Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/20/2021Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 [October 20, 2021] Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Walter Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Elizabeth Michell And via Zoom Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting October 20, 2021 Minutes x CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. x ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose Scretary’s Note: Member Bello and Member Dunn joined the meeting after it had started at the times noted in the minutes. ABSENT: STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, 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.” x AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. x CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 [October 20, 2021] x STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 18, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Murray moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the August 18, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Knierim seconded. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] x 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 Historic 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 commented she had asked about Lee’s Cyclery at the corner of Mason and Laurel, but Staff was right it had changed too much to be historic. Member Rose had asked about a garage at the Work Session and wanted more detail. Mr. Bertolini had updated the Staff Report in regard to 512 Peterson Street. The new garage addition did meet the Standards, and Staff reviewed the property because it was a contributing property, not a City landmark. 3. 155 W MOUNTAIN/130 S MASON – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to be approved or denied based on the Commission’s evaluation of the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The applicant is proposing a combination of replacement and repair techniques to address the deteriorated conditions of the upper street-facing windows on both abutting landmark buildings at 155 West Mountain and 130 South Mason. APPLICANT: Josh Harrison, Helix Property Management, LLC Staff Report Interim Historic Preservation Manager Maren Bzdek presented the staff report. Secretary’s Note: Member Bello joined the meeting remotely at 5:50 pm and was acknowledged by Chair Dunn during the Staff Report at 5:51. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 [October 20, 2021] Secretary’s Note: Member Dunn joined the meeting remotely at 6:01 pm and was acknowledged by the Chair at 6:12 pm at the conclusion of the Staff Presentation. Applicant Presentation Mark Wernimont, owner of Colorado Sash and Door, gave the Applicant presentation to address the Staff Report. He had done historic projects throughout the City and State, but this was the only project for which he suggested replacement of all sashes due to their condition. The original sashes had deteriorated because there was no slope, but the new sashes would have an eight to ten degree slope for positive drainage of water. The aluminum covers would not cover wood, only the stone and concrete sills with a finish that looks the same as painted wood. He described pervasive damage to the existing windows as so bad that most could barely hold glass in place. The new system of windows would be easier to maintain, tilting to the inside for painting to protect the wood. The project would be done in two phases, and the transom windows at 155 would be returned to the historic configuration. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked why there would be two phases of work. Mr. Wernimont said they proposed doing the sash work initially, so tenants could have weatherproof windows for the Winter. He would return in the Spring to do putty glazing, priming, and painting when the temperature is more appropriate for that work. There were two or three mull posts that would have to be put back in the right place to put sashes into the windows. Member Murray asked why the prices on packet page 50 reflected a higher price for a frame with transom repair and sash restoration than a replacement sash. Mr. Wernimont explained the higher cost was due to temporary coverings for keeping the space habitable while the window is out being restored. This would not be necessary with replacement sashes, which could be put in the same day. They would not be replacing the transoms. Member Murray asked for clarification on the difference between the two approaches. Mr. Wernimont stated for a transom and frame, a temporary window would be necessary for six to eight weeks, a cost included in the line item. The first line item was the sash kits and restored sash. Member Murray asked if Mr. Wernimont would be putting in vinyl runners. Mr. Wernimont said the jamb liner system would have a vinyl base with some wood painted material. The vinyl would be white, and the wood painted white. Most full window replacements were currently a hidden jamb liner system. Member Nelsen asked if they would leave the mull post in the middle of the windows in place and if some wood would remain in the window frame assembly. That was correct. Mr. Wernimont explained all brick mold, the existing frames, and the existing mull posts would stay intact. The sill at the transom would not be replaced because it has some slope built in. The wood sashes would be taken out and replaced with wood sashes, the masonry would remain, and the existing wood would be repaired with epoxy and painted. The sash would be a wood painted sash, not be aluminum clad. Member Nelsen asked about the difference in maintaining the current system versus the proposed system. Mr. Wernimont stated the new system sashes could be tilted in and removed from the opening, and the owner could paint the sides through the opening. No scaffolding would be required. Member Murray asked how many windows were in each apartment. Some apartments had a single window. Some double windows were split between two apartments. Member Murray asked if flashing would be placed on sandstone. Mr. Wernimont replied he was not touching the sandstone, but there would be a metal cover over the wood sill which sat on top of the sandstone. He would not be doing anything to the sandstone. Member Murray asked if the existing balance system was ropes and weights. Mr. Wernimont said yes, but in some, there were not weights anymore, so sticks supported them. The new system would be a spring spiral balance in the jamb liner, allowing for weather proofing and replacement of parts over the lifetime of the windows. Member Murray asked if the windows were true double hungs. Mr. Wernimont would not know until the sashes were removed. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 [October 20, 2021] Chair Dunn asked if they were using State tax credits for the project, because she was curious if the State had looked at the project. Mr. Wernimont said not at this time. Member Rose asked how Mr. Wernimont would assess how much replacement of material would occur with restoration. According to the 2019 report, the bottom sash rails and check rails had rotted through. They did not have anything to attach to. Out of eight parts, the top rail could be saved, maybe a side or two on one or two openings. Member Murray asked about if the difference in price to restore the sash instead of replacement was a dealbreaker. Josh Harrison answered on the slide there are combined components, which is a total of $78,000, but the restoration price was $110K. That was a $32,000 difference. If he was required to restore, he would have to reevaluate and project would be further delayed. Member Murray asked how important it was to keep things historic on the building. Mr. Harrison said it was important and that was why he had taken it through the landmark process. He wanted to restore the building and bring future restoration projects back before the Commission. When the 2019 report came back he could not afford to do the windows, and they have deteriorated more since 2019 so the cost had gone up. Replacement was a more viable option for him. Commission Deliberation Member Knierim’s main concern was how the changes to the building would affect historic character. He felt because of the deterioration and Mr. Harrison trying to retain what he could, replacement was a logical, good solution. Member Murray highlighted the accessibility for maintenance in the proposed system. The windows had been poorly maintained over the years, and the applicant inherited them. He thought maybe the most visible windows could be rehabilitated and the ones in the back could be replaced. He hated to lose the historic ropes and weight system, as well as the T-style weather stripping. As a contractor, he knew how to repair the windows, but it would cost. However, there was funding to help keep the windows. He was torn between the stewardship of a historic building and pragmatism. He preferred the recommendation on packet page 90, that the windows facing West Mountain and South Mason be restored, while the rest were replaced. Member Nelsen asked Member Murray what the difference in street view aesthetics would be for replacement or repair. He said the main part was the weight and balance system and while it was hard to believe given their current condition, these kinds of windows were made to replace parts. The wood and the system were important for a historic building. Member Nelsen asked what Member Murray thought about the pricing. It was expensive both ways, and the new system would deteriorate just as badly if not maintained. Member Nelsen asked if the current system could be maintained from the inside if it was rehabilitated. Member Murray said yes, and he thought they could be restored. He asked if the Commission preferred the old or new. Member Nelsen said she thought protection of the fenestration mattered most and mixing and matching might be aesthetically worse than one consistent approach. Member Murray agreed the sashes might be too deteriorated to rehabilitate, but he thought replacing the weight and balance system would not be protecting the historic integrity of the building. Member Nelsen did not understand the difference in the replacement of the ropes and weights versus the proposed solution. Member Murray said they could probably do a hybrid and put the old systems on new sashes. Member Bello agreed doing a mixture of repair and replacement would be a greater impact to the character of the building. He suggested doing one façade one method, and another façade the other, but felt even that might be too disparate. Member Nelsen expressed she did not want to slow down the process of repair or replacement, due to the possibility of more deterioration of the windows, which provided an important function of weather- proofing the building. A $30,000 difference was significant which could slow down important work for the health of the building. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 [October 20, 2021] Chair Dunn said a significant amount of material would have to be replaced, so the Commission would be asking to save a system, not material. Member Murray said probably 50% would have to be replaced based on the pictures, and Chair Dunn pointed out it would be worse than when the pictures were taken. Member Murray said he thinks there is funding to close the gap if need be, but he was unsure if the windows could wait on the process to obtain it. Chair Dunn said if there was all the time in the world, they would prefer grant money and restoration; however, that was not the case because glass could start falling out on people’s heads. Member Murray thought the process of restoration would be almost as quick as replacement. He just wanted to make sure they were not giving up too much historic material because in his professional experience, they could be repaired. Member Rose said the decision was one of degrees: integrity and historical value versus losing so much fabric there was no integrity. He commended Mr. Harrison on planning to retain as much as he could. The 2019 report communicated the windows were worth replacing and providing the owner with something sustainable. He had worked with the Secretary of the Interior standards for a while. He did not think the rehabilitated windows could be maintained from inside like the replacements. The replacement of the sash was a satisfactory compromise. Losing the weight system was worth gaining ease of maintenance. Member Nelsen believed one of the Commission’s goals was to keep the use of a historic building. Functioning windows were valuable to the experience of the tenants and allowed it to be used as intended. She believed the replacement option was reasonable. Member Dunn agreed the plan was a nice compromise Member Bello moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for window rehabilitation at 155 W Mountain and 130 S Mason as presented, and direct staff to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, understanding that the material presented shows extensive deterioration of many of the windows, and the fact that the transoms maintained and the surrounds are being maintained, and the applicant is doing their best with what they have to maintain the integrity of building. Member Knierim seconded. Chair Dunn asked Staff if there was anything specific they needed to address in the motion that had not been. Interim Historic Preservation Manager Bzdek said they could add a statement about the balance system if they felt it should be a condition. Member Bello questioned whether his motion was sufficient. Member Nelsen believed it was, because the plans presented discussed replacement and the motion was to approve the plans as presented. Member Dunn pointed out the balance system is not visible, so while important, is not sufficient to override the plans in the application. Member Murray said he would be fighting to save the balance system if he thought there was time to do it, and Chair Dunn commented sometimes there is a difference between what one would like and practicality of being able to use a building. Member Nelsen expressed her hope that by accepting the plan, she was helping the owner maintain the building as it should be going forward. There were no conditions the Commission wanted to see on the motion. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 7:27 p.m.] Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 [October 20, 2021] x OTHER BUSINESS None x ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 7:27 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair November 17, 2021