Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/20/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 April 20, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn and via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting April 20, 2022 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen ABSENT: Walter Dunn, Jim Rose STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan Chair Knierim 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.”  AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated there were no changes to the posted agenda.  CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent.  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 April 20, 2022 Mr. Bertolini provided an update on the landmark nomination for 1433 South Overland Trail. He stated it was ultimately determined that ownership of the property lies with the HOA that nominated the property; however, the HOA has since pulled its support of the nomination and staff will be asking Council to indefinitely postpone the item at its May 3rd meeting.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:35 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 16, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Nelsen moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the March 16, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member M. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 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). Mr. Bertolini stated staff completed the first round of City landmark loan projects and he provided information about the three projects. Additionally, he noted certificates of appropriateness were issued retroactively for two murals in Old Town. He also stated six survey findings were issued and he discussed educational and outreach experiences. Member M. Dunn asked if the murals were done by property owners or organizations. Mr. Bertolini replied the Pine Street mural was commissioned by the owner. He commented on the need for staff to follow up with the Fort Collins Mural Project regarding the need to apply for certificates of appropriateness prior to installing murals. 3. COMMUNICATING THE QUEER PAST: CSU STUDENT PRESENTATION DESCRIPTION: Staff has collaborated with Dr. Thomas Dunn, Monfort Professor at Colorado State University and Associate Professor of Communication Studies, with his SPCM 380.A5 class, Communicating the Queer Past. The students have been completing research and developing a timeline for Queer history in Fort Collins. The students will provide a summary of their project and findings and be available to answer questions from the HPC. PRESENTERS: Student presenters (TBD) Dr. Thomas Dunn, Monfort Professor/Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner (support only) Presentation Caroline Hall outlined the class project to create a queer memory timeline. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 April 20, 2022 Payton Donahue further detailed the timeline project which addresses queer history in Northern Colorado from 1950 to the present. She stated the class research has led to a well-informed and easy to access timeline for the queer memory project. Ms. Hall outlined the process the class followed to complete the project and discussed the research completed. Bianca Rinaldi further detailed the timeline inclusions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim asked if students had looked at how national events affected Fort Collins. Ms. Hall replied that is not beyond the scope of the research; however, the beginning of the project was to address Fort Collins specifically. Member M. Dunn asked if this is online. Professor Thomas Dunn replied the students are working on the online version and it will hopefully be available publicly in time for Pride Month in June. Member M. Dunn asked who individuals should contact if they want to be interviewed. Professor Dunn replied the oral history series will be continued over the summer and he is the best contact at QMPNNoCo.org. Member Guenther commented on the excellent work and requested additional information on Barb Kissler. Ms. Hall replied she was a community member who went to CSU in the 1970’s and later taught there. She provided information on historical LGBTQ+ community locations in the 1970’s. Professor Dunn commented on her importance to the community. Member Nelsen thanked them for their work, calling it incredibly important. She stated she is looking forward to digging into the timeline and welcoming the students back to speak again in the future. Chair Knierim thanked the students for their wonderful work. [Timestamp: 6:03 p.m.] 4. 113 N. SHERWOOD ST – DESIGN REVIEW: ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for changing a roof on a designated property from wood shingle to a synthetic roofing product that simulates the appearance of wood shingles. Associated fascia and gutter work is expected. The alterations are proposed for the Boughton (Bouton) House, 113 North Sherwood Street. APPLICANT: Devin Odell and Maria Fernandez-Gimenez, Owners Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report and discussed the history of the property and its designation as a National Landmark. He stated the role of the Commission is to make a decision regarding whether the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. He discussed the historic significance of the property, specifically noting the distinct shingle style of architecture, and provided photos of the existing conditions. He outlined the proposed project to replace the wood shingle roof with an F-wave polymer product that is designed to replicate the wood shingles. Mr. Bertolini stated staff has referred this issue to the Commission due to the prominence of the property. He noted staff found the project does not meet the applicable rehabilitation standards. He also noted wood shingles are available as a replacement, though they are significantly more expensive and have been banned in other Front Range jurisdictions due to fire risks. Wood shingles in Fort Collins must be rated class A. Mr. Bertolini outlined the applicable standards and discussed the reasons staff believes they are not met given the roof is a character-defining feature of the home. He discussed examples of approved substitute roofing materials used on historic buildings. Mr. Bertolini stated the staff recommendation of denial is based on its conservative interpretation of the standards; however, considering some of the information provided this evening, it is possible for the Commission to grant a waiver of conditions under Section 14-5 if it believes that is warranted. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 April 20, 2022 Member Guenther asked Assistant City Attorney Havelda to expand on what constitutes a hardship under Section 14-5. Ms. Havelda replied there is no hard and fast answer as there is no formal interpretation of that Section; therefore, there is some leeway for the Commission to determine whether this falls under the definition of a hardship or whether this is nominal and inconsequential and will continue to advance the purpose of the Chapter. Member Nelsen asked if cost is considered a hardship. Ms. Havelda replied cost is appropriate to be discussed in terms of an involuntary designation; however, there is no clear guidance on whether it is considered a hardship. She noted whatever decision is made would be establishing a precedent. Member Guenther asked what substitute materials Boulder County allows as it no longer allows wood shingles. Mr. Bertolini replied the Boulder County decision is somewhat recent; therefore, it is still experimenting with alternate products. He noted Denver has been generally satisfied with the F-wave material; however, it is not perfect in terms of matching the historic wood shingles it attempts to replicate. Ms. Havelda noted whether or not to factor in the economic circumstances as a hardship is up to the Commission, and it does not need to be a binary yes or not decision; it could simply be a factor in the totality of factors considered. Member Nelsen asked if Boulder has outlawed fire treated wood shingles. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Member Nelsen asked if Denver has approved the use of the proposed material on landmarked properties. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative and stated they have also approved stone-coated metal and some stamped metal. Member Nelsen asked if any of those materials have been used on shingle-style houses. Mr. Bertolini replied he was unsure. Member Guenther requested guidance in terms of the appropriateness of questioning the applicants relative to cost variances. Ms. Havelda replied the Commissioners could ask those questions if they believe that issue is a factor to be considered in the decision-making process; however, the applicant is not required to answer. Applicant Presentation Devin Odell and his contractor, Tom Stoffel, owner of Colorado Native Roofing and Exteriors, gave the applicant presentation. They assented to the hybrid format of the meeting. Mr. Odell commented on his history of owning the property noting he previously portrayed Judge Boughton at the cemetery stroll and had an interest in the house and its architect. He noted the house has been changed very little since its construction. Mr. Odell discussed the roof replacement noting the cost of the project would be roughly double because of the increased labor and material costs of wood shingles. He stated the goals with the roof replacement are to maintain the historic appearance, use a sustainably produced, recyclable, durable material that is highly fire resistant, lightweight to help preserve the structure, easy to install, and reasonably priced. Mr. Stoffel explained why F-wave is one of the best possible materials and solutions for customers. He provided samples for the Commissioners to inspect and compared the aesthetics, durability, and repairability, and recyclability. He showed videos of testing on the roof to show how it would stand up to fire and CO weather: Fire testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ROdEGzaHL8 Wind testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnC5-zLJfM8 Hail testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxR1OrGOev4 Spot repair/self-healing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBNVBGBY71Q Mr. Stoffel discussed the F-wave warranty and features. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 April 20, 2022 Member Nelsen asked when the house was last re-roofed. Mr. Bertolini replied the permit was pulled in 2006. Member Nelsen asked what the existing shingles are installed upon. Mr. Stoffel replied they are on skip decking. He stated it is easier to ventilate an attic with F-wave versus other shingles and noted a fair amount of ventilation will need to be added to meet new Code requirements and many of those improvements could be unsightly using wood shingles. He stated the required ventilation for F-wave would be invisible. Member Nelsen asked if Mr. Stoffel installs many wood shingle roofs. Mr. Stoffel replied he did one a couple years ago. Member Nelsen asked how long a wood shingle roof should last. Mr. Stoffel replied it should likely last 15-20 years barring any hail storms. He noted the wood would be required to be chemically treated and that tends to not last as long in sunlight. Member Nelsen asked about the difference in repairing a wood shingle roof versus an F-wave. Mr. Stoffel replied wood shingles are brittle and cannot be bent or lifted up without breaking. Mr. Odell noted one can walk on the F-wave material without damaging it. Member M. Dunn asked about the F-wave’s 50-year warranty but 5-year hail warranty. Mr. Stoffel replied the product is relatively new and they do not yet know if hail will damage it over time; however, the warranty is the best in the industry. Member M. Dunn asked how long the product has been on the market. Mr. Stoffel replied it has been out for about five years. Member M. Dunn asked if any houses in the Marshall Fire had an F-wave roof. Mr. Stoffel replied he was unsure. Member M. Dunn asked how the size of the F-wave shingles compares to the existing shingles. Mr. Odell replied they are similar in size but perhaps slightly narrower; however, he has not measured them both exactly. Member M. Dunn asked if the different sizes of shingles could be mimicked with this product. Mr. Stoffel replied in the negative but stated they are staggered to prevent a uniform look. Member M. Dunn commented on observing this product on another house on Elizabeth and stated it looked like asphalt shingles to her. Mr. Stoffel replied he believed that product was incorrectly installed or was a different style. Member M. Dunn asked if the three colors presented were the only options. Mr. Stoffel replied in the affirmative. Member Guenther asked who had manufactured and installed the roof on the Elizabeth house. Mr. Stoffel replied it was not his company. Member Nelsen commented on issues with color lots and asked if that has been shown to be an issue with the F-wave product. Mr. Stoffel replied he has never run across issues with color. Member Nelsen asked what was incorrect with the installation on the Elizabeth house. Mr. Stoffel replied the coursing was short and cuts were made strangely in places. Member M. Dunn asked if state tax credits could be used for the project. Mr. Odell replied he understood the tax credit to be 20% of the project cost, which will not come close to paying the difference between materials. Mr. Bertolini clarified the tax credit is actually 25% for Larimer County. Member M. Dunn asked how much lighter the F-wave material is than wood and how much impact it will have on the structure. Mr. Stoffel replied more weight will lead to load bearing issues over time and noted the shaker wood shingles are very heavy when wet. Member Nelsen asked if a structural engineer has been consulted regarding the weight issue. Mr. Odell replied in the negative and stated he has just done research on the topic. Mr. Stoffel stated he would not have concerns with replacing the wood shake in this case. Member M. Dunn asked what happens to the product after the five to ten years of self-healing. Mr. Stoffel replied it should actually self-heal for its entire lifespan as it is a TPO product. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 April 20, 2022 Member Nelsen asked about the urgency of getting the roof replaced. Mr. Stoffel replied it is difficult to tell with wood shake roofs; however, it is likely getting close to the end of its lifespan and a large wind event could cause issues. Mr. Odell stated he has not noticed any leaks; however, he has discovered several shingles on the yard after large windstorms. He stated he would like to be proactive on getting the roof replaced due to the home’s special features that could be destroyed by leaks. Member Guenther asked if there is any existing precedent or examples of other landmarked homes that have had roofs replaced with not in-kind materials. Mr. Bertolini discussed the examples from his staff report but noted it has not been done often in Fort Collins. He reiterated the F-wave product has not been approved as a substitute material for a designated property and stated a substitute has been approved for only two cases for landmarks. Member M. Dunn asked if staff had made both of those decisions. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Member M. Dunn noted this will be a difficult decision because of the carriage house and new materials to consider. Chair Knierim stated it is also complicated given the shingle style of the house. Member Guenther agreed it is complicated; however, durability, sustainability, safety, and cost to owner implications, the F-wave is a better outcome. In looking at the historic context and standards, it seems clear the wood shake shingles are necessary. Member M. Dunn commented it would be easier if the house was less important to the City. Member M. Dunn asked Member Nelsen to describe her observations about the Elizabeth house. Member Nelsen replied the roof seemed completely flat and did not have shadow lines that are typical with cedar shingles. Member M. Dunn also commented on not seeing a shadow line on the Elizabeth house. She stated being able to see an example of this exact product on a house might make the decision easier; however, she acknowledged that would delay the project. Mr. Odell replied the roof likely has a year of life left and he too would like to see a real-life example. Chair Knierim asked if there are pending Code changes that might disallow wood roofs. Ms. Bzdek replied there is no predictable timeline for that in Fort Collins. Member Carlock asked if approval of this would mean the product is now an acceptable substitute material or if there are different ramifications if the Commission approves a waiver. Ms. Havelda replied the Commission should be detailed about specific factual circumstances related to this item so comparison can be clear in the future should it choose to make that motion. Chair Knierim stated there is no wiggle room if the Secretary of the Interior standards are narrowly considered given the roof is part of the historical character, is character-defining, and can be replaced in-kind. Members M. Dunn and Nelsen concurred; however, Member Nelsen stated there is some merit to discussing alternatives and considering the use of a waiver. She noted the cedar shingles are such an important part of the house. Member Guenther commented he needed to see existing examples of homes with F-wave to make a fair determination. Chair Knierim agreed and stated he would like to arrive at a creative solution. He suggested postponing the item for additional research and to find examples. Member Guenther commented the manufacturer might want to provide more information and this could be an opportunity for the manufacturer to prove the utility of the material for other historic homes in the future. Member Carlock asked how jurisdictions that have banned wood shingles have addressed this issue. She also commented on the increasing instances of wildfires and storms and stated insisting on wood shingles could result in the loss of the house entirely in the future. Member M. Dunn discussed information that would be helpful for making a decision at a future meeting. She also expressed concern from a structural perspective with the roof being lighter. She also requested information from the manufacturer on additional shingle sizes or colors and whether a home with this type of roof has survived a wildfire. She agreed climate change is going to affect how historic properties are treated. Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 April 20, 2022 Mr. Odell replied that information can be gathered and stated he would like to return in several months if that is approved by the Commission. Ms. Havelda noted the rules state an item can be heard again at any time within six months. Mr. Stoffel suggested one of the owners of the company lives in Fort Collins and could perhaps attend the meeting. Member Nelsen requested information regarding accelerative weather testing and suggested talking to a structural engineer could be valuable. Commission Deliberation Member Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this agenda item to some point in the future within the 6-month window. Member Guenther seconded. Member M. Dunn thanked the applicants. Chair Knierim thanked them for their flexibility. Member Nelsen thanked the applicants for their care of the home and stated the Historic Preservation Commission was happy to work with them. Mr. Bertolini mentioned design assistance to help with structural engineer. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 8:12 p.m.] 5. CARNEGIE CENTER FOR CREATIVITY, SITE IMPROVEMENTS (200 MATHEWS) – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive rehabilitation of the Carnegie Center for Creativity, formerly the Carnegie Library, at 200 Mathews, designated as part of a small Landmark District in the southwest corner of Library Park. The project includes work to the windows, masonry, former historic entry, new south entry, and some sitework modifying the gate entry. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins, Cultural Services (**Secretary’s Note: Due to Member Nelsen’s recusal, there was a lack of quorum to hear this item.)  OTHER BUSINESS None