached), and the visual impact of this change is minimal; the proposed height does not TBD Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 8 change the appearance of the house from a 1.5-story home to a 2-story home. The new proposed dormer is visible from the street. As noted previously, this addition is required by the building code for egress and glazing/light requirements impact the size. Although the dormer is the most significant change to the appearance of the house from the street, the design of the dormer is compatible with the existing house due to the hipped roof form and wood materials, and the design is differentiated through use of siding to match the addition rather than the historic part of the house. The applicant noted that the dormer/window could be made smaller and still accommodate egress, and that the size of the proposed dormer is related to providing sufficient daylighting in the bedroom after the removal of the skylights. Given that the pedestrian experience would likely change very little if the dormer were less wide because it is proposed to be located on a side elevation, staff does not find the size of the dormer inconsistent with this standard but encourages the HPC to discuss this point. 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 at 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. Similarly, because the proposed new dormer impacts only roofing material, it could be reversed in the future with little impact on the historic building. Y 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. RECOMMENDATION: Because the request is for a conceptual review, staff does not have a formal recommendation at this time but finds the concept design generally meets the Standards. In particular, staff requests that the HPC provide feedback about the size of the proposed dormer on the east side of the house. 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 proceed to Final Review of the proposed work on the George and Annie Spencer House at 425 E. Elizabeth St. If the motion is passed, then the item moves to final review, during which the Commission may choose to make a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The item can also be continued to a later date. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 9 SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the George and Annie Spencer House at 425 E. Elizabeth St. because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the George and Annie Spencer House at 425 E. Elizabeth St. because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION TO DENY CERTIFICATE AND DENY PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the George and Annie Spencer House at 425 E. Elizabeth St. because the work does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design Review Application Form 2. Proposed Plans/Drawings 3. Photos of Property 4. 2023 Structural Observation from PEN Engineering 5. 1995 Landmark Nomination Form 6. Preservation Brief 14 – New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings 7. Staff Presentation 8. Responses to Work Session Questions 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). I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product specification sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. Partial or full demolition is a part of this project. Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition. Signature of Date I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 www.pen-engineeringllc.com Date of Visit: April 21, 2023 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION – HISTORIC REVIEW 425 East Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 425 East Elizabeth Street 23-04008 page 1 May 18, 2023 Yani Jones Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Project Name: 425 East Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins Project Number: 23-04008 Dear Ms. Jones: Per your request, Wayne Thompson of PEN Engineering visited the subject site on April 21, 2023. The purpose of the visit was to review the structural integrity of the existing foundation and house, then provide a professional opinion as to the existing and possible future foundation systems. According to the Larimer County Assessor, the house was constructed in 1888. Structural System The roof is framed with wood boards bearing on steeply pitched 2x wood rafters. The second floor is constructed with wood boards bearing on sawn lumber joists. Those joists bear on exterior walls, plus wood and masonry interior walls. At the time of the visit, wall framing was not visible. However, this style of house typically utilized 2x4 studs at 16 inches on center. The main floor appears to be constructed with areas of either wide planks or narrow planks over 2x6 floor joists. Those joists bear on stacked stone foundations at the perimeter, and a variety of bearing systems at the interior of the crawl space. A small dugout basement in the center of the house is bounded by masonry walls that support some joists. Structural Conditions The crawl space was inaccessible at the time of the site visit. There are a few small holes in the upper walls of the dugout basement that allow limited visibility into the crawl space areas. Notable variation in the main floor elevation was observed, with slight slopes in some areas and a more notable slope in the kitchen. In general, the center of the house is higher than the floor at the perimeter. Cracking in the second floor walls (Figure 1) is consistent with the apparent foundation movement. ,7E0 4 $77$&+0E17 4 425 East Elizabeth Street 23-04008 page 2 Grading & Drainage The perimeter of the house has minimal grade away from the house. There are gutters on the roof, but those were apparently installed in the last 10 years. Towards the rear of the house, the grade is flat and appears to be built up against the siding / framing. On there are some large trees, with a few smaller trees growing against the foundation. Further back on the lot, a detached garage sits on grade that is raised above the rear of the house. Refer to Figures 2 through 4. Figure 2: West Side of House Figure 1: Cracking in Walls - North Bedroom at Second Floor ,7E0 4 $77$&+0E17 4 425 East Elizabeth Street 23-04008 page 3 Figure 3: Rear of House Figure 4: East Side of House ,7E0 4 $77$&+0E17 4 425 East Elizabeth Street 23-04008 page 4 Assessment of Existing Foundation The existing foundation has shifted over the years due to a variety of causes, including: The shallow depth of the perimeter foundation makes it more susceptible to soil volume changes due to: o Frost heave and settlement o Cyclical moisture changes (e.g. wet years vs drought) o Short terms moisture changes due to poor drainage and an historical lack of gutters, especially when transitioning from wet Springs to dry Autumns Trees drawing water out of soil within the root perimeter of the tree, while other areas stay moist. Uplift due to tree root expansion. Foundations built prior to the late 20th century did not account for the variety of soil characteristics in Colorado, allowing more settlement at heavily loaded walls (or heave at lighter walls). In the future, improved grading, proper drainage practices, and tree removal can all minimize the effects of moisture cycles. However, the existing foundation can still be expected to heave seasonally due to frost and is also susceptible to soil volume changes due to drought. If no other improvements are made, every effort should be made to revise the grading in order to get soil away from the siding and framing. Once that is done, it is anticipated that some framing repairs will need to be made. Refer to Figure 5 for a schematic of some anticipated repairs. Feasibility of New Foundation at Rear of House Only One future possibility for the house is to build at addition at the rear of the existing house. If building a crawl space level foundation for the addition, then there would be minimal impact to the existing stone foundation. The largest concern would be differential movement between the new foundation (designed for the soil conditions) and the existing foundation which is more susceptible to movement. If a basement foundation is proposed adjacent to the existing crawl space, then precautions would need to be taken. Specifically, the new basement would have to be separated by several feet from the existing foundation, with a new crawl space level foundation “bridging” the gap between the new basement and the existing stone foundation. New basement depth walls should not be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing foundation. ,7E0 4 $77$&+0E17 4 425 East Elizabeth Street 23-04008 page 5 Feasibility of New Foundation at Under Existing House Based on the site observations, the existing house has sufficient structural integrity to be temporarily lifted in place. Then, a new basement foundation could be constructed below the house, and the house could later be lowered onto the new foundation. Refer to Figure 6 for a schematic wall section. The structural benefits of that proposal include: Raising the wood framing sufficiently to provide proper grading around the house. Opportunity to re-level the floor of the house during lifting operations. Opportunity to access areas of framing that have been below grade near the rear of the house, allowing repair activities to take place. Challenges of lifting the house include: Construction access to the site would likely need to be from East Elizabeth Street. The floor joists don’t have much depth, so spans are short. More beams than normal would be necessary to support the house during lifting. To provide a functional basement, more beams will be required for the permanent condition as well. Interior masonry walls are sensitive to movement. Those walls may require additional beam support and will likely need to be re-pointed after lifting. These challenges have cost implications, but are should otherwise be manageable. This new foundation under the house would also be compatible with any addition at the rear. Figure 5: Framing Repairs as Needed ,7E0 4 $77$&+0E17 4 425 East Elizabeth Street 23-04008 page 6 Summary The existing house foundation is performing the function of supporting the house, but with performance issues caused by shrink/swell cycles of the soil, as well and frost and root heave. In addition, the top of the existing foundation is relatively low and appears to allow some backfill against framing. Access to the underside of the existing main floor is severely limited. If no other changes are made, grading improvements are required and some framing repairs are anticipated. If an addition is built at the rear of the existing house, differential movement between the new and the existing foundations should be expected. A new basement at the rear addition would present some challenges depending on its proximity to the existing foundation walls. If a new basement is desired under the existing house, the existing structure could be temporarily lifted to allow construction of a new foundation below. Minor repairs may be required prior to lifting, with additional repairs and reinforcing anticipated during and after the lift. The long term benefits of constructing a new foundation include improved drainage, eliminating soil against siding and wood framing, and better performance (less movement) of the existing house. Better performance results in a more durable exterior envelope and better moisture protection of the wood framing and interior. That all translates into greater longevity for the exterior façade. Limitations This report is based upon site observations, PEN Engineering’s experience with existing wood structures, and the limited scope of the project. Future use of the structure will need to consider the capacity of the existing members and whether interior structural reinforcing may be required. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. With regards, PEN Engineering, LLC Wayne Thompson, PE Principal, Structural Engineer wthompson@pen-engineeringllc.com ,7E0 4 $77$&+0E17 4 425 East Elizabeth Street 23-04008 page 7 Figure 6: Schematics ,7E0 4 $77$&+0E17 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones 425 E. Elizabeth St. (George and Annie Spencer House) – Rear Addition & Other Alterations Conceptual Landmark Design Review 11-15-2023 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Location Map – 426 E. Oak St. 1939 page added to 1925 Sanborn Map 1 2 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed new structure •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. Headline Copy Goes HereProperty Background 4 • City Landmark • George & Annie Spencer House designated July 31, 1995 • Architectural and Historical Significance •Queen Anne Cottage architecture •One of the oldest houses built on Elizabeth St. • Also contributes to the Laurel School Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places (1980) • Significant rehab completed in 1995 to restore the character-defining front porch (upper left: 1948 Tax Assessor Photo; upper right: 1968 Tax Assessor Photo; bottom: 2023 photo) 3 4 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Project – Primary Alterations 5 Raise level of existing house 18-24 inches onto new basement foundation 580 square-foot addition on the rear elevation Dormer addition on the east side for bedroom egress window Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Project – Additional Alterations 6 • Related to raising onto new basement foundation: • Raised garden bed using foundation stones around porch • Modify porch stairs and add railings for added height • Basement egress windows • West side basement access stair with railing • Rear elevation modifications: • New door • Removal of non-historic features in gable • East elevation modifications: • Removal of skylights • Replacement of non-original window on east elevation • Other exterior alterations: • Infill of boarded up door opening on façade • Window repair and storm window replacement; • Front door and transom repair and screen door replacement; • Siding repair and painting; • In-kind reroofing (asphalt shingles) 5 6 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes HereSite Plan and Proposed Façade Elevation 7 N Headline Copy Goes HereRaise House 18-24 inches for Basement Foundation 8 7 8 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes HereRear Addition – South Elevation 9 Headline Copy Goes HereRear Addition – West Elevation 10 9 10 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes HereRear Addition – East Elevation 11 Headline Copy Goes HereMudroom Proposed for Demo 12 1939 page added to 1925 Sanborn Map – Note difference in mudroom/enclosed porch size compared to today 11 12 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes HereRear Addition Renderings 13 Headline Copy Goes HereDormer Addition 14 13 14 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes HerePrimary Materials 15 Headline Copy Goes Here 16 Staff Analysis • Project shows consistency with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. • Appears to be: • Compatible • Distinguishable • Reversible • Subordinate 15 16 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes Here 17 Work Session Questions or Requests for Information 1. Would you please add a floor plan of the addition and basement? Headline Copy Goes Here 18 Work Session Questions or Requests for Information 2. How do you know the storm windows are not original? • Jeremy Spiegel (Spiegel Restoration) noted that the dowel joinery type in the storms is not typical of late 19th or early 20th century storm windows, and that the joinery technique is also different from that seen on the windows. Additionally, the use of mitered molding instead of glazing compound further suggests that the storm windows are likely not original. (paraphrased from letter provided by applicant from Jeremy Spiegel dated 11/10/2023) 17 18 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes Here 19 Work Session Questions or Requests for Information 3. Would you please explain the choice for the garden bed in greater detail? Applicant Response: Adding guardrail extension on the front of the porch would be more disruptive to the original character of the front façade because it would add a new horizontal element in the middle of the elevation of the house, whereas a new raised garden bed would introduce a new horizontal element only at the base of the house. Picture: diagram of visual impact of adding a new horizontal element in the middle of the front façade (a guardrail extension shown in RED) versus the visual impact of addition a new horizontal element at the base of the front façade (a raised garden shown in ORANGE) Furthermore, a new guardrail extension would need to be non- congruent so as to not be confused with the design of the original porch guardrail. As such, the guardrail would intentionally appear to be an element foreign to the porch design and we’d rather choose the raised garden bed approach to avoid introducing a foreign design element. Here is a picture of an example of a new guardrail extension to an historic porch guardrail. Headline Copy Goes Here 20 Work Session Questions or Requests for Information 4. Concerning raising the level of the house and area compatibility, would you please provide some context related to neighboring houses or nearby contemporaries to this house? Right: 1939 Sanborn Map Below: Example area context (see Att 8 for additional views/info) 19 20 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes Here 21 Work Session Questions or Requests for Information 5. The applicant noted that the dormer is not the smallest it could be for egress, but what about the code requirements for light and air? Would you please provide some information about that in relation to the size of the proposed dormer? Applicant Response: Regarding the dormer size, there is a minimum amount of glazing and ventilation required for a habitable space: 8% glazing area of the total area of the room and 4% ventilation area of the total area of the room (IRC 303.1). The bedroom has 155 sq ft of floor area and therefore the minimum amount of glazing must be 12.4 sq ft. The glazing in the dormer we proposed in the drawings we submitted on October 20th is only 8.7 sq ft. We’d like to propose adding a third fixed window between the two casements windows for a total 13 sq ft of glazing. We’d widen the dormer structure an addition16” to make room for the wider window. (Please see the attached PDF.) This is the smallest allowable dormer size to meet the minimum glazing requirement for a habitable space. The minimum amount of ventilation must be 6.2 sq ft and the proposed windows would have about 9 sq ft of ventilation, meeting the minimum code requirement. Headline Copy Goes Here 22 Suggested Questions for Discussion • Do you think that raising the height of the building to accommodate a new basement foundation impacts the character of the home? • Do you think the proposed addition is compatible, but distinguishable from the existing house? Consider design and materials. • Do you think the proposed dormer addition has appropriate scale, compatibility, and distinguishability from the existing house? • Do you have any feedback about any of the other exterior alterations? 21 22 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Headline Copy Goes Here 23 Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed new structure •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. Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones 425 E. Elizabeth St. (George and Annie Spencer House) – Rear Addition & Other Alterations Conceptual Landmark Design Review 11-15-2023 23 24 I7EM 4, A77ACHME17 Historic Preservation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6078 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Responses to Work Session Address: 425 E. Elizabeth St. (George and Annie Spencer House) Project: Conceptual Landmark Design Review for During the November 8, 2023 HPC Work Session, commissioners to inform their discussi and responses from the applicant or sta (respondent : 1)and basement . a)(Applicant nt level. 2) a)(Applicant) assessment of the window storms. 3) o the land, but he also recognized the need to a) (Applicant) original character of the front façade because it would add a new horizontal element in the roduce a new Picture Below: diagram of visual impact of adding a new horizontal element in the middle of the front façade (a guardrail extension shown in RED) horizontal element at the base of the front façade (a raised garden shown in ORANGE) ,7(0 4 $77$CH0(N7 8 Historic Preservation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6078 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Furthermore, a new guardrail extension would need to be non-congruent so as to not be confused with the design of the original porch guardrail. As such, the guardrail would choose the raised garden bed approach to avoid introducing a foreign design element. Below is a picture of an example of a new guardrail extension to an historic porch guardrail: 4) a)images of the area surrounding 425 E. Elizabeth St., of each building 9 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the 300 and 400 Blocks of East Elizabeth Street. 5) a)(Applicant) oor area and requirement for a habitable spa requirement. ,7(0 4 $77$CH0(N7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 816 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. (ISAAC W. BENNETT HOUSE) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVEIW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed sunroom addition and deck for the Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 W. Mountain Ave. The owner has waived conceptual review (attachment 5) and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT/OWNER: Owners – Nathalie Rachline and Alan Braslau RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed plans meet the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and recommends the Certificate of Appropriateness. 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 final review of proposed plans and based on the provided information from the 1993 Landmark nomination, the applicant’s design review application, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the Municipal Code 14, Article IV and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards) for its final review. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Date of Landmark designation: December 7, 1993 • Built c. 1907 • Proposed work includes: o Demolition of existing non-historic deck o Construction of 175 square-foot sunroom addition o Construction of 130 square-foot deck ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The following description is paraphrased from the 1993 Landmark Nomination for this property: The Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 W. Mountain Ave. is representative of the Edwardian style of architecture. It features multiple roofs and gables as well as asymmetrical massing, simple surfaces, and classical details, which is typical of that style. The two-story, frame construction residence has clapboard siding. The foundation is made of quarry-faced ashlar. The façade features a single, pediment-type dormer as well as a large front-facing gable with decorative fish-scale shingling. The wide front porch is open with a wood balustrade and has a dropped hipped roof with a cornice with dentil details and is supported by Tuscan columns. There is a chimney centrally located on Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 the ridge line of the roof. Windows are one-over-one double-hung sash type typically, and the first-floor front window has a leaded glass fixed transom. The dormer window has 35 small lights, and an attic window in the front gable has a small arched window. There is also a carriage house on the lot that contributes to the historic property. 1948 Tax Assessor Photo 1968 Tax Assessor Photo Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 1909 Sanborn Map ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property include (based on the 2018 National/State Register of Historic Places Nomination by Kylee Cole): • c. 1907 – Construction of the house and carriage house • 1937 – Reshingling of the home • 1988 – Reshingling with wooden shingles. • 1991 – Demolition of existing rear porch/mudroom and reconstruction with the same foundation. • 1992 – Renovation of the carriage house. • 1998 – Front porch roof renovation and reshingling with cedar shingles. • 2005 – Wood shingles removed and laminated shingles installed. • 2016 – Alterations to basement to create a living space, installation of basement egress, installation of 7 new basement windows. • 2016 - Reroofing HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW AND USE OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES: There are no recent records of design review or use of financial incentives for this property. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of a non-historic rear deck, construction of a new 130 square-foot deck topped with limestone material intended to compliment the foundation stone of the historic home, and a 175 square-foot, rear sunroom addition that is structurally independent from the existing house. The primary material of the proposed addition is glass with fiberglass frames in a gunmetal gray color (attachment 4). REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: • None PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 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. The deck proposed for removal/replacement is not historic. The proposed sunroom addition is structurally independent from the historic house, and no historic material would need to be removed. For these reasons, this standard is met. Y 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 . Because the proposed addition is clearly differentiated from the historic home in its materials, a false sense of historical development has been avoided. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. N/A SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Because no historic materials or features would be removed as part of this project, this standard is met. 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. There is not reason to believe that there is a likelihood of uncovering archaeological resources during any excavation needed for the Y Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 proposed new deck or sunroom, but the owner should contact Historic Preservation services immediately if this occurs. 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 previously stated, this proposal does not include destruction or removal of any historic materials. The deck is proposed to be clad in a limestone material to reference the foundation of the historic house. The proposed sunroom addition is clearly differentiated through its glass and fiberglass materials. It is subordinate to the historic house in its size and height. Design choices such following the three-window pattern on the east elevation of the house, the gable roof form and pitch. Y 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. Because the new construction proposed is structurally independent from the existing house through the use of an expansion joint and does not destroy any historic materials, this addition could easily be reversed without impacting the historic home if that choice were made in the future. Y FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the proposed rehabilitation of 816 W. Mountain Ave. under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The Isaac W. Bennett House is a City Landmark, designated by City Council on December 7, 1993. • The proposed project for 816 W. Mountain Ave., overall, meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for this proposal. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 W. Mountain Ave. because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 W. Mountain Ave. because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 SAMPLE MOTION TO DENY CERTIFICATE AND DENY PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Isaac W. Bennett House at 816 W. Mountain Ave. because the work does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design Review Application Form 2. Project Description Letter 3. Proposed Plans/Drawings 4. Frame Material Information 5. Owner Acknowledgement of Conceptual Review Waiver 6. Photos of Property 7. 1993 Landmark Nomination Form 8. Preservation Brief 14 – New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings 9. Staff Presentation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 ROBERT LEWIS DAVIS, JR. AIA rdavis@davisdavisarch.com LAURIE PERRIELLO DAVIS AIA ldavis@davisdavisarch.com 221 E Oak Street, Unit A Fort Collins, CO 80524 t 970 482 1827 San Diego (619) 296-1533 www.davisdavisarch.com 10.23.2023 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Patio Sun Room Addition PROJECT DESCRIPTION 816 W Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 This is an application for a 175 SF patio sun room and 130 SF deck to be located on the back (north) side of the historic house at 816 W Mountain Avenue. The new structure replaces an existing deck (not part of the original Landmarked house) that is attached to house at the foundation. The sun room will have glass walls and roof in thermally efficient fiberglass frames. The proposed new room will be accessible by the existing double doors from the kitchen, which will remain. The glass will allow the house siding and doors to be visible from the back yard. The proposed patio sunroom’s structure will stand independently of the historic house. There is a 2” air gap between the existing house’s clapboard siding and the new sunroom steel structure. (see Plan 1 on A3.1 and Struc- tural Plan, PDF 1) An architectural compression product made of rubber will seal the continuous air gap, floor to roof. (See PDF 3, product cut sheet) The foundation and deck surround will be clad in a gray limestone tile that com- pliments the existing foundation walls. The pitch of the new sun room is nestled under the eave of the existing roof. It follows the same triangular shape as the back kitchen roofline which is offset horizontally from the west façade by 3’-6”. This offset away from the property line makes the addition barely visible. (See Plan 1 on A3.1 and Elevation 2 on 3.1) The Gunmetal gray window mullions will have narrow sightlines which will by contrast, compliment the landmark house, and will also make the new addi- tion nearly invisible. (See PDF 2 for color) In addition, the window module of the new sun room is in keeping with the bay window rhythm and proportions located on the east façade. (see elevation 1 on A3.1) ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 From:Alan Braslau To:Yani Jones Cc:"Robert Davis"; "Davis Laurie"; nathalie.a.rachline@gmail.com Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Re: 816 W Mountain Ave Addition to existing House Date:Sunday, October 22, 2023 3:35:23 PM On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 22:34:33 +0000 Yani Jones <yjones@fcgov.com> wrote: > a Conceptual Design Review is highly recommended, but it can be > waived in favor of proceeding directly to Final Design Review; Yani, Thank you for meeting with Laurie and myself on Friday and for expressing support for the project with your suggestions. I am sending this email to notify that we wish to waive a formal Conceptual Design Review and proceed directly to a Final Design Review before the Historic Preservation Commission. Thank you again. Alan (and Nathalie) -- Alan Braslau 816 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 USA Conserve energy! ;-) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 I T E M 5, A T T A C H M E N T 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones 816 W. Mountain Ave. (Isaac W. Bennett House) – Rear Addition & Deck Final Landmark Design Review 11-15-2023 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Location Map – 816 W. Mountain Ave. 1909 Sanborn Map 1 2 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Role of the HPC • Owner has waived conceptual design review • Provide final design review of proposed addition • Do the project plans meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation? • Issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV Headline Copy Goes HereProperty Background 4 • City Landmark • Isaac W. Bennett House designated December 7, 1993 • Architectural and Historical Significance •Edwardian architecture •Association with Isaac W. Bennett from 1907 – 1919 •Period of Significance undefined (c. 1907 – 1919) • State Register Designation • Bennett House designated September 25, 2019 • Criterion C – Edwardian architecture • Period of Significance: c. 1907 (date of construction) 3 4 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Project 5 Rear (north elevation) sunroom addition and replacement of non-historic deck • Existing deck estimated 10-15 years old at time of designation • Addition proposed 175 square-feet with glass and fiberglass materials • To be structurally independent from existing house and require no removal of existing materials • Proposed new deck to be 130 square-feet with limestone cladding to reference foundation of historic house Headline Copy Goes HereFirst Floor and Roof Plans 6 5 6 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 East Elevation Headline Copy Goes Here 8 North Elevation 7 8 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 West Elevation Headline Copy Goes Here 10 Expansion Joint Detail The addition will not require removal of existing materials and will use the existing double-doors for access. The connection is proposed to be made through an expansion joint. 9 10 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes HereFrame Material 11 • Frame material proposed is fiberglass “Ultrex” product by Marvin in the color Gunmetal Headline Copy Goes Here 12 Staff Analysis • Project shows consistency with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. • Appears to be: • Generally compatible • Distinguishable • Highly reversible • Subordinate 11 12 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 Work Session Questions or Requests for Information • To be added Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Staff Recommendation • Approve and issue Certificate of Appropriateness 13 14 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Headline Copy Goes Here 15 Role of the HPC • Owner has waived conceptual design review • Provide final design review of proposed addition • Do the project plans meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation? • Issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones 816 W. Mountain Ave. – Rear Addition & Deck Final Landmark Design Review 11-15-2023 15 16 I7EM A77ACHMEN7 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME ADOPTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S 2024 WORK PLAN STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager PROJECT INFORMATION The purpose of this item is to discuss and adopt the Historic Preservation Commission’s Work Plan for 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City’s Municipal Code requires boards and commissions to develop work plans identifying goals for the next year. Work plans for 2024 are due November 30, 2023 take effect on January 1, 2024. The 2024 work plan format reflects the results of a planning session held on October 12, 2022, at which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) set priorities that coalesced into four primary initiatives that will be undertaken in addition to the Commission’s ongoing quasi-judicial and legislative business. In October and November of 2023, the current HPC members revisited the four initiative themes and elected to retain them for 2024, with adjustments made to the proposed action items within each. The attached work plan should be formally adopted at the November 15, 2023 meeting in order to meet the deadline set by the Clerk’s Office. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC 2024 Work Plan_Draft Work Plan City of Fort Collins HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2024 Work Plan The 2024 work plan of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is based on four primary initiatives that initially emerged at an October 2022 retreat. The current members have determined these initiatives are of ongoing relevance to their work on behalf of City Council and the Fort Collins community. The current members of the HPC have also determined to hold regular discussions throughout 2024 to identify associated action items and required resources, to discuss how their proposed work interfaces with ongoing City staff activities, and to take on related tasks according to their individual capacity to contribute. 2024 Work Plan Initiatives These initiatives align with the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Impact Agenda, the Colorado Statewide Historic Preservation Plan, and the City of Fort Collins strategic plans and outcome areas. 1.Support Building an Equitable, Affordable, and Vibrant Community •Provide feedback and ideas for the following staff-led initiatives: o share local history and elevate appreciation of historic building stock that provides affordable housing for the community o prioritize inclusion to tell a more accurate and comprehensive story of our community o encourage emphasis on the history of individual Fort Collins neighborhoods to help residents learn about and appreciate where they live o follow National Register process to consider updating the significance criteria to include cultural significance and evaluate local potential for application. o Incorporate the City’s future land acknowledgement statement into HPC meetings. 2.Grow a Collaborative and Inclusive Network through Improved Public Engagement •Assist staff with formal and informal presentations to community groups, focusing first on the key interest groups of cultural and heritage non-profits, realtors, construction and building trades, and developers as well as youth K-12 education •Use HPC meetings to engage with and empower the participation, self-advocacy, and storytelling of underrepresented groups who are not typically connected to historic preservation work •Interact more closely and strategically with other Boards and Commissions •Help staff to identify new stakeholders and partner organizations to work on shared goals •Network with community contacts and encourage City Clerk’s Office and City Council to recruit and appoint new HPC members who are representative of our community’s demographic diversity 3.Strengthen Connection to Climate Resilience Work •Use HPC work sessions and other educational outlets led by HPC members to educate residents and contractors about value and passive energy performance of pre-WWII building stock and material conservation/embodied energy, as well as methods for maintaining and improving ongoing energy performance of historic buildings ,7(0$77$&+0(17 • Provide feedback to staff on conceptual design of effective graphics to represent comparative effects of demolition versus adaptive reuse/rehabilitation of buildings • Provide comments for City’s effort to consider a future deconstruction ordinance that is connected to a regional network of participants 4. Develop Modernized and Expanded Tools for Historic Preservation • Engage a younger demographic with connections to emerging professionals in graduate programs and emerging digital tools • Support effort to create new and more numerous tools for recognizing historic places and learning about their history (on site and online) • Participate in staff-led effort to evaluate, address, and strengthen incentives and financial support programs to encourage and support local landmarks • Use HPC meetings to promote the existing Cost Calculator Tool on the City’s website • Provide ideas to staff for new information and helpful resources to add to City’s website ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Purpose and Overview: • The HPC, established in 1968, is a nine-member quasi-judicial body. Per Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements in the U.S. historic preservation system, the City must demonstrate an ongoing effort to maintain at least 40% of the membership with professional expertise in history, archaeology, anthropology, architectural history, architecture or landscape architecture, real estate, or law. o Currently, that expertise is represented on the Fort Collins HPC by 8 of the 8 appointed members (100%) as follows: Architecture (Anne Nelsen); Historic Architecture/Architectural History (Jim Rose); History and related disciplines (Jenna Edwards, Margo Carlock); Archaeology (Bonnie Gibson); Building Trades (David Woodlee); and Real Estate (Andy Smith, Tom Wilson). • The HPC performs the CLG responsibilities for the City of Fort Collins: o Enables the City to administer preservation regulations on behalf of the state/federal governments; residents to receive 25% Colorado State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation; and City to receive CLG grants for training, surveys, building preservation, and education o Requires enforcement of state/local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards; requires on-going historic survey. • The HPC is the final decision-maker on: o Exterior alterations to properties designated as Fort Collins Landmarks o Determinations of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation; and allocation of Landmark Rehabilitation Loan funds • The HPC makes formal recommendations: o To Council on Fort Collins Landmark designations and matters of policy related to historic preservation and land use; to the Colorado State Review Board on nominations of Fort Collins properties to the National and State Registers of Historic Places o To the Planning and Zoning Commission, Hearing Officers, and City staff on design compatibility of developments adjacent to and/or containing historic resources, as well as proposed treatment plans for adaptive reuse of those historic resources. • HPC advises Council on the identification and significance of historic resources, threats to their preservation, and methods for their protection; and advises Council and staff about policies, incentives, and regulations for historic preservation. • The HPC proactively addresses barriers that perpetuate inequality, to help minimize impacts to historically under-represented and under-resourced communities; and directly supports the City's goals of sustaining an environment where residents and visitors feel welcomed, safe, and valued. ,7(0$77$&+0(17