Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - MINUTES - 08/21/2024Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Chris Conway Jenna Edwards Jeff Gaines Aaron Hull Staff Liaison: David Woodlee Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting August 21, 2024 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Jenna Edwards, Jeff Gaines, Bonnie Gibson, Jim Rose, David Woodlee ABSENT: Chris Conway and Aaron Hull STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek reviewed the published agenda. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS ON OR NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •CONSENT AGENDA 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2024. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 17, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Historic Preservation Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carlock, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an update on the landmark nomination for the Chavez/Ambriz/Gonzales property at 724 Martinez Street. Jones stated Council adopted the first reading of the landmark ordinance last night and will consider the item on second reading on September 3rd. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP None. • 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 design reviews for 2300 West Mulberry Street, the Ricketts Farmhouse, and 215 Whedbee Street, the EJ Gregory Property. Ms. Jones provided an update on the repairs to the Johnson Barn and a reminder about the Historic Preservation newsletter. Commissioner Woodlee commended the work on the Johnson Barn and asked how long the repairs took. Ms. Bzdek replied the photos were sent about a week and a half ago, though it is likely the repairs were completed prior to that. 3. 130 S. WHITCOMB ST. (KLURE/WILLIAMS PROPERTY) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: on the Klure/Williams Property at 130 S. Whitcomb St., which contributes to the Whitcomb Street Landmark District established in 2013. The owner has waived conceptual design review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work. APPLICANT: STAFF: STAFF PRESENTATION Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, showed maps and images of the property and outlined the role of the Commission. Ms. Jones noted the property was designated as a contributing part of the Whitcomb Street Historic District, which was designated in January of 2013, and she discussed the history of the home and its residents. Ms. Jones outlined the proposed project to change the existing wood shingle roof to a Malarkey Vista asphalt shingle product due to a requirement from the property owner’s insurance company related to the need for fire resistant materials. Ms. Jones stated the conformance of this proposed project with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation depends upon whether the wood material of the roof is considered to be a character-defining feature of the home, and staff has found that the home includes many of the character-defining features of Queen Anne style architecture; therefore, the home’s ability to convey its architectural significance does not depend on the shingle roof being of a wood material. Ms. Jones stated staff is recommending the Commission issue a certificate of appropriateness. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Nancy York stated her parents bought the home at 130 South Whitcomb in 1938. She stated the roof has deteriorated, though there have been no leaks. She expressed the desire for the shingles to be durable and long-lasting. PUBLIC INPUT Kevin Murray noted this home can not be insured unless this roof is replaced and stated there is only one cedar roof left in the neighborhood. COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION Chair Rose asked if the low-sloped roof over the porch currently has cedar shingles and whether the proposed product would function in that space. Mr. Murray replied the front porch roof does have cedar shingles and, if replaced, an ice and weather shield for low-pitch will be installed. Commissioner Carlock made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gibson, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with asphalt shingles at the Klure/Williams property at 130 South Whitcomb Street as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. Vice Chair Gibson stated the home has many character-defining features and concurred with staff that the material of the roof is not a character-defining feature. Commissioner Carlock stated there is some discussion about revising the Secretary of the Interior standards related to replacing roofing material with the same, particularly considering wildfire threats. Commissioner Edwards concurred with the previous statements and suggested the new shingles should be in the dark brown or grey family. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. 201 LINDEN ST. (LINDEN HOTEL) – DESIGN REVIEW (CONTINUED FROM JULY 17, 2024) DESCRIPTION: replacement of the historic windows on the second and third floors of the building. APPLICANT: 148 Remington Street, Ste 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, noted this item was continued from the July hearing and noted this item is a request for a final design of the proposed request for window replacement on the upper story windows of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street. He noted the updated window study completed by Deep Roots Craftsmen is in the packet and stated the primary takeaway from that study was that the windows are candidates for either significant repair or replacement. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the building and its restoration over time. Additionally, he detailed the character-defining features of the building, which include the windows. Mr. Bertolini noted the standards focus on repair rather than replacement due to the connection to historic craftsmanship and historic materials as well as material conservation. Additionally, many windows can be retrofitted to meet modern energy performance requirements in the Energy Conservation Code; however, it is notable that windows only account for about ten percent of a building’s energy loss. In terms of window replacement, it is only approved once replacement is either not possible or practical. Mr. Bertolini outlined the tiered approach utilized for preservation which places more emphasis on street-facing windows and street level windows. Replacement standards typically call for replacement in-kind with some exceptions on dimensions, materials, and the like. Mr. Bertolini provided information on the Commission’s questions from the previous meeting and reiterated that all second and third story windows are being requested to be replaced with the metal clad product previously discussed by the applicant. Mr. Bertolini outlined the additions that have been included in the Commission’s packet since the previous meeting and discussed the conclusions from the window study report, primarily that the windows are in need of serious repair or replacement. He stated staff’s analysis is that the window sashes are compromised and significant intervention, including potential replacement, is warranted. Mr. Bertolini provided an analysis of a waiver of conditions and stated staff does not believe the requirements for a waiver based on nominal and inconsequential is met due to the Old Town Design Standards requirement for substitute materials to be in-kind unless unavailable, and in this case, wood windows are still in common use and are relatively easy to manufacture. Mr. Bertolini stated staff’s recommendation matches that of Deep Roots Craftsmen’s primary recommendation, option C, which is a partial replacement of the windows to repair and stabilize the upper sashes, and option F, which would replace in-kind the lower sashes with a newly designed and installed storm window. Additionally, Mr. Bertolini noted full in-kind window replacement would also meet the Old Town Design Standards and would be warranted as a consideration. Mr. Bertolini stated the recommendation is for the treatment to apply to all second and third story windows and clarified that the Old Town Design Standards do allow for exterior storm windows even on buildings that may not have had them historically as long as the glazing pattern matches. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Claire Havelda, attorney representing the applicant team, expressed concern about the Deep Roots Craftsmen’s report stating it includes the false narrative that the owners failed to take care of the building which is why the windows are in such a state of disrepair. Ms. Havelda noted there was no attempt to speak with the owners who would have been able to attest to the fact that there were virtually no pulleys or ropes left in the windows well in advance of 2018 when they purchased the building. Additionally, Ms. Havelda noted the window that fell out of the building was the result of the upper sash failing and the Deep Roots report does not include recommendations for the repair of the upper sashes. Ms. Havelda reiterated the fundamental design flaw of the windows, that they are too small for their casings, and noted there is no analysis of that issue in the Deep Roots report. Additionally, she stated the addition of storm windows would be incredibly difficult for windows this size and stated most storm windows are inoperable which would negate the operability of the regular window. Ms. Havelda also stated her reading of the Old Town Design Standards is that storm windows would not be allowed because they did not exist previously. Ms. Havelda also expressed concern the Deep Roots report is devoid of analysis of how the repairs would meet climate action goals or the rights of the property owners. Additionally, she stated the cost analysis provided in the report was confusing, contradictory, and devoid of an inflation factor. Mark Wernimont, Colorado Sash & Door, detailed the proposed replacement windows and reiterated that the upper sashes are failing and need to be replaced. He also discussed the costs that will be associated with replacement and noted there is a wood window replacement option. He commented on historic buildings with both the wood and aluminum clad windows he has installed. Ms. Havelda stated the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission must be taken into consideration as the Commission makes this determination, and its job is to stabilize and improve the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of historic sites and structures. She stated the Deep Roots report fails to improve aesthetics by recommending exterior storm windows and fails to improve the economic vitality of the historic site by recommending extremely costly repairs. Ms. Havelda stated the proposed replacement windows are visually identical from the street level and stated this process these owners have been through does not encourage people to purchase historic buildings. PUBLIC INPUT Karen McWilliams, former City Historic Preservation Manager, stated this building is designated as an individual Fort Collins landmark for its history and architecture, every part of which goes into making up the building. McWilliams stated wholesale window replacement is not appropriate as it starts to chip away at the historic fabric of the building and stated replacement should be considered only when repair is not possible, and if some of the windows cannot be repaired, only those should be replaced. McWilliams also stated metal clad windows are never appropriate for historic buildings such as this one. Additionally, McWilliams read the Old Town Design Standard related to storm windows, which she stated would be allowed, and stated the owners’ failure to come before the Commission in 2018 prior to doing renovations at that time has led to the current issues. Ms. Havelda objected to the length of time Ms. McWilliams was allowed to speak and to her comments, stating in particular that the last comment was based on conjecture and should be struck from the record. Chair Rose stated this is not a legal proceeding and stated the comments will be included in the minutes; however, in terms of it being struck, that will be at the discretion of the conclusion of the meeting in terms of the outcome. Kevin Murray discussed his experience rehabbing historic windows. He stated the Deep Roots report was very in depth and covered everything it should have and discussed window rehabilitation in the building in 2005 that was completed by the previous owner. Additionally, Murray stated maintenance should have been done on the windows and he commented on participating in a seminar with Mark Wernimont and Utilities regarding retrofitting historic windows to accomplish energy efficiency goals. David Diehl, OneSeven Advisors, owner’s representative, stated the proper steps were followed with Historic Preservation in 2018 and stated the Secretary of the Interior standards were updated over thirty years ago; therefore, they include no anticipation of new materials, processes, or abilities. He stated the owners have approached this with the best of intentions for historic preservation as well. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting to inspect a sample replacement window that was brought into Chambers.) Chair Rose reviewed questions that were asked when looking at the window, including where the screen belongs. Mr. Wernimont replied screens are not being proposed at this point, though it has been suggested to the owners that they raise the lower sash and install an expandable screen which can be painted to match the building under the sash should screens be desired. Additionally, Mr. Wernimont noted there were no screens originally. Chair Rose asked about the size of the check rail. Mr. Wernimont replied what is seen when looking at the window is what is referred to as the check rail, and that includes where the top of the lower sash and the bottom of the upper sash come together. He stated the new windows are bigger by about 3/8 to 1/4 of an inch over a 104-inch-tall window to meet the required wind loading and have a place to hold the weather stripping. He stated the distance between the edge of the brick and the edge of the glass is within a quarter of an inch of the existing and stated double-hung windows are preferred so service work can be done from the interior. Commissioner Gaines asked about the lining on the head of the window. Mr. Wernimont replied the sample that is present has pieces that are beige in color; however, if they were installed in the building, those pieces would be black, which is the same color as the inside of the window. Commissioner Woodlee asked if the tape balance system is more or less appropriate in terms of being a retrofit for a weighted rope pulley system which has been removed from the windows. Mr. Wernimont replied the piece was developed to replace the pulley and ropes which fail over time, and it is almost impossible to buy as good of a sash cord today as it was ten to thirty years ago. He detailed the operation of the tape balance system. Commissioner Woodlee asked if the windows have already been purchased for this project. Mr. Wernimont replied two or three were already installed in the building on the alley side. APPLICANT RESPONSE Ms. Havelda stated these owners are not in any way attempting to chip away at historic character and are trying to keep visual conformity with the historic aspects of the building while also taking care of its structural integrity. Additionally, Ms. Havelda stated there is no situation in which the Historic Preservation Department and Commission would have allowed the owners to do what they wished with the building in 2018 as was previously suggested. Ms. Havelda also stated the statement that metal clad windows are never appropriate does not consider climate action goals and forward-looking nature the owners have of attempting to care for the building for the next hundred years. Ms. Havelda reiterated her statement that the Old Town Design Standards would require the storm windows to be placed on the interior of the building and stated the Historic Preservation Commission does not have the authority to regulate the building’s interior. STAFF RESPONSE Mr. Bertolini stated staff understands that metal clad windows are approved on many preservation projects and are a standard replacement product in commercial rehabilitation environments; however, the main nuance in this case relates to the Old Town Landmark District and Old Town Design Standards, which include a much narrower path to using substitute materials. Jon Sargent, Deep Roots Craftsmen, outlined the findings of his report and reiterated his belief that the windows can be salvaged. COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION Commissioner Carlock requested additional information as to the energy efficiency aspect of each window. Mr. Wernimont discussed the importance of thermal performance of the windows given that 30% of the wall is window and stated a standard piece of glass has an R value of 1, a basic insulated piece of glass has an R value of 2, and a new window with gas and the latest low E coatings can bring it to an R value of 5. The proposed window would have an R value of 3.2. He noted window replacement with insulated glass should only occur after other energy efficiency tasks have been completed, including insulating the roof, which has already been done in this building. Mr. Sargent concurred with much of what Mr. Wernimont stated and noted exterior storm windows could be seen as being potentially as energy efficient as full replacement windows. Commissioner Gaines requested additional information from Mr. Wernimont regarding the new windows. Mr. Wernimont further detailed the window formation. Mr. Sargent stated leaving the upper sashes in place would simplify things. Mr. Wernimont stated he is of the opinion that the upper sashes need to be replaced because that is the piece that failed. He questioned how to rebuild the lower sashes and repair the sash that has failed. Commissioner Gaines asked about the risks of window replacement. Mr. Wernimont replied the openings may not be square, which needs to be planned for ahead of time to ensure the windows can be operated properly, and he detailed the procedure. Commissioner Gaines asked if Mr. Wernimont anticipates having to oversize the brick mold. Mr. Wernimont replied he would always oversize the brick mold to ensure he has the ability to ensure the window operates and seals properly. Commissioner Gaines asked Mr. Sargent if he sees any risks to the building from window replacement. Mr. Sargent replied any of the replacement options are dependent on proper installation and it may be that other alterations to the building are required, but that cannot be known at this time. Commissioner Carlock asked how many of the windows failed. Mr. Wernimont replied there was one instance of the glass hitting the street and he believed there was one other failure though the glass did not fall out. Additionally, he stated he saw two other check rails that were probably not repaired during the last work that need to be done at this time. Ms. Havelda stated Mr. Diehl just informed her there have been at least three failed windows. Commissioner Gaines asked about the costs of wood replacement windows versus extensive repair and necessary replacement. Mr. Wernimont replied he provided cost information for both the aluminum clad and wood windows in his rebuttal report and also included maintenance costs for the wood product. He also stated he included costs for adding storm windows to the Deep Roots estimates and the cost of both replacement with aluminum clad and wood, including maintenance, was lower than the Deep Roots estimate. Commissioner Woodlee asked about the implicit failures that could occur with the proposed replacement windows. Mr. Wernimont replied the company that he is working with has been in business for over 70 years and he has been distributing the product for over 30 years, and there are windows in the this area that have been here over 50 years that his company is still servicing. He stated some weather stripping may need to be replaced with the new windows, though the insulated glass has a 20-year warranty and is easily replaceable and the balance mechanisms can still be purchased for the 50-year-old windows. He stated he believes the windows would easily last 30 to 40 years without significant restoration if properly painted and maintained. Commissioner Carlock asked about the functionality of the tape balance system. Mr. Wernimont replied there is only one company still making them and they are limited in their size and weight capabilities. He stated he uses the spiral balances as they are made by multiple companies and are serviceable in the future. Commissioner Carlock asked if there is a system other than the tape balance that could be used if the windows were to be repaired according to option C or replaced according to option B with wood windows. Mr. Sargent replied the only other option would be going back with weights, but that would involve cutting open the jams, removing the insulation, rebuilding the jams, and going back in with the original weights and pulleys, which would be the most historically accurate, but substantially more expensive. Mr. Wernimont noted this size of commercial window historically frequently had chains rather than ropes, which could be a better solution, though going back into the weight pocket for replacement would not likely be a good solution. Chair Rose asked Mr. Sargent about the difference between options D and E, one to build new windows precisely like the existing windows, and one to use manufactured windows. Mr. Sargent replied the manufactured windows represent acquiring windows from a larger corporation type manufacturer versus a smaller custom shop which would construct all wood windows. He stated the proposed replacement windows would fall under option E. Chair Rose stated he does not believe exterior storm windows are a good solution as they would not preserve the character-defining feature that exists in the windows. Vice Chair Gibson concurred and stated wholesale replacement is also not the best option. She stated she would prefer to identify the windows that must be replaced and do so with in-kind windows. Commissioner Woodlee concurred and stated the fact that there are differing opinions and it is not the majority of windows that pose a safety risk. He also stated he does not disagree with the applicants in terms of what the Commission can regulate regarding interior storm windows. Commissioner Gaines also concurred that storm windows are not appropriate, nor are aluminum clad replacement windows. He acknowledged there is a concern for the owner with doing this process in a piecemeal fashion. He stated the issue is whether new manufactured windows would be appropriate as an in-kind replacement. Vice Chair Gibson concurred exterior storm windows should not be pursued and expressed concern about the wholesale manufactured aluminum clad replacement windows, though she also concurred piecemeal repairs would not be advantageous or cost-effective for the owner. She expressed support for replacement in-kind and allowing the owners to do a full replacement should they wish. Commissioner Carlock stated she understood the alternative that included replacement and repair to not necessarily be piecemeal but would involve restoration of the upper sashes and replacement of the lower sashes on all windows. Chair Rose replied the distinction is that not every window is in the same condition; therefore, it is piecemeal in that every window must be evaluated individually and a strategy has to be developed to be appropriate for every window. Mr. Bertolini clarified that both the applicant proposal and staff recommendation are both for a one- time repair or replacement, not to be done over time. Chair Rose questioned whether there is a sufficient distinction to merit to try to do a very careful restoration by reconstructing with new material versus using a manufactured product. He concurred with the previous comments about aluminum clad windows being inappropriate. Commissioner Woodlee noted both Mr. Wernimont and Mr. Sargent expressed concern about the depth of the sash being inadequate for a window this size and stated it feels a bit absurd to mandate the windows be replaced in-kind. Commissioner Carlock noted this is an iconic building and stated she is not as concerned about energy efficiency in terms of completely changing the historic fabric of the windows. Chair Rose stated he is not as concerned about saving all the fabric as he is about conserving energy in the building over the next 50 years. Commissioner Carlock concurred energy efficiency is important; however, she stated she does not believe these windows will make or break that issue. Commissioner Woodlee stated the Commission does not want to be seen as an obstruction body that is holding the arguably reasonable building improvement project hostage. He questioned whether the Commission could ask the applicant to return with future replacements that are more appropriate in construction, material, and color. Vice Chair Gibson stated she would like the applicant to not have to return to the Commission and would prefer the Commission require an in-kind replacement allowing the applicant to work with staff to develop that solution. Chair Rose stated he would need a clearer definition of in-kind prior to making that requirement, particularly noting an identical replacement would not be energy efficient. He also noted the windows are second and third story and stated it makes the most sense to do what is going to work best. Commissioner Woodlee asked if there are other instances wherein the Commission has had to consider energy efficiency versus the potential loss of historic materials. Commissioner Carlock replied there have been instances the topic has been brought up; however, it has not been the deciding factor. Chair Rose concurred. Commissioner Woodlee questioned what this decision may look like in 50 years and stated the new era of climate conversations could help to sway the decision to permit the window replacement. Vice Chair Gibson expressed support for climate initiatives; however, she noted this is the Historic Preservation Commission, not the Energy Commission, and while both topics must be considered, she must put more emphasis on the preservation of a historic property and what is best for its fabric. Commissioner Carlock questioned whether the new windows will be vastly better from an energy perspective. Chair Rose stated the litany of challenges cited by both Mr. Wernimont and Mr. Sargent suggest that this is not going to be an easy job with any of the proposed solutions. However, it seems most prudent to do it in a way that involves industry tested means. He also noted the Secretary of the Interior standards allow for window replacement as it is sometimes the best solution. Vice Chair Gibson commended the property owners for trying to do what is best for the building, but stated she believes the replacement or repairs could be done another way. Commissioner Gaines made a motion, seconded by Chair Rose, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the window amelioration on the second and third floors of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street as described in the applicants’ proposal for the wood window unit, finding that the proposed work meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation based on the information in the staff report and attachments, and the presentation and information received during the July and this continued hearing. Yeas: Gaines and Rose. Nays: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson and Woodlee. THE MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Gaines expressed hesitation about directing the applicants toward a different specific option and stated it seems the best next step would be for the applicant to propose another option to staff and then return to the Commission. Chair Rose suggested the other way to move forward would be to deny the request and allow the applicants to appeal to City Council. Commissioner Carlock asked if the applicant would be required to move forward with a different option if recommended by the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis replied that recommendation would allow the applicant to move forward with that approach or appeal that decision. Ms. Havelda stated the applicants have not had the opportunity to work through the proposed solutions in the rebuttal report and there are concerns with implementation of those options. She stated even if the Commission put forth a recommendation, another full hearing would be necessary to allow the applicant team to speak to those recommendations. She concurred that the cleanest thing to do would be to deny the request and allow the applicants to appeal. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval of the plans and specifications for the window replacement on the second and third floors of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation nor the Old Town Design Standards based on the information in the staff report and attachments, and the presentation and information received during this hearing. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson and Woodlee. Nays: Gaines and Rose. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Jim Rose, Chair