Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2024 - 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 Tom Wilson David Woodlee Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting February 21, 2024 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/98864384557 . (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 98864384557. 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. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2024 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 17, 2024 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  3DFNHW3J Page 3 2. SF DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1011 W MAGNOLIA The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 1011 W Magnolia. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). • 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  3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FEBRUARY 21, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 2024 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 17, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC January 17, 2024 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 4 Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Anne Nelsen David Woodlee Tom Wilson Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting January 17, 2024 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Anne Nelsen (arrived at 5:42 PM), Jim Rose, Andy Smith, Tom Wilson, David Woodlee ABSENT: None STAFF: Heather Jarvis, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Jones stated there were no changes to the published agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •CONSENT AGENDA Historic Preservation Commission ,7(0$77$&+0(17 '5 $ ) 7  3DFNHW3J Page 2 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 15, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carlock, to approve the consent agenda for the January 17, 2024 meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Wilson, Woodlee, and 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). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed some of the staff activities that have occurred since the last meeting, including a complementary design review for an Art in Public Places mural on the retaining wall at the Poudre River Whitewater Park and surveys of the Lloyd’s Art Shop building which resulted in a determination of ineligibility for landmark designation and the Watkins and Pennington Building, or Wilson Block, which resulted in a determination of eligibility for landmark designation under standard one. Ms. Jones also reported on education and outreach highlights, including the William Robb and Modern Architecture lecture presented by Ron Sladek and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day celebration at the Lincoln Center. Ms. Jones mentioned the Historic Preservation newsletter. 3. 401 S COLLEGE – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Conceptual design for a 115+/- unit, mixed-use apartment building in the former bank building at 401 S College Avenue. Project includes adaptive reuse of the vacant historic resource and construction of a new, 6-story mixed-use building on the west side of the 1.7-acre property. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Post Modern Development (JD Padilla) STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Staff Presentation Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager, noted this item is a conceptual review and the Commission will be providing comments under three categories: how the proposed treatment of the historic bank building meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation, how the design of the proposed new construction meets the design compatibility standards in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, and whether the proposed modification request is sufficiently justified under at least one of the required criteria. Ms. Bzdek also noted this project, if submitted, would return before the Commission for a recommendation to the decision maker. ,7(0$77$&+0(17 '5 $ ) 7  3DFNHW3J Page 3 Ms. Bzdek outlined the adjustments to the packet that have occurred since the work session, including an updated presentation provided by the project architect, information to address some of the questions provided at the work session, the addition of History Colorado’s biographical sketch of James Hunter, the addition of an original scanned brochure produced by the Hunter and Associates architectural firm in the 1960’s, the addition of some slides, and the addition of two written public comments. Ms. Bzdek discussed the existing property noting it is considered a historic resource as a landmark-eligible site. She stated the 1967 Poudre Valley National Bank building on the site was designed by James Hunter and Associates and the building is eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation under standard one for events as a representation of a movement of the oldest remaining bank in the original downtown core to a location optimized for the auto-centric mid-20th century culture that had ample parking, drive-through tellers, and modernized banking operations which included the first use of computers for bookkeeping and account tracking in northern Colorado. Additionally, the building was found to be eligible under standard three for design and construction for a commercial design that is reflective of the International style, more specifically as an example of a New Formalist commercial architecture that emerged within the modern architectural movement. She noted the design is exemplary of the work of James Hunter and Associates commercial work in Colorado and she provided information about James Hunter’s other work in the area, including many buildings on the CSU campus. Ms. Bzdek provided more information about the brise soleil solar shading system which was an important design element that combined both a decorative and functional contribution to the structure. She provided photos of the building and detailed its architectural features. Ms. Bzdek noted the project calls for retaining the bank building on the east side of the property and replacing the drive-through ATM structures on the west side of the property with a new six-story mixed-use building with parking on the first two levels and residential units on the remaining levels. The proposal for the bank building includes significant alterations, conversion of the upper floors from office spaces to residential units, adding a fourth story addition, relocating the brise soleil screens to the concrete pillars and placing some of them in horizontal form over the band of windows, and connecting the bank building to the new building with a pedestrian bridge. Ms. Bzdek stated staff’s initial analysis of the proposal shows that the removal and relocation of the screens is out of compliance with several of the Secretary of the Interior standards, though the applicant has a different take on compliance. She stated standards 2, 5, and 9 address alterations or removal of distinctive and character-defining materials and features on historic buildings and standard 3 prohibits moving those materials to alternative locations on the structure when that movement may create a false record of historic development on the building. Ms. Bzdek discussed the rooftop addition noting it may not be truly necessary in order to achieve the proposed adaptive reuse relative to its impact on the historic character of the building and, if that were to be established, whether its design impact has been sufficiently minimized. Ms. Bzdek stated a question came up at the work session regarding how to address the impact of an addition on the building’s existing passive solar lighting plan, which would be impacted by the loss of the central skylight with the addition. She stated the central skylight is not visible from the street, but is a functional feature that impacts the interior design primarily. She noted there is technical guidance provided on the Secretary of the Interior standards as they relate to building energy performance and that guidance calls for the retention of existing features that contribute positively to the structure’s energy conserving potential and performance. Ms. Bzdek provided a photo from a brochure advertising the opening of the bank which shows the light well in the lobby from the rooftop skylight. Ms. Bzdek discussed the design and proposed location of the pedestrian bridge and noted there were some public comments on the topic from the Downtown Development Authority. She stated the current staff analysis is to encourage the applicant to work with the infill building to meet the project needs as much as possible in the new construction, and if necessary, to focus any modification requests on the design compatibility standards for compatibility with a historic resource in such a way that the project can demand less of the historic bank building in terms of achieving project goals. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Packet Pg. 7 Page 4 Ms. Bzdek noted the modification request in this case involves the applicant seeking leniency on application of the Secretary of the Interior standards to the historic resource. She stated staff’s opinion is that is not a strategy that would generally be supported, and the applicant has not yet sufficiently justified any of the four requirements for granting a modification. Applicant Presentation Steve Schroyer, Schroyer Resources, introduced himself. Chris Aronson, VFLA Architects, stated the proposed project would consist of approximately 114 units with 121 on-site parking spaces, which is 30 more than the number required. He stated the project is in the Canyon Avenue subdistrict and is allowed nine stories and 115 feet of height, though the proposed new building is six stories and 75 feet in height. Mr. Aronson showed photos of the site and stated some of the exterior panels have been damaged through maintenance or installation of mechanical equipment. He detailed the proposal relocation of the panels noting they will remain intact as a single unit to allow them to be replaced in their current location if desired in the future. Mr. Aronson discussed the challenges of the existing bank building stating the interior is somewhat suffocating as the density of the brise soleil screen does not allow for any views. He stated the proposal is for a full adaptive reuse of the property to bring it up to modern day standards and to provide additional residential units in the downtown area. He also stated this project would provide an opportunity to continue the DDA alleyway project between the new building and existing building connecting to Lucky’s Market. Mr. Aronson stated the existing building was designed to have six more floors built above the existing structure. He detailed the proposal to relocate the brise soleil panels in a way to keep the top of the panel aligning with the existing top of the brise soleil and relocating the panels in a horizontal fashion in alignment with their current location. He stated those changes will let more natural light into the building and allow for better views for tenants. Mr. Aronson discussed the proposed painting and material changes for the exterior of the bank building. He stated the design team has yet to get into the design details for the proposed new building. Mr. Aronson discussed the Secretary of the Interior standards and stated the design team believes the project meets standards 2 through 10 with the requested modifications. Commission Questions Commissioner Carlock asked if the individual apartments would reach the outer walls of the second floor. Mr. Aronson replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Carlock asked if any of the units are slated to meet the affordability requirements of the City. Mr. Aronson replied they will be market-rate units. Commissioner Nelsen asked why the new building is proposed to only be six stories when it could be nine. Mr. Aronson replied economics and parking requirements were behind the decision. Commissioner Nelsen asked about the documentation of the proposal to add floors to the bank building. Mr. Aronson replied the structural engineer cited the full concrete walls, complete basement, and eight 48-inch caissons that are sixteen feet deep; therefore, the foundation was designed to hold a nine-story building though there were no specific drawings or plans for that construction. Commissioner Nelsen asked about natural ventilation being a challenge. Mr. Aronson replied the windows are currently inoperable, and making them operable brings up the question of how much air flow would occur with the brise soleil in place. Commissioner Nelsen asked about the gap between the windows and the brise soleil. Mr. Aronson replied it is about three and a half feet. Commissioner Nelsen asked if other natural light sources such as skylights have been considered. Mr. Aronson replied the proposal is to replace the solid panel storefront with glass. He stated skylights pose a structural challenge. Commissioner Nelsen asked if the desire for more natural light is coming from a marketability standpoint or a Code standpoint. Mr. Aronson replied it is coming from a marketability standpoint. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Packet Pg. 8 Page 5 Commissioner Nelsen asked how it came to be that the units have to be residential. Mr. Schroyer replied the marketplace was analyzed and there are a high number of vacant commercial buildings. He noted commercial uses are slated for the first level. Commissioner Nelsen asked if it is primarily one residential floor that would be impacted by the brise soleil. Mr. Schroyer replied in the affirmative and stated there would be nine units on that floor. He stated he was unsure any type of use could be marketed for the second floor as it exists with the brise soleil. Commissioner Nelsen asked if the brise soleil would act to decrease the amount of solar gain in the building and therefore decrease energy costs in the summer. Mr. Schroyer replied in the affirmative but noted the windows will all be replaced with more energy efficient glazing. Mr. Aronson noted one of the reasons for relocating the brise soleil is to maintain some solar control in both the winter and the summer. Commissioner Gibson requested additional details on the relocation of the brise soleil. Mr. Aronson stated they will be relocated horizontally to help provide shading as the sun is going down. Commissioner Nelsen asked where the circle aspects of the brise soleil will be located. Mr. Aronson replied they will stay within the panel pattern. Commissioner Nelsen asked if there is a plan for how the brise soleil will be attached to the walls. Mr. Aronson stated the design team has not spent a great deal of time focusing on how they are currently installed but the plan is to perhaps have some type of steel angle for the panels to rest upon so as to limit the number of connections. Commissioner Woodlee asked if the brise soleil panels on the building are original. Mr. Aronson replied in the affirmative and stated they are either bronze or aluminum. Commissioner Woodlee suggested the design team consider snow retention and weight distribution on the panels if they are relocated horizontally. Commissioner Edwards asked if there is any type of design concept for the new building. Mr. Aronson replied in the negative and showed a mood board with some very conceptual ideas. He commented on Section 3.4.7 criteria that the exterior should have a similar size of material to the historic resource, and given that is all stucco and concrete which is scaleless, there is a question as to the cladding of the new building. Mr. Schroyer requested the Commission provide specific feedback as to whether the panels can be relocated as the second floor cannot be rented without that change and that may make the project infeasible. Public Input None. Commission Discussion Chair Rose noted the two written comments provided to the Commission, one from the DDA Director, were sympathetic to the need for a development like this, but were also sensitive to the fact the proposed design would drastically change what is seen in the eligible structure. Commissioner Nelsen noted staff has identified a number of the Secretary of the Interior standards that would not be met by moving the panels. She stated she does not believe there has been sufficient documentation as to why the project would not be feasible unless the panels were moved. She stated modifying the brise soleil screen as proposed seems like it takes away the essence of the building. Mr. Schroyer stated the team has looked at different options, including cutting the panels, but are trying to respect them. He noted the Clark building on campus removed all of its panels. Commissioner Nelsen also commented on the possible impacts of snow on the historic material if the panels were to be oriented horizontally. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Packet Pg. 9 Page 6 Commissioner Woodlee read from the Secretary of the Interior website a passage noting it may be difficult or impossible to convert some special use properties for new uses without major exterior alterations resulting in loss of historic character and integrity. Chair Rose noted eligibility is often determined by character-defining features and stated the brise soleil is such a dominant feature on the building, perhaps the most important character-defining feature. He questioned whether the building would even be eligible without that feature. Mr. Aronson asked Commissioners would rather see the panels be kept intact and relocated; therefore, they could be relocated exactly as they are now at some point in the future, or be cut where the windows are located on all four sides, which he stated the design team felt to be more invasive and disrespectful to the panels themselves. Commissioner Wilson stated the vertical nature of the panels is important and noted the snow load on them if they were oriented horizontally could be prohibitively expensive. Chair Rose suggested the possibility of piercing the panels to allow light in while still leaving them in place. Commissioner Nelsen concurred the screens are important but there may be a way to modify them that better follows the Secretary of the Interior standards a bit more closely. Commissioner Carlock suggested piercing the panels while maintaining their overall framework may place the Commission in the same position with the Secretary of the Interior standards. She suggested window coverings will likely block west and east facing windows anyway. She noted the Secretary of the Interior standards allow for modifications if a project meets a strong community need, which this project does not do as it is not affordable housing. She asked if the project would essentially be infeasible without additional light coming in those windows. Mr. Schroyer replied it likely would. Commissioner Wilson asked if the contract on the property is contingent. Mr. Schroyer replied in the affirmative and stated this property will be hindered with this problem moving forward and noted it could be sitting vacant for decades to come with no one maintaining the historic components. Chair Rose noted the Secretary of the Interior standards are subjective. He encouraged the design team to look at some alternatives and noted the Commission is open to considering the difficulties the team has in making a useful project. Commissioner Nelsen commented on the fourth-floor addition eliminating the skylight and asked Commissioners to weigh in. Commissioner Gibson expressed concern about that possibility and stated that even though the skylight cannot be seen from the street, it seems to be a substantial architectural feature of the structure. Chair Rose stated he would have a hard time identifying the skylight as a character-defining feature because it is not visible from the exterior and the interior is not part of the Commission’s purview. Mr. Schroyer noted the skylight provides issues in that it goes through the entire building making the programming of the interior difficult. Commissioner Carlock stated the inside of the building is the best part and the way the light comes in from the skylight is defining; however, she noted the Commission is not called upon to pass judgment on interior features. Mr. Aronson asked if the Commission is opposed to adding on the fourth floor if there is some way to potentially retain the skylight in some fashion from the fourth floor. Mr. Schroyer stated the fourth floor and removal of the skylight is important as the atrium portion of the building would not work for the proposed use. Chair Rose reiterated his opinion that the skylight is out of the Commission’s purview and stated the proposed fourth floor is designed as it should be. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DR A F T Packet Pg. 10 Page 7 Commissioner Nelsen stated there could be differing opinions on the skylight. She also noted the pedestrian bridge is also worth discussing. Mr. Schroyer stated the pedestrian bridge was placed to provide access from the bank building to the covered parking and was raised to allow for the continuation of the alleyway from Lucky’s Market into downtown. Commissioner Nelsen stated the issue is more the placement of the pedestrian bridge in relation to the original building as it may be too high. Mr. Aronson stated lowering it could be explored but it was placed at the third level as there may potentially be fire access requirements. Additionally, ADA access would be maintained as the third floors of the buildings would be aligned. Commissioner Nelsen commented on the possibility of adding a story to the new building and eliminating the fourth floor on the original building. Commissioner Carlock asked how many office spaces currently exist on the second floor. Mr. Schroyer replied he could provide that information but was unsure. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Jim Rose, Chair ,7(0$77$&+0(17 '5 $ ) 7  3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 21, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1011 W. MAGNOLIA ST. STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Single-family dwellings that are at least fifty years old and are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-family dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. Community members receive notice about that demolition via a posted sign on the property, the City’s weekly newsletter “This Week in Development Review” and monthly “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter, and on the City website at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for approval to demolish a single-family dwelling via either a demolition permit or written request from the owner accompanied by current photos of the property proposed for demolition and confirmation that the proposed new construction would be another single-family residence. The property is included in the next available consent agenda for a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code if they believe it is eligible as a City landmark. The code allows for three or more residents of the City, the Historic Preservation Commission (by motion), or any City Councilmember (by written request) to initiate the process for landmark designation. 1011 W. Magnolia St. Historical Background The property at 1011 W. Magnolia St. was built in 1925 for Richard Irl Mawson, who owned Mawson Lumber Company. Richard and his wife, Isabell, had a son, Wallace, who was the first resident of this property in 1927, according to the available City Directories. He moved out by 1929, and the house was owner-occupied for many years by various owners. The longest tenants of 1011 W. Magnolia St. were Alex and Pauline Watson. The Watsons lived at this location from 1956 until 1988, according to City Directories (Alex alone was listed after 1984). While living at this house, Alex worked briefly as a salesman for Aetna Trailers and also for Pease Home Improvement for a handful of years. Alex was noted as the owner of an apartment building at 2515 Laporte Ave. (Mountain View Apartments) starting in 1959, and he and Pauline were described as partners in Mountain View Apartments starting in 1966, with just Alex listed after 1984. There is no historical survey record available for this property. The proposed demolition includes the single-family residence, garage, and shed. Construction History DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 9/10/1925 1227 R.I. Mawson Build frame 30x40 residence, five rooms, full basement, RC shingle roof, stucco exterior, oak Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION floors, 20' from Magnolia and 3' from alley: floor joist 2x10 oc 16, rafters 2x6, studding 2x4 oc 6, ceiling joists 2x4 oc 16, double plates and headers; $5000 estimated cost 6/8/1961 4669 Mr. and Mrs. Alex Watson Carport on garage, patio on side of building 3/16/1978 60540 Alex Watson Reroof with asphalt shingles 6/28/1994 941945 Alex Watson Underground sprinkler system 4/5/2005 -- James E. Kramer Note on Building Code Violation letter dated 3/4/2005 for required removal of damaged metal awning on east side of house. Noted repaired 4/5/2005. 9/9/2014 B1407756 James E. Kramer Reroofing Residents YEAR NAME(S) NOTES 1925 Address not yet listed 1927 Wallace R. Mawson Student CAC 1929 John S. and Lillie E. Schalk John - manager of lands Union Oil Co. of California (h) 1931 Fred M. and Vivian W. Smith Fred - Smith Battery & Electric Service (h) 1933 same Vivian also listed Smith Battery & Electric Service (h) 1934 same same 1936 Edgar A. and Eda G. Shinn Both - Patterson-Shinn Drug Co. (h) 1938 same same 1940 Edward A. (?) and Eda Shinn Edward - Shinn's Pharmacy (h) 1948 Robert C. and Helen Heath Robert - Heath Engineering Co. (h) 1950 same Robert - President Heath Engineering Co. (h) 1952 Samuel W. (Colonel?) and Sarah Parks Samuel - Air Force ROTC Colo A&M (h) 1954 Samuel W. (Colonel?) and Sara S. Parks Samuel - US Air Force - prof & head ROTC Colo A&M (o) 1956 James A. and Pauline Watson No emp listed (o) 1957 same same 1959 J. Alexander and Pauline Watson James - owner manager Apts. 2515 Laporte Ave. (o) 1960 same James - Aetna Trailer Salesman (o) 1962 same same 1963 J. Alex and Pauline Watson James - apartment owner and employee Pease Home Improvement (o) 1964 Alex and Pauline Watson Alex - owner Mountain View Apartments (o) Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 1966 Alex J. and Pauline Watson Both - Partners Mountain View Apartments; Alex - owner Pease Home Improvement (o) 1968 same Both - same; Alex - employee Pease Home Improvement 1969 same same 1970 same Both - same; Alex no longer listed with Pease Home Improvement (o) 1971 same same 1972 same same 1973 same same 1975 same same (Watsons listed here until 1988) 1948 Tax Assessor Photo Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 1968 Tax Assessor Photo 1977 Tax Assessor Photo ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Photos Packet Pg. 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 NRUtK EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 16 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 EaVt EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 17 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 NRUtKeaVt CRUQeU Packet Pg. 18 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 NRUtKZeVt CRUQeU Packet Pg. 19 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 6RXtK EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 20 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 6RXtKZeVt CRUQeU Packet Pg. 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 :eVt EOeYatLRQ 12 Packet Pg. 22 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 :eVt EOeYatLRQ 22 Packet Pg. 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 *aUage  :eVt EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 24 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 *aUage  EaVt EOeYatLRQ 12 Packet Pg. 25 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 *aUage  EaVt EOeYatLRQ 22 Packet Pg. 26 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 *aUage  NRUtK EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 27 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 *aUage  6RXtK EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 6KeG  EaVt EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 29 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 6KeG  NRUtK EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 30 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 6KeG  6RXtK EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 31 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 6KeG  :eVt EOeYatLRQ Packet Pg. 32 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 21, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING JANUARY 4 TO FEBRUARY 7) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist 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). For cases where a project can be reviewed/approved without referral to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) through the issuance of 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 are also 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. Packet Pg. 33 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 Education & Outreach Activities Part of the mission of the Historic Preservation Services division is to educate the public about local, place- based history, historic preservation, and preservation best practices. Below are highlights from the last month in this area. Program Title Sponsor-Audience- Partner Description # of Attendees Date of Event/Activity Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Celebration Colorado State University, Poudre School District, Larimer County, Poudre Libraries, Front Range Community College, The BIPOC Alliance Historic Preservation Services staff provided educational materials, including walking tour brochures, civil rights history information, and posters related to Black history in Fort Collins Several hundred Jan. 15, 2024 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 247 Linden St. (Robertson/Haynes Block (south)/Joe's Auto Upholstery) Sign. Contributing property to Old Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval Jan. 4, 2024 608 Whedbee St. (Cullen House) New detached garage. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval Jan. 4, 2024 237 West St. (Sondburg House) Two basement egress windows. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval Jan. 11, 2024 631 Peterson St. (McCurry Residence) New detached garage. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval Jan. 18, 2024 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 232 E Vine (Alexander and Emma Barry Farm Property) Proposed addition of 10,000 square foot office building and parking (Conceptual Development Review) Referred to Landmark Design Review process January 25, 2024 Packet Pg. 34 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 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 Ave. Eligible; **Appealed by applicant – HPC hearing April 17, 2024 Yes August 25, 2023 818 & 818.5 Sycamore St. Eligible (818.5 only) Yes Jan. 19, 2024 National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Note: Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small cell/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do not appear in the table below. National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment Issued N/A Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3) Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower’s installation. These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers. This report section will summarize activities in this area. Within this period, staff processed a total of 1 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 0 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 35 Headline Copy Goes Here February 21, 2024 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation PlannerYani Jones, Historic Preservation PlannerRebekah Schields, Historic Preservation SpecialistMaren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Historic Preservation Commission Staff Activity Report Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Design Review Highlight 237 West St. (Sondburg House) Awarded Landmark Rehabilitation Loan for installation of two basement egress windows *Landmark Rehab Loan applications are now on a rolling deadline – Contact Historic Preservation Services staff for a pre-application meeting at preservation@fcgov.com or 970-224-6078. 1 2 ,7(0 3 A77ACH0(N7 1 PacNet Pg. 3 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Survey Highlight Lee Suniga Property – 818/818.5 Sycamore St. Landmark Eligible (818.5 only) Notable for its association with important Fort Collins figure Lee Suniga. Mr. Suniga was a well- known figure in the Hispanic community, both in community organizing and in baseball, and is the namesake of Suniga Road in north Fort Collins. His family owned the larger property for most of the mid-20th century, and he lived in the house known as 818.5 Sycamore St. on this site. 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 ,7(0 3 A77ACH0(N7 1 PacNet Pg. 37