Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - MINUTES - 05/21/2025Historic Preservation Commission REGULAR MEETING May 21, 2025 – 5:30 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom •CALL TO ORDER Chair Gibson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL o Commission Members Present – Bonnie Gibson (Chair) Jenna Edwards Chris Conway Jeff Gaines Jim Rose David Woodlee o Commission Members Absent – Margo Carlock (Vice Chair) Aaron Hull o Staff Members Present – Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Heather Jarvis, Assistant City Attorney Melissa Matsunaka, HPC Admin o Guest(s) – None •AGENDA REVIEW Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, 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 APRIL 16, 2025. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 16, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Rose moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaines, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Rose, Woodlee, and Gibson. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • 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). Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, noted May is Historic Preservation Month and discussed the Friend of Preservation Awards which went to four groups of people. He also reported on a design review for a City landmark on West Magnolia Street, a tabling at the Museum of Discovery as part of its member night activities, an upcoming reprisal of the Montezuma Fuller presentation at the Museum of Discovery on May 29th, an upcoming tabling at the Pride in the Park event on June 1st, the upcoming Big Splash event on June 14th at Waterworks, and the community celebration of Juneteenth June 20th-21st. 3. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 408 NORTH LOOMIS AVENUE Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit 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 STAFF: STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this item is a demolition notification for the single-unit house at 408 North Loomis Avenue. He noted the Commission could acknowledge the notification and take no action or make a motion to initiate landmark designation. He provided a brief history of the property and renovations and showed maps and photographs of the house. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Commissioner Edwards commented on failing to recognize working class history in the community, which was theme for both this structure and 121 North Whitcomb Street. She stated that while the properties themselves may not have intrinsic historic value, there is still a story behind them that is important to the community and ways to tell it could be worth considering. Commissioner Conway concurred. Chair Gibson stated the Commission will acknowledge notification and take no further action. 4. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 121 NORTH WHITCOMB STREET DESCRIPTION: demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit 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 STAFF: Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this item is a demolition notification for the single-unit house at 121 North Whitcomb Street. He noted the Commission could acknowledge the notification and take no action or make a motion to initiate landmark designation. He provided a brief history of the property and renovations and showed maps and photographs of the house. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Chair Gibson stated the Commission will acknowledge notification and take no further action. 5. 1719 MATHEWS STREET: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the residential property at 1719 Mathews Street. On December 2, 2024, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property was Landmark-eligible based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, Landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 5.8.1. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. The property owner, Paul Kenny, submitted written notice to appeal the finding on December 6 and elected to delay the appeal for six months to allow time to prepare arguments. STAFF: APPELLANT: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Paul J. Kenny Paul Kenny, appellant, stated he is withdrawing his appeal. 6. 1719 MATHEWS STREET: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW Conceptual design review for a duplex on the location of the existing 1719 Mathews single-unit dwelling. Demolition is proposed. This item is to provide advance feedback on the proposal, including a staff-supported Modification of Standards. This item is contingent on the Eligibility appeal immediately prior to this item on the agenda, if the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) determines 1719 Mathews to be Eligible. Should the HPC determine the property Not Eligible, then this item will not be heard since, in the event of that decision, there would be no historic resources on the development site to which to apply the requirements of Land Use Code 5.8.1. STAFF: APPLICANT/ OWNER Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Paul J. Kenny Commissioner Gaines noted his wife is an architect in Fort Collins and was involved in the Design Assistance Program grant for this property to develop some sketches for the proposed duplex adaptive reuse. STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, showed photos of the house at 1719 Mathews Street and discussed its landmark eligibility and significance under standard three for design and construction. He noted the historian who surveyed the property found it had sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Bertolini discussed architecture in the area and noted the contemporary modern style is somewhat rare in these types of more working-class neighborhoods. He also provided some additional information about Harold Schultz who designed and built the home. In terms of the conceptual development review, Bertolini noted the Commission is tasked with providing informal comments related to the proposal to demolish this building and construct a duplex, which would typically not be allowed under the Land Use Code. He noted staff is presenting a modification of standard to allow for the demolition and is requesting feedback as to whether the Commission is supportive of staff’s interpretation of the modification and whether it is warranted. Bertolini stated staff is recommending the Commission waive the requirement under Land Use Code Section 5.8.1 to preserve the existing residence in a manner that meets the federal preservation standards that have been adopted. He stated the rationale for the recommendation is based on zoning, which is Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), and the expectation from a larger City planning perspective is to densify the neighborhood from single-family housing to missing middle housing with more attached dwellings. He noted the property is adjacent to the Transit Oriented District overlay zone which also allows for greater density. Bertolini stated the other rationale is based on hardship, specifically given the asbestos siding on the home, which is a character-defining feature of the building but is also a health concern; therefore, staff is not supportive of maintaining the material on the site. Given the significance of the siding, the material conservation options are limited. Bertolini stated the design assistance products attached to the item show technically feasible options to densify the property into a duplex while retaining the existing building; however, most have additional site and regulatory constraints in terms of forestry, stormwater, and engineering. Additionally, Bertolini noted there are other nearby examples of Harold Schultz’ building work and of modern and contemporary style architecture. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Paul Kenny stated the property is currently an eyesore and detriment to the neighborhood. He stated he has discussed the proposal with neighbors who are supportive of having a new residence constructed. Additionally, he stated keeping the structure with the asbestos siding does not seem to be feasible. PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Chair Gibson asked if there are likely to be many more properties with asbestos siding and whether allowing this demolition would be setting a precedent. Bertolini replied specific site conditions are always taken into account with historic preservation and staff did not just consider the asbestos siding in its recommendation, but also considered the other site constraints and zone district which made it difficult to support a preservation solution. He noted asbestos siding was a common building material in mid-20th century housing and it is unlikely a preservation solution would be sought for that material, though there are other options for new materials that mimic that type of shingling. Commissioner Conway commended the staff work and recommendation to allow an increase in density in this case, particularly given the property’s proximity to the large transit investments made by the City. Chair Gibson commented on the city’s need for densification and on the importance of eliminating hazardous materials to improve environmental safety. She expressed support for the demolition of the property. Commissioner Woodlee concurred. Commissioner Rose noted the character-defining element, while an important element of that period of time and this is an excellent example of a post-war material that was widely used throughout the country, it is now known to be a hazard. He expressed support for the modification to demolish the structure. Commissioner Gaines commented on the difference between recording history and preserving history and the goal of keeping things in existence is that they serve a public good, which is not the case with asbestos siding. Commissioner Conway moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaines, that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, an administrative hearing officer, the approval of a modification of standards to waive the requirement to preserve the landmark eligible property at 1719 Mathews Street in a manner that complies with the federal treatment standards for rehabilitation, and allow for the construction of a duplex on that site, finding that the modification is warranted under Section 6.8.2, Modification of Standards, Section 8, Step 8, Standards 2 and 3, by helping to substantially alleviate an existing defined and described problem of city-wide concern, namely the provision of increased housing choice and additional housing units, and by reason of exceptional physical condition or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, specifically the presence of asbestos siding on most of the building, and that the strict application of the standards sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the owner of such property that are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Rose, Woodlee, and Gibson. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary’s Note: Assistant City Attorney Jarvis noted Councilmember Tricia Canonico is present at the meeting as the Council Liaison to the Commission.) 7. 201 S. COLLEGE (OLD POST OFFICE) – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed addition to the Old Post Office, a City Landmark at 201 S College Avenue. The proposal includes an addition on the south side of the historic building, interior non-structural alterations to the historic building, demolition of the 1940s era loading dock on the south side, and excavations adjacent to the existing foundation. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the US . STAFF: APPLICANT/ Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Fort Collins Museum of Art STAFF PRESENTATION Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager, stated this item is a conceptual landmark design review of a proposed addition to the south side of the City landmark at 201 South College Avenue, the old post office location. She noted the addition includes some interior non- structural alterations to the historic building, some demolition of the 1940’s era loading dock on the south side, and excavation adjacent to the existing foundation. Bzdek noted the Commission is tasked with providing the applicant with early feedback on project concepts and whether it finds the concepts meet the standards. Bzdek provided site information and photos of the property. She reviewed the history of the property which originally housed the post office and other federal offices. In 1972, the main post office moved to 301 South Howes Street and the building was vacated by the federal government and sold to a private party, which did seek tax credits for a rehab project to reopen the building to accommodate nine business tenants. In 1985, the owner opted to put the property up for sale, and it was deemed to be eligible for landmark designation at that time and the Cultural Resources Board recommended designation to City Council. Bzdek noted a demolition permit was issued pending the denial of designation; however, City Council unanimously supported designation and it was the first and only non-consensual landmark nomination of a single property in the history of the city. Bzdek provided a summary of the work that has been done on the property over the years, most recently a rehabilitation of the clay tile roof. Additionally, she detailed the building’s architectural elements and noted the proposed addition would be a functional space for the Museum of Art that addresses several issues, including lack of an accessible entry meeting ADA requirements, lack of adequate climate control and fire suppression systems, limited gallery space, and a lack of space for supportive functions. Bzdek outlined staff’s assessment of the proposed design noting the addition provides functional space that is necessary to achieve the current use requirements and achieves a solution to a long-standing problem with the Museum regarding the lack of a primary accessible entrance. She stated staff finds the project to be generally consistent with the standards for rehabilitation and the construction appears to be compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and mindful of the need to retain visibility of historic materials and design details. Additionally, there is a requirement for hyphenation in densely built environments, which is a component of the proposal. Bzdek outlined suggested discussion questions for the Commission. Commissioner Gaines noted his wife is an employee of [au]workshop, and based on discussions with staff, he does not believe he needs to recuse himself from the discussion of this item. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Lisa Hatchadoorian, Museum of Art Executive Director, noted the Museum bought the building in 1989 and opened for exhibitions in 1990. In 2012, the lower floor and upper floors were sold due to a catastrophic flood, and in 2022, the Museum was given the opportunity to purchase the upper floors back, which it did. She discussed the need for accessibility, more exhibit space, classrooms, office space, and storage in the building. She stated the plan for the addition will be ten to fifteen years out. Randy Shortridge, [au]workshop, discussed the construction and architecture of the existing building and showed photos of the building’s exterior and interior during construction and over time. He commented on the south façade being the rear of the building given the loading dock and service uses, despite some thoughts that the west façade is the rear. He reviewed possibilities for expansion of the building and discussed how the ultimate proposal can best be designed. Shortridge discussed the proposed design of the addition to combine civic and commercial building typologies. He noted the design removes all service components from College Avenue and makes all of that frontage activated uses. He provided floorplan and façade renderings of the proposed addition and noted the addition is modern in design and defers to the original building. He noted the existing building is not being used to hold up the new building at all and discussed the compatibility components of the addition and hyphen, which is set down lower than both the addition and existing building. He went on to discuss the proposed material palette. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Commissioner Gaines asked if any thought has been given to restoring the interior of the building to its historical character by opening up the second floor. Hatchadoorian replied there had been some drawings completed with some of those ideas in 2008, but that is not something that is being considered now. Commissioner Rose noted neither of the two existing building entrances would be used with this design and expressed concern they still appear as operable entrances. He suggested the possibility of utilizing the ceremonial aspect of those entrances in a different way. Shortridge commented on the design of the Metropolitan Museum in New York which has a large staircase that has become a place to sit and meet, which is what the staircases on this building will likely become. He noted signage will direct people to the new main entrance. Commissioner Rose suggested looking at the Boston Public Library that fronts onto Copley Plaza for an example of steps that function as congregation spaces. He suggested something could be done with the lower level of the steps to indicate them as being such spaces. Commissioner Gaines commended the efforts in documenting the existing building and commended the inclusion of the eave garden. Commissioner Conway commended the design and the activation of the service space on College Avenue as well as the eave garden. Chair Gibson stated standard one is definitely met given the addition will be perpetuating the existing use. Members concurred with all written materials provided by staff in terms of the proposal meeting applicable standards and criteria. Shortridge asked if there is a maximum amount of time an approval would last. Bertolini replied Municipal Code Chapter 14 states any certificate of appropriateness is only valid for twelve months and can be extended for an additional twelve months. Shortridge asked if the Commission could extend an approval. Bertolini replied the Code only allows one extension. Chair Gibson asked about the planned timeframe. Shortridge replied there are three planned phases, first to pay off the existing building and upgrade some systems, second to add an accessible entrance, and third to complete the addition. The accessible entrance component will be an interim design and will turn the parking lot into a plaza that can be utilized for various activities, which will hopefully occur in the next two years. Bzdek noted the Commission will need to respond to existing conditions in the future and stated the Commission could move to final review and make a decision for approval if that is helpful to the Museum; however, that would time out one way or the other. Shortridge stated there would be some political and fundraising capital from receiving approval from the Commission that would help in getting to the next point. Commissioner Gaines commented on the historic photos showing the stairs on College being quite different with the lower section of the stairs being at ground level. He suggested the applicant could study that design as a way to potentially activate the area. Commissioner Edwards asked if the applicant would need to come back before the Commission if they make a change to the design after a final approval is granted. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis stated any changes would need to come before the Commission. Commissioner Conway moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaines, that the Historic Preservation Commission move to final review of the proposed work for the old post office at 201 South College and issue a certificate of appropriateness finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code. Commissioner Rose stated he supports the final review approach because the Secretary of Interior standards are being met and he commended the applicant stating the design reflects a sensitive interpretation of what the standards are requesting. He also encouraged the applicant to see if there are other possibilities for the stairs. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Rose, Woodlee, and Gibson. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Rose moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodlee, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal for the addition to the old post office at 201 South College as presented finding that the proposal work meets the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Rose, Woodlee, and Gibson. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Gibson noted the Virginia Dale Stage Station is having an open house on June 14th. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Gibson adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.