Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/19/2021Meg Dunn, Chair Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair Michael Bello Walter Dunn Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat • CALL TO ORDER Regular Meeting May 19, 2021 Minutes Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. This meeting was conducted remotely • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Walter Dunn STAFF : Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Aubrie Brennan Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: "We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public . Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020." She mentioned that the prevalence of Covid was waning and in-person meetings were on the horizon but would not be taking place just yet. Chair Dunn noted May was Historic Preservation Month , both locally and nationally, and on May 4th , new Mayor Jenny Arndt had passed a resolution proclaiming it. Chair Dunn read a statement she had read upon receiving the proclamation from the Mayor touching on the importance of historic preservation to the sense of place and economy of the City , environmental sustainability , and telling the stories of women , underprivileged, and people of color. Chair Dunn recognized Historic Preservation Staff Member Maren Bzdek for receiving the World Class People Award from the City of Fort Collins. Every year, City employees are recognized for their outstanding teamwork, customer service, individuality, and creativity by receiving the award . All of the Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 May 19, 2021 Commission already knew what a superstar Maren was, but it was great the City had officially recognized it. She congratulated Ms . Bzdek. Chair Dunn recognized Historic Preservation Manager Karen McWilliams on her last Commission Hearing due to retirement after 26 years of service with the City . The CDNS department and Historic Preservation department would not be the same without her. Chair Dunn invited members of the public to speak. Mr. Ron Sladek spoke about his friend Karen McWilliams, whom he had known for a long time. He met her at the local library 30 years ago, when she worked at the local library in the history archive and helped him with his research . She located all kinds of records for him . He was a preservation consultant, historian, and president of Historic Larimer County and knew what a remarkable asset to the City Ms . McWilliams had been . He thanked her for everything she had done for him and the City . Ms . Gina Janett read a prepared speech to thank Ms. McWilliams for the wonderful work she had accomplished during her many years at the City , listing out many properties she had helped preserve . Ms . McWilliams had been a very productive City employee . Ms. Janett thanked Ms . McWilliams for all she had done for our community and expressed best wishes on a well-deserved retirement. Chair Dunn asked for comment from the Commission. Mr. Murray had known Ms . McWilliams since 1987 and they enjoyed parallel careers in their love of Historic Fort Collins and saving buildings. He thought the largest award that could be given to Karen would be in the form of the fantastic staff she had located to replace herself. He was sure they would see lots of her in the future . He was sorry the City could not do a big soiree because of Covid , but she should know the Commission thought well of her. Chair Dunn read an email from Ms . Lesley Struck: "History is one of the key aspects of Fort Collins that makes it special. Karen's tireless efforts over the years to preserve our community's unique resources can be seen all over the City and will be enjoyed for generations. Thank you, Karen for all of your incredible work." She also read an email from Per Hogestead : "Karen, I appreciate your friendship over the years. I think back on the LPC in the early 90's, and I am amazed at how you were able to keep the LPC circus productive, in spite of Bud's and my antics . Those were great times, and I appreciate your patience, professionalism, and friendship . I wish you and Carl the very best in your retirement. Per." Chair Dunn stated the work Karen had gone a long way in protecting and improving upon the character and authenticity of Fort Collins. She had been a steward and a champion for the City's historic buildings . She had influenced or touched so much of the Fort Collins of today . Chair Dunn thanked her for all she had done and when she started to get bored with retirement, Chair Dunn hoped Karen might fill the open spot on the Commission due to her unique qualifications. Ms. McWilliams thanked everyone for the comments and well wishes . She does not like to say goodbye, so the Commission would see her around a lot. Now she was able to advocate for historic properties instead of remaining impartial. She was grateful to have found Ms . Bzdek and Mr. Bertolini , who are phenomenal people, and the preservation program was being left in phenomenal hands . Ms. McWilliams said she would miss everyone so she hoped to serve on the Commission soon . • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 May 19, 2021 • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Bertolini noted the City Council had passed a blanket resolution regarding Boards and Commissions. The Commission 's name would change to the Historic Preservation Commission in advance of the June regular hearing . • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:56 p .m.J 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 21, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission . Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 5:57 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2 . STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and , in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission , with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14 , Article IV of the City's Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission . Chair Dunn asked about the nature of the damage to the Linden Street project and if this was a learning opportunity for a better plan of protection . Ms. Bzdek stated the damage occurred during preparatory sitework for the City project involving improvements at Linden Street. The excavation subcontractor had damaged the Southwest, non-historic base stone on the Linden Hotel. Historic Preservation had a follow-up meeting with City Engineering staff to discuss protocol for working with contractors under the plan of protection, which was in place. They were able to identify a few minor improvements for managing the projects day-of and making sure the information was conveyed down to the subcontractor. Chair Dunn remarked Staff had done everything she was hoping the Commission could do. Chair Dunn asked who the decision maker was for projects such as the one-room schoolhouse at Trilby and College and the teacherage . Mr. Bertolini said it was a COOT-funded project headed by the Engineering Department. The decisionmaker there would be the engineering crew and the project manager. Historic Preservation had a call with project management to discuss the comment submitted to COOT, because they are federal obligated to speak with the Historic Preservation office. Staff had reinforced their suggestion for a different location, but it would be difficult considering the requirements for the project. A different location seemed unlikely. Chair Dunn asked if Engineering could discuss mitigation strategies with the Commission . Mr. Bertolini said they could invite them to come before the Commission for a short presentation . Chair Dunn remarked it would be worth getting together to meet common goals. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 May 19, 2021 3. 140 N. MCKINLEY -FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Staff Report This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed rear addition to the City Landmark at 140 N. McKinley Avenue , the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. Casey (Keith) Churchill (Property Owner) Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. This was a Final Design Review for a rear addition, an item that came before the Commission in December for the Conceptual Review. The question was if the plans met the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation . The action would be to issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness. As noted by Staff previously during the Conceptual Review, it was slightly large for what Staff would usually recommend for City landmarks but it was mitigated by the historical layout of the property . Staff found the project to be generally consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation ; it was compatible, distinguishable, generally reversible, and subordinate to the historic building . Mr. Bertolini addressed Commission questions from the Work Session : 1) the joining method between the historic building and the addition was corner cladding, and 2) the windows on the addition would be wood . Staff recommended the Commission approve the project and issue a certificate of appropriateness. Applicant Presentation Mr. Churchill had not prepared a presentation but was available for Commission questions and thanked the Commission . It was self-explanatory they had a tiny house and wanted it bigger. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn directed the Commission to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation on packet pages 16 through 18 and invited discussion germane to them. Mr. Murray commented the Applicants had listened to feedback from the Conceptual Review and the design fit the SOI Standards. Mr. Knierim agreed and said it was a good example of what can be done thoughtfully . Chair Dunn added the addition's low visibility from the right-of-way mitigated the larger footprint and the inset of the addition helped it be subordinate. Ms. Nelsen agreed it met all the Standards but especially Standard 9 in a way that preserved the scale and massing of the original building . The addition was differentiated enough and the details helped meet the Standards. Chair Dunn pointed out adding basement space was a good way to add space. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the Robert & Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage at 140 North McKinley Avenue, because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. Ms. Nelsen seconded. Chair Dunn added this was a great example of managing change so a unique representation of past Fort Collins was retained , but useful for a family today. The motion passed 7-0. Chair Dunn wished the Applicants luck on their project. There were always surprises with older houses but she hoped their surprises were minimal. [Timestamp: 6:17 p .m.J Landmark Preservation Commission Page4 May 19, 2021 4 . 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE-APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the Samuel & Jessie Moore Property at 528 W . Mountain Avenue. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jason and Misha Green . Mark Greenwald, Resident; Gina Janett, Resident; Robin Stitzel, Resident; William Whitley, Resident Chair Dunn asked for disclosures and recusals . She knew three of the applicants, two neighbors and fellow history buffs, and a third who was also a history buff. However, it would not affect her impartiality. Mr. Murray knew a couple of the applicants and lived half a block from the property, but it would not affect his impartiality. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. This was a Landmark Designation Hearing for an involuntary nomination request. This was the first of two potential hearings before the Commission required under Code when the owner(s) did not support the nomination . The role of the Commission was to determine if the criteria of Code Section 14-22 were satisfied . Article II laid out the standards by which eligibility should be determined . The two general groupings of Standards were significance to Fort Collins history and historic integrity. Applicant Presentation Mr. Greenwald gave the Applicant presentation. He had lived in Fort Collins on Mountain Avenue for about two years . What he would say would duplicate what others had said, but he was new to the City and Historic Preservation and wanted to share his thoughts. He gave a brief overview of the history of landmark preservation nationally and in the City . West Mountain Avenue was a highly sought-after address, the site of 26 designated addresses, more than any other local street. The homes on West Mountain Avenue were built in mostly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and were diverse in size and style. Mountain Avenue contained mostly homes built by and for working class people, a reflection of Westward expansion with egalitarian ideals. Many smaller homes were being replaced by the modern demand for larger, less affordable homes as property values rose . 528 West Mountain Avenue was one of those modest homes, constructed in 1885, just six years after the Avery House. An 1894 map showed it was only one of a few on the street at the time. To his knowledge, it was the oldest home on Mountain Avenue, and in the City, that did not have landmark status. Jessie Moore lived most of her life at this address , a teacher in Fort Collins for more than half a century . He showed a photograph of what he believed to be a gathering of local teachers in front of her home. She taught mainly at the LaPorte Avenue School, a building now lost. She was held in such high esteem that a new elementary school constructed in Fort Collins in the 1950's was named in her honor. The neighborhood surrounding the school was still identified as Moore. Despite its small size, 528 West Mountain was a prime example of folk-Victorian architecture. The prominent bay window, door, and unusual pediment above it were features of this style . This property could contribute significantly to the historic and architectural legacy of the neighborhood and Fort Collins. Its loss would severely diminish the block and it should be preserved via landmark status for present and future residents of Fort Collins. Chair Dunn invited the other applicants to add to the presentation . Ms. Janett stated that the building was eligible due to architectural integrity and the significance of Jessie Moore who lived in the house. These are the two criteria of eligibility. Jessie Moore was an important female teacher in this community . Mr. Whitley stated he believed the demolition of 528 West Mountain would be detrimental to Fort Collins. As one of a handful of late 19th Century homes remaining in the City, the modest charm of the house was key to one of Fort Collins's most scenic avenues. The direct association to working class people on Mountain Avenue was irreplaceable. Demolishing the house for a large , newly- constructed Victorian would not improve the City . Owner Presentation Mr. Obermann spoke on behalf of the owners as the designer and builder of the proposed new home at the property. He called into question whether the photograph of the women displayed by the Landmark Preservation Commission Page5 May 19, 2021 Applicant was in front of 528 West Mountain because there was a window above the bay window and the detailing above the porch looked different. He believed the photograph was of 317 Mountain . The description of the photograph said something like "Grandma's birthday ." He was not sure how important that was but wanted to correct the record . Mr. Obermann also had a procedural objection . He was not sure when conflicts of interest would arise and asked Mr. Yatabe to opine. The Applicant (Mr. Greenwald) had offered to purchase the home from the owners for his daughter, as well as asked Mr. Bertolini and the owners to let him inside the house. He asked the owners to see the inside when they were at the property without identifying himself, and they obliged not knowing who he was . He believed it unfair that someone with potential financial gain could be an applicant. Chair Dunn said Mr. Yatabe could comment later during Public Comment. Two other members. Three applicants were part of groups trying to protect historic properties which may receive government funding . No one in the community who was not involved had come forward . He shared his screen to show the Seller's Disclosure from the most recent sale . The disclosure stated it was uninhabitable , due to unsafe conditions and environmental , structural , and electrical issues. He also shared an environmental report from an industrial hygienist, which indicated a high concentration of methamphetamine contamination , outside the regulatory cleanup threshold of the State of Colorado by about 170 times and outside the toxicology significant concentration by about 60 times . This indicated an illegal drug laboratory. Access to the home had been severely restricted under Colorado law, which only occurred when contamination was extremely bad , in his opinion . Nothing could be removed from the home. The report mentioned cleaning was possible, but it may not be the most financially prudent and could degrade structural members in the house and the garage. Mr. Obermann believed the home to have major structural concerns and believed a cleaning would further damage the home. He had not been able to make a thorough assessment due to the contamination, but he did not believe it would be structurally sound after a cleaning . The property was so bad the experts recommended it was better to demolish than to clean it. He believed health and safety trumped what little gain preserving the home would provide . The home was not safe for children , and Jessie Moore was an advocate for them . He could understand and appreciate the desire to protect the home and the significance of it, but in the interest of health and safety , he would trust the person with 20 years' experience that said it needed to come down . It was upsetting the home had to be demolished for this reason, but whomever created this situation is to blame. Registering this house and forcing the designation would not be the greatest benefit of the community . Chair Dunn asked if the owners wanted to speak, but Mr. Obermann said he believed they did not. Public Input Ms. Kimberly Medina stated as a member of the community , she would happily have put her name on the application and she believed a lot of people would have. She grew up in this town , and it broke her heart to walk through her neighborhood and see homes scraped away and nasty modern homes put up . Those who did grow up here cannot hardly afford to live here anymore. She attended Moore Elementary in 1968 and walked past the house her entire childhood . She owns an older home, and all the concerns that came up are fixable and can be overcome when restoring a historic property . The architectural significance was something she had noticed walking by every day, but the historical significance fit so nicely with the statement Chair Dunn read in the beginning related to the proclamation about preserving history. This was a good foil in size and scale to the big, elegant Avery house, just down the street. The story of the teacher was a good contrast to the that of the wealthy banker -the banker had the big Victorian and the teacher the miniature, working-class Victorian . It was important to recognize the historical significance of working-class , women , and not so fortunate people . She thought it was disingenuous of the owners to say they could not live there because of meth because they bought it with the intention of knocking it down. If the future came down to who had the most money to knock down buildings and dictate what Fort Collins would look like, that would not be fair to those who grew up here. As people moved to the City to telecommute , and property values went even higher, we would see people who had phenomenal amounts of money that wanted to erase history and build something big . People who grew up in Fort Collins were counting on Commissions like this to recognize the historical significance of properties like these , be their voice, and preserve their history. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 May 19, 2021 Mr. Chet Wisner, 508 West Mountain , spoke on behalf of himself and his wife Delores. They lived three doors down on the same block and believed the proposed build would significantly improve the neighborhood . He would be happy to see the meth lab disposed of. Applicant Response Mr. Bill Whitley , 600 block of West Mountain, was a neighbor with no financial interest in this property . His interest was solely historical and neighborly. The forensic report clearly stated the home could be cleaned and did not have to be demolished because of the meth lab . Owner Response Mr. Jason Green and his wife moved to Fort Collins from a historic property in Chicago. They were not against old buildings or history . When they bought the house, he took an interest in the history of Jessie Moore. Before they bought the property, they knew it was not in habitable condition . A neighbor mentioned the home's connection with a drug dealer, which is why they pursued the forensic investigation without ulterior motive. It was hard to realize the building was not what everyone wanted , a beautiful piece of Victorian architecture that had been loved and maintained, but instead was in a complete state of disrepair and a methamphetamine laboratory with levels 60 times the toxic level. He could not live in the house , their planned retirement home, nor have future grandchildren there. He understood the public's desire to save old buildings , and he had some of the same desires. He had friends that lived in older homes on Mountain Avenue that he would never demolish because they had been maintained and were beautiful pieces of our community history . That was not the case with his property . He was unsure how to save the property or what would be left if they attempted to save it. They were not trying to put up mansion and demonstrate wealth, but to build a home they could live in that would mesh with the other properties on Mountain Avenue. They were shocked by the degree of contamination in the house. The next-door neighbors had written to support them and the sellers asked to be present when it was demolished . Their desire was not to come in and destroy the history of Fort Collins . Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn did not want to ignore or downplay the health issues here . This likely blindsided the Commission, especially on prestigious Mountain Avenue. It was not under the Commission's purview to look at health issues because they were not a health Board . All they could really look at was what was before them today, which was if the house was eligible . The health issue would be addressed at some point by the appropriate City department. She wanted to be clear to everyone participating and watching : the question before the Commission was if the house was eligible for integrity and significance. She also shared a rumor from Facebook regarding bones and medical instruments in the yard in the ?O 's. Sometimes these rumors had something to them, and sometimes they did not. There could be archeological significance there. Mr. Bello remarked the methamphetamine contamination should be considered at some point, although he respected Chair Dunn's position . He asked where Mr. Obermann got his reference to the photo being a birthday party . Mr. Obermann answered it was written on the bottom of the picture in light cursive . Chair Dunn asked Mr. Bertolini to pull it from the archive site and see what the house number is in the picture . Ms. Michell asked Mr. Obermann about if anyone with training had gone through the house to see what could be fixed . Mr. Obermann said he had done a preliminary walkthrough and spent some time investigating what could be done to add on for a larger house. He stopped when the issue of methamphetamine came into play . Structurally, anything could be saved with enough money but did not know if that level of meth could be 100% cleaned . The significant level of contamination was what caused the demolition to come into play . Ms . Michell remarked the structural viability was important to determining the integrity of the building . Mr. Obermann said from a structural standpoint, things could be saved with modern technology . He did not have cleaning experience, but what he understood from his contractors this level of contamination had likely permeated the structure, the floor joists, and windows. They were likely to have further structural issues after attempting the level of cleaning required . He knew the home could be saved but did not believe the home could ever be 100% safe . Mr. Bello asked Mr. Bertolini if the integrity of the photo could be determined that evening before a vote . Mr. Bertolini stated the museum description said "Grandma Ayers birthday party " and on the back identified the property behind the women as 528 W Mountain . Mr. Obermann said a lot of details must Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 May 19, 2021 have changed over the years if it was the same property, including the beams on the posts, the detailing around the bay window, and the window above the bay window and suggested the loss of those details might decrease the historic significance. Mr. Bello said the address in the photo was the subject property, but they were unsure of changes to the property from then to today . The top portion of the porch was different from the property today . Mr. Murray said he did not think it was the same house because the paneling and bay windows were different. It was the same style, but not the same house. Mr. Obermann said he believed it to be 317 Mountain . He was not saying the subject property did not belong to Ms . Moore. Mr. Knierim asked if Mr. Bertolini could zoom in on the house number, but Chair Dunn said it was likely too poor a scan . Ms. Nelsen did not believe the picture was critical to the potential landmark status of the property because it did not change who lived there or what they did . They had other documentation that showed the house's architectural evolution over time or lack thereof. Mr. Bertolini pointed the Commission to the survey form that included a detailed history of construction and alteration, Item 12 on the form, packet page 97 . Chair Dunn stated photos in the archive are often mislabeled and requested a better scan for the next hearing but it was not required to move forward today . The 1968 photo of the house looked very much like it does now. Ms . Nelsen thought the photo did not affect the nomination so they could move on . Mr. Yatabe commented that for any issue that comes before the Commission in a quasi-judicial matter, the Commission members were the finders of fact. Each of them could decide whether evidence was relevant or credible . What was before them was all the information the Applicant for landmark status submitted in support of the application . They were able to decide what mattered . He did not want them to get stuck on any one point. Chair Dunn pointed out Mr. Obermann mentioned the preservation groups mentioned had no relationship with the subject property and do no advocacy . The Loomis Addition is not an organization, but a neighborhood name for the neighborhood is just across the street from the property . Mr. Yatabe addressed the possible bias of Applicants as requested by Mr. Obermann . The City did not screen for bias as to members of the public, only City staff and Commission members. Chair Dunn added the motivations of the Applicants or the Owner were not things the Commission should consider, only the significance and integrity of the property . Mr. Yatabe agreed . Commission Deliberation Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider significance first. It was nominated under two criteria : Architecture and People. Mr. Knierim pointed out the City has been focusing on Women's History. As an educator he believed the role and history of public education was important, and this house told the story of the socioeconomic level of teachers . In terms of significance, this home offered a lot as to the types of stories that should be told in Fort Collins . Ms . Michell agreed . It was irrelevant what the photograph was because the house where Ms . Moore lived and her life history were an important part of the history of Fort Collins. Mr. Bello asked if it was known for sure whether Jessie Moore actually lived in the home. Mr. Murray stated there were lots of records to show she did . One of the comment letters brought up the property was significant for women in Fort Collins, as well as the architecture. Mr. Knierim stated on packet page 99 there was a history of ownership and Jessie Moore was the owner. Ms . Nelsen said after reviewing the evidence, there was a preponderance of evidence suggesting she lived at 528 West Mountain . The Commission did not need to depend on the photograph for a link. Ms. Nelsen went back to significance. The overall impact Jessie Moore had on the fabric Fort Collins was large as a teacher with a long career impacting numerous individuals. The place where she spent the majority of her life should be closely examined as a potential landmark. Ms. Nelsen believed a nomination could be supported on who Jessie Moore was as a person without the consideration of the architectural character of the home. Chair Dunn commented the photo was a red herring and that they had plenty of other evidence as Ms . Nelsen had said . Chair Dunn commented Jessie worked at two schools that had been torn down . This was the only property related to her name as far as Chair Dunn knew at this point. Chair Dunn stated they had covered Standard 2 and asked for thoughts on Standard 3, design and construction . Mr. Murray it was a classic L, a style that was around Fort Collins . Most in Fort Collins had been torn down or changed . The style really speaks to the history of Mountain Avenue. Chair Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 May 19, 2021 Dunn noted a commenter had contrasted this home to the Avery House as two distinct representations of the community . She commented the City had a few other Ls but they were quickly losing them . Ms. Nelsen believed the Commission saw properties with two doors due to a rented-out room , and it could be significant in telling the story of an underrepresented class . Chair Dunn asked if there was another teacher who lived with her for a while. Ms . Nelsen agreed and said it could be there were two separate entries for two households. She thought it was a neat architectural feature that contributed to the uniqueness and significance of the house. Mr. Rose concurred with Ms . Nelsen they could not disregard the archival research that had been done to connect the house to Jessie Moore via clear evidence . The photo was of little consequence. To address the comments the back porch was not compatible with the overall architecture, it was not a significant enough intrusion to affect the overall architecture. It could be remediated and removed because the original fabric was likely back there. The home qualified in a number of respects to all the elements of significance and integrity. If the Commission focused on their job, it would be difficult to deny it was landmark eligible . Chair Dunn commented in addition to the L being increasingly rare in our community, bay windows like the ones on the home were also scarce. The bay window was one of several architectural details on the home that spoke to the time it was built and were growing increasingly rare . Mr. Bello agreed everyone was correct about the historic significance and the architectural significance . He could not wrap his mind around the fact that the home was so bad that an investigative company with 20 years ' experience had only said three should be demolished and this was one of them . Before he could move forward , he needed to know if someone else would look at the health aspects . Chair Dunn asked Mr. Yatabe or Mr. Bertolini to opine, because she believed even if the property were landmarked Chapter 14 had a provision for habitability and safety . Mr. Yatabe had not dealt with meth contamination in a long time and did not know if the City had a role . The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was likely the one to regulate it. They had not yet touched base with Chief Building Official Rich Anderson, but there is a mechanism for an order of demolition under Chapter 14, Section 14-8, Remedying of Dangerous Conditions, to remedy anything that constitutes an imminent danger as determined under the International Property and Maintenance Code. Mr. Anderson, the Chief Building Official, would be at the next meeting to answer those questions. Mr. Yatabe's understanding was the standards for eligibility did not address these issues, only significance and integrity. In the future, they could follow up on what meth contamination means for the City, but Mr. Yatabe could not say more at present. Mr. Murray asked if Section 14-8 Applied involved the Commission . Mr. Yatabe said as he read it, 14-8 applied to a Building Official call. Mr. Murray believed they were deciding whether a nomination could move forward as a landmark and the official part would be next month . Mr. Bertolini clarified the only question before the Commission was if it was eligible for Fort Collins designation . If so, at next month's hearing, they would decide whether nominating the property without the owner's consent still meets the declaration of policy and purpose in 14-1 and 14-2. At that point, they could consider more information than the history of the property . Chair Dunn asked if the National Trust Forum might be able to provide advisory help or guidance on how other jurisdictions had handled historic buildings with methamphetamine issues. Another option would be posting online to put the questions out to preservationists across the country . Mr. Bertolini agreed if the process moved forward he would find information he could on the listservs to which he had access on that topic. Chair Dunn asked if they were ready for a motion . Mr. Murray started to make a motion for approval , then verified with Chair Dunn the garage would be included ; it would be. Mr. Murray moved that the Commission find the whole property at 528 West Mountain be seen as eligible and move forward to an eligibility hearing next month in front of the Historic Preservation Commission. Chair Dunn asked Mr. Yatabe if that was sufficient. Mr. Yatabe said the motion needed to be adopted as a written resolution , as specified in Code . Mr. Bertolini 's draft motions included a draft resolution to be signed by Chair Dunn . It was important to set the basis for significance and the findings as to integrity, which had been discussed but were important to include in case this passes the second hearing with a recommendation to Council. Mr. Yatabe offered assistance to write a motion if the Commission wanted to take a break. Mr. Murray removed his earlier motion . Landmark Preservation Commission Page 9 May 19, 2021 Ms. Michell moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that: • The Samuel & Jessie Moore Property, 528 West Mountain Avenue, is eligible to be designated a Fort Collins Landmark; and • The property possesses significance to Fort Collins under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, and 3 Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the nomination document and attachments submitted by the applicant group on April 20, 2021; and, • The property clearly conveys this significance through integrity under all seven aspects of integrity in Municipal Code Section 14-22(b); and • A second hearing before this Commission should be scheduled consistent with Municipal Code Section 14-33(c). Mr. Knierim seconded. Chair Dunn asked if there was any discussion on the motion . Mr. Murray clarified if a resolution needed to be drafted to be signed . Mr. Yatabe clarified he would draft a resolution for Chair Dunn setting forth the findings of the Commission made in the motion . Mr. Bello wanted to be sure the decision was not binding and the Commission would have to reaffirm next month before making a recommendation to City Council. Chair Dunn said only City Council can make a landmark. Mr. Bello asked if their recommendation to City Council would not be forwarded unless and until they reaffirmed their decision next month . Mr. Yatabe clarified at the next meeting they would be examining whether a designation was justified by the manner and extent to which the requested designation would advance the policies stated in Section 14-1 and the purposes stated in Section 14-2 . Their review would be asking whether a recommendation of designation of the property would advance the reasons why we had historic preservation code. Mr. Bello commented at that point the meth might come into play . Mr. Yatabe said the Commission needed to take a look at the purpose and the policy , but the consideration at the second hearing was a wider consideration . Chair Dunn commented the City Council has a little more leeway in their Code, so there were several more steps for a designation . Ms . Nelsen commented this was difficult for everyone , but from a Code perspective their scope was narrow. They were looking at if it was significant enough and whether it possessed integrity , not health issues tonight, although those were significant. If they put their blinders on , and looked at the home and who lived there , it was an individual that made contributions to the City and deserved to be recogn ized . Architecturally, the home had a preponderance of architectural integrity, since it did not look that different from when it was built in 1885. The changes that had been made were slight and did not affect the integrity of the building or its ability to be a local landmark. If they narrowed their scope to their purview under Code, it was clear they would support a landmark designation for the property . Chair Dunn agreed, if it was a consensual designation , they would be protect the architecture and recognize Jessie Moore. She echoed this was exactly the kind of stories that are somewhat underrepresented and should be told about our community . Ms. Nelsen said the egalitarianism of Mountain Ave was striking and unique. It was a beloved , diverse street of people , architecture , and scales in the City . It fostered civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, but also fostered urban design . Mr. Bello heard Ms . Nelsen and agreed but sometimes you should not ignore something glaring like the methamphetamine. Ms . Nelsen agreed, because several on the Commission had lived close to meth and knew the health impact was serious . She could not go outside of the Commission 's purview on this . They had to trust another governmental body was charged with protection through demolition or mitigation . City government was set up in a way where there were different tasks for different bodies. Their job was to look at the specific areas outlined in Code . Mr. Bello would be supporting the motion tonight but only because there was an opportunity to address it later. Chair Dunn recognized Josh's hand was raised but the time for public comment was over. She suggested he come back next month because the time for public comment was over or submit a public comment to Staff. Chair Dunn re-capped the four points of the motion : it was eligible to be designated, it was significant under Standards 2 and 3, it could convey that significance through integrity under all seven aspects of integrity, and there would be a second hearing on it the following month . Landmark Preservation Commission Page 10 May 19, 2021 The motion passed 7-0. Chair Dunn mentioned that hopefully between now and the next hearing they could get more information to aid in their decision . She thanked the applicants, owners, and members of the public for participating. [Timestamp : 8:07 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn reminded everyone the Historic Larimer County members meeting was Saturday at 10 am on Zoom . It was an overview of what the organization had done for the past two years, which included a restoration of a school bus that was a school wagon . • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on June 16, 2021 M~~ Landmark Preservation Commission Page 11 May 19, 2021