HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/14/2024 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Work SessionPage 1
Jim Rose, Chair Location:
Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held
Margo Carlock IN PERSON at
Chris Conway City Hall, 300 LaPorte Ave
Jenna Edwards
Jeff Gaines
Aaron Hull Staff Liaison:
David Woodlee Maren Bzdek
Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager
Work Session
August 14, 2024
5:30 PM
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.
Historic Preservation Commission
AGENDA
All Commission Members in quasi-judicial matters, must be in person according to
Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code.
IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
No public comment is allowed during work sessions. Members of the public may observe the meeting
but will not be allowed to comment at the meeting.
The public may comment in the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission which will be
held in person on August 21, 2024. Information on how to participate is contained in the agenda for that
meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/boards/historic-preservation.
Documents to share: Members of the public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or
written comments for the Commission to consider regarding any item on the agenda must email them at
least 48 hours prior to the August 21, 2024 meeting to preservation@fcgov.com.
Packet Pg. 1
Page 2
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• REVIEW OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2024, AT 5:30 P.M. VIA ZOOM AND IN-PERSON
(Please see the agenda for the August 21, 2024, meeting for information on how to join that meeting.)
CONSENT
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2024
DISCUSSION
2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING
3. 130 S. WHITCOMB ST. (KLURE/WILLIAMS PROPERTY) – FINAL LANDMARK
DESIGN REVIEW
4. 201 LINDEN STREET (LINDEN HOTEL) – DESIGN REVIEW (CONTINUED FROM
JULY 17, 2024)
• BOARD TOPICS
1. HPC Work Plan Progress & Priorities
2. HPC Training – Staff Discretion & Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV and
Land Use Code 5.8.1
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 2
Board Topic 1, Page 1
DATE:
STAFF:
August 14, 2024
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM 1
Historic Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
HPC Work Plans – 2024 Progress and Priorities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Code requires all boards and commissions to file work plans on or before September 30 for the following year.
According to the Boards and Commissions Manual, work plans should set out major projects and issues for
discussion for the following year. The HPC adopted the attached 2024 work plan at its November 08, 2023 meeting.
Consideration of pending priorities associated with the work plan will be a regular work session discussion item.
The regular recurrence of this discussion item is intended to provide the Commission with the opportunity to
measure ongoing progress and identify action items.
ATTACHMENTS
1. HPC 2024 Work Plan
2. Letter – Historic Preservation for the Future
Packet Pg. 3
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
BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 4
• 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.
BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 5
Dear Colleagues of the Historic Preservation Board,
At its best, historic preservation can give a community a robust and inclusive story told
through the built environment. This is often done by stopping or slowing change to the built
environment, thereby saving the historical fabric of the community. But freezing the built
environment has costs. People need places to live, jobs to work, places to congregate and
the needs of a community change over time. There is a risk that by preserving the
architectural fabric of a place you end up harming the social fabric of that place.
However, creating a flourishing community and preserving its cultural history can coexist
with each other to create vibrant, inclusive, and culturally rich neighborhoods. The goals
set forth in our workplan are an excellent roadmap for successful historical practice, but
we may need to think creatively to achieve these goals. By embracing innovative policies
and practices, we can ensure that our cities provide ample housing opportunities while
preserving the unique historical and architectural heritage that defines them.
The outcome of our recent landmark eligibility at 2601 S College, the Ghent dealership, is
an instance in which I think our process did not live up to our goals and aspirations. I think it
highlights the need to rethink our processes to align them with our stated goals.
I’d like to say at the outset that I think staff and the Commission all acted entirely
appropriately throughout the process. The staff gave an excellent and thorough
presentation which provided all the information the commission could need and clearly
outlined the standard that it was to be weighed against. Significance and Integrity as
criteria for historic landmark eligibility were explained clearly and laid out well.
The commissioners gave defensible reasons why they thought 2601 S College fit the
eligibility criteria and spoke well.
But the outcome of the process did not live up to our aspirations as a board. The fact that
everyone acted appropriately and conducted themselves well only serves to highlight the
need to take a hard look at the processes that led to that outcome.
Reasons for Concern at the Outcome
Housing Affordability: “Support Building an Equitable, Affordable, and Vibrant
Community.”
As everybody knows, housing prices in Fort Collins have exploded over the last 10 years
and especially over the last 5 years. This is because supply has not been able to meet
surging demand. That has led to an explosion in housing costs. In response, the governor,
the state legislature and the city have been trying to address the housing shortage. The
reason for this focus is simple. Colorado citizens rate housing affordability as their top
BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 6
concern.
The proposed development is a mixed-use project with 400-500 homes a stone’s throw
from Fort Collins’s only rapid transit line. These are the types of projects that have a chance
to put a dent in the affordability crisis. To the extent that historic preservation is thwarting
the creation of this many homes in a housing shortage, it is not living up to its goal of
building an “equitable, affordable, and vibrant community.”
Equity: “Support Building an Equitable, Affordable, and Vibrant Community.”
Gentrification occurs when neighborhoods, often historically marginalized and
underinvested, experience an influx of investment and higher-income residents. While this
process can bring much-needed economic revitalization and improved services, it also
frequently displaces long-time residents and erodes the unique cultural and historical
character of these communities. This often happens because well-resourced communities
are better able to push development into lower-income parts of town. The creation of new
housing positions communities to capture the benefits of new investment, rather than be
pushed out by it.
Climate: “Strengthen Connection to Climate Resilience Work”
40% of the state’s emissions are from transportation. This is driven in large part by car-
centric land use patterns. Apartment buildings near transit are exactly the type of
development that can change this dynamic. People who live near transit and near jobs and
services drive much less. These kinds of projects can help change our current situation in
which 40,000 people drive into Fort Collins every day for work and school. An analysis from
Berkeley shows that infill development is often the #1 lever local governments have to
address the housing crisis. Historic Preservation is a part of that.
If historic preservation is going to help rather than hinder efforts to fight climate change,
we must make sure we have processes that do facilitate infill development.
Possible Solutions
• Acknowledge the importance of housing supply
o Review processes to find ways to make historic review faster and
automatic if possible
o Incorporate an understanding that delay, paperwork, and
administrative hurdles raise costs and hurt affordability.
• Incorporate public engagement potential as a criteria
o The goal of historic preservation is to tell a story to the public.
o Arterial streets are difficult places to experience history because they
are primarily places of transit.
BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 7
o They are places you pass by not places you stop and reflect. We
should try to incorporate this into our eligibility decisions
• Reverse Family vs Multifamily exemptions
o Currently development review is required for anything except single-
family homes.
o This privileges single-family homeowners.
o This goes against our equity goals as homeowners are richer, older,
and less diverse than renters.
o Multifamily projects accommodate more families and therefore affect
more people. They should be given preference on this basis.
o Multifamily projects are greener and should be subject to less
stringent requirements.
• Remove design requirements adjacent to historic resources.
o This could streamline the approval process for many properties
across the city.
o Layering different eras of architecture can create a vibrant and
distinctive neighborhood pattern.
o Old town is full of buildings from distinct times directly next to each
other. This adds rather than detracts from their historic value.
• Prospective eligibility determinations
o Identify a finite number of buildings needed to tell the story of Fort
Collins. These could change over time as priorities are set and new
stories are uncovered.
o Focus on protecting these and using them to tell our story.
o Infill and transit projects that do not interfere with these pre-decided
properties should be exempt for climate, affordability and equity
reasons.
• Automatic approval of ADUs
o ADUs provide cheaper housing with minimal disruption to
neighborhoods. We should exempt them from historic review before
the board.
o Have staff develop clear criteria for automatic design approval of
detached ADUs
• Robust Digital Tools
o Invest in digital documentation and display technology.
o This includes extensive photos/VR technology.
o Improve accessibility of resources to the public.
• Focus on telling the story, rather than expanding the story.
We have an exciting opportunity to make Fort Collins’ history a vital part of its future. To do
so we need to acknowledge that our goal is not to freeze the city in place. Our goal is to use
historic architecture to make history relevant and immediate to the people of Fort Collins.
That means saving buildings. But it also means making rules that will allow Fort Collins to
BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 8
be the vibrant, thriving place it has been since its inception. It means making sure we are
not preventing the next generation of architects from creating the buildings future
generations will want to preserve. It means believing that the best of Fort Collins is not
past, it is yet to come.
Thanks for your consideration,
Chris Conway
BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 9
Board Topic 2, Page 1
DATE:
STAFF:
August 14, 2024
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
2
Historic Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
HPC Training – Staff Discretion & Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV and Land Use Code 5.8.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a training for members of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding project reviews that affect
historic buildings under multiple different code scenarios (i.e., varying levels of decision-making power on the part
of the HPC). This training will remind the HPC about the basic code framework, explain when and how City staff
exercises their discretion to review projects as opposed to referring to the HPC, and provide an opportunity to
discuss shifts in the current approach. This topic will last about 20 minutes.
Commissioners are encouraged to come with questions about City project review in its various contexts. While
these may not be covered in the meeting, they may become topics for future work sessions.
Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV:
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CH14LAPR_ARTIVDEREPRALDERE
LUC 5.8.1 (via Article V) is available online, here (use the Table of Contents link to navigate directly to 5.8.1):
https://www.fcgov.com/planning-development-services/files/article-5-general-development-and-site-
design.pdf?1715205121
The Historic Preservation Division’s development review information is available online, here:
https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/development-review
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 10
Headline Copy Goes Here
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Jim Bertolini
Managing the HPC
Docket:
The How & Why of Staff
Discretion
Aug 14, 2024
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Why This Training?
• Reminder on code framework
• Outline of how staff manages the HPC docket (vs. approving as staff)
• Gather feedback on adjustments
1
2
BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
Headline Copy Goes HereFort Collins – Preservation Codes
3
• Chapter 14 of Municipal Code
• Includes Designated & Non-
Designated Resources
• Covers
•Policies, Purposes, &
Definitions
•Designation Standards &
Processes (also survey)
•Project Review process
•Landmark Loan Program
• Land Use Code 5.8.1
• Development Review
• Includes non-designated
resources on development sites
• Includes most permitted projects
on non-single family property
•Standards for evaluation and
treatment housed in Chapter 14
Headline Copy Goes Here
Staff contact
•Identify best practices
•Identify potential
funding
•Approve small or
compliant projects
HPC – Conceptual
Review
•Discussion w/
applicant
•Can be waived for
simple projects
HPC – Final
Review
•Quasi-judicial
•Decision-maker
Article IV – How Do We Take Care of It?
4
• Article IV – Review of
Alterations
• Applicability - exteriors
• Adoption of federal
preservation standards
• Discretion for staff approvals
• Process for HPC review
• How Do We Take Care of It?
• Follow federal standards
and/or adopted local
standards/guidelines
• Be consistent
• Be fair
• Be reasonable
3
4
BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
Headline Copy Goes HereChapter 14, Article IV Review (Designated) – Staff Decisions?
5
• City Landmarks
• Code language: For resources requiring a
certificate of appropriateness:
• Staff may refer any application to the HPC
• Staff must deny any application that doesn’t meet
the Standards
•Can be appealed
• National or State Register
• Code language: For resources requiring a report:
• Same as City Landmarks
• Generally default to staff review in all cases
Vs.
Headline Copy Goes HereCity Landmarks/Chapter 14 – Staff Discretion
6
• Most projects that meet the Standards, staff
approves
• Includes:
• Roofing
• Window repair/rehab, or replacement when window
study confirms necessity
• Repointing/repair of masonry
• Minor rear/side/rooftop modifications (decks,
detached structures, secondary entries, rooftop solar,
etc.)
• Staff generally no longer refers advisory reviews
(for NRHP/State-listed properties) to the HPC at
all, even if property would become non-historic.
• Staff generally refers the following to the HPC:
• Work that doesn’t meet the Standards but may have
merit for approval (Waiver of Conditions)
• Major/visible projects like additions, front
modifications, etc. (that do meet the Standards)
• Project reviews that would benefit from further
technical input from HPC expertise
5
6
BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
Headline Copy Goes Here
Staff identifies if
historic resources
are affected
• Development
Review process
Staff provides
guidance to
applicant on
project design
HPC (or staff)
gives a
recommendation
to Decision-maker
• HPC Hearing
Considers
information &
recc’s &
approves/denies
project
Decision-makers?
• P&Z Commission
• Admin Hearing Officer
• Planning Staff
Land Use Code 5.8.1 - Process
7
• One input point in larger
development review
• Role of HPC/Staff?
• Recommend approval,
approval w/ conditions, or
denial to the Decision-
maker
• Historic survey
completed
• Conceptual/Preliminary
Review
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Non-Landmark Development Review – Staff Discretion
• Code Language: Projects requiring HPC
recommendation to decision-maker:
• Sits with HPC to make recommendation
• Director (staff) may waive if no adverse
effect/compatible
• Most projects that meet the 5.8.1 Standards,
staff provides a supportive comment
• Includes:
• Smaller rear & side additions on historic buildings
• New development where nearby historic resources
(within 200ft) are non-abutting
• Staff generally refers the following to the HPC:
• Work directly on an historic resource that doesn’t
meet Standards
• New development abutting an historic resource
•may recommend a conceptual review as well
7
8
BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
5
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
What Factors go into Staff Review vs. HPC referral?
• Project design – how well / not well
the project is meeting the code
requirements and those requiring
additional professional opinion
• Harmony House (Ziegler
Farmhouse), addition (Minor
Amendment)
• Prominence of resource/project
• Projects near well-known resources
where public input/engagement is
important
•Trolley Carbarn & 209 Cherry
development
• Projects where public controversy is
anticipated
•Want public engagement
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Areas to Consider
• Landmark Design Review
• Any?
• Development Review
• Align staff review with level of development review?
• Minor Amendments and BDR (Basic Development Review) are staff-only typically but can have significant effects on
historic resources
•Many affordable housing projects are BDRs
• Design compatibility
• Should staff avoid conceptual development review altogether/reduce recommendations?
•Pros: Is not code-required and could help reduce staff hours and applicant costs
•Cons:
⎻Risks project design not being as final (but post-HPC design changes frequently happen, although they’re limited in scope)
⎻Applicants sometimes want a conceptual review for assurance, or if there’s significant community concern on infill
• Others?
9
10
BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 15