Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 07/20/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 July 20, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers/Remote Via Zoom Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting July 20, 2022 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Yani Jones, Brad Yatabe, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek stated that there will be Community Meeting July 27, 2022, for a Civil Rights Historic Context Project that Historic Preservation will be embarking on and completing within the next two years. Purpose of the project is to better understand our community history and identify any historic properties that may be associated with this theme. Additionally, she introduced a new staff member, Yani Jones, that has joined the staff as a preservation planner. Historic Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 July 20, 2022 Ms. Bzdek provided an update on new Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) members joining in the fall and a mid-September team-building event. She indicated there will also be additional training in Historic Preservation for Commission members in November. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 18, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF 510 & 514 WOOD STREET – SINGLE -FAMILY DEMOLITION The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notices for 510 & 514 Wood Street. Member Carlock moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the July 20, 2022, regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Member M. Dunn commented on the consent calendar follow-up regarding the two houses slated for demolition. She noted that one of them is associated with the City’s Mexican-American, Hispanic Immigrant story. The other is a shingle house. Both houses have some significance to our community which will be lost by demolition. [Timestamp: 5:42p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING DESCRIPTION: 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). STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Mr. Bertolini reported on the activities on the past two months. May and June’s Education and Outreach included a discussion on burnout among government historians and walking tours with PDT staff and Poudre Libraries. The walking tours involved Black and Latinx history. Mr. Bertolini provided additional information on the project with FCTV and the Black and African American Cultural Center at Colorado State University about the early Black History in Fort Collins. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 July 20, 2022 Mr. Bertolini commented on the Historic Survey Highlights, including updates on the steady progress on College Avenue SHF-funded survey, concentrated between Mulberry Street and Laporte Avenue, which should be completed within the next month. Mr. Bertolini reported that four Development Review Findings were found Not Eligible due to lack of significance, some had significant losses of integrity, including 6824 S. College. Mr. Bertolini provided an update on projects that are not coming before the commission, including a rehab project that will begin shortly on the 1882 Tubbs and Cowan Block located at 247-249 Linden. This project will include masonry repair, targeted window and door replacement, a rooftop stair access addition, and a rear addition that staff did not have any concerns that it would meet the standards and was administratively approved. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn asked for clarification the Cienfuegos property, specifically if the rear addition is close to the ally. Mr. Bertolini replied that the ally is close but there is enough of an inset that the project is not encroaching on the ally. [Timestamp: 5:58 p.m.] 4. BALFOUR SENIOR LIVING DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of a five-acre site at the southeast corner of Harmony and Cinquefoil Lane for a senior living community. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic farmstead structures and construction of a 204,795 square-foot new building. Development site is in the Harmony Corridor; the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Balfour Senior Living, Louisville, CO Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting that this item first came to the commission in March 2020 and is returning with some adjustments based on the Commission’s comments, as well as comments received by staff during the staff development review process. She discussed the role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Ms. Bzdek provided additional details regarding the adaptive reuse of four contributing buildings and a new building for a senior living center. She provided information about the location and historical resources of the area. She indicated that the Historic Resource Assessment for the site has found it significant for its agricultural history. Ms. Bzdek discussed information related to specific items on which staff is recommending the Commission focus its discussion. She stated that the primary questions from the staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the proposed treatment plan for the historic buildings, as well as the design compatibility of the new construction. Applicant Presentation Lee Payne, representative of the property owners, gave the Applicant presentation. Mr. Payne provided answers to the Commission questions from the previous Commission hearing, addressed the concerns regarding Secretary of the Interior Standards requirements, specifically making changes to preserve some of the historic windows that were discovered during their inventory. Mr. Payne indicated there are many changes to the new construction. He addressed the Commission’s previous concerns with the windmills, water tanks, and arch at the entry, have all been eliminated from the project. He discussed other modifications to address the standards and suggestions. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 July 20, 2022 Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn had questions about who completed the window study. She asked about the 1915 house being closer to the new construction than the barn after it has been moved. Mr. Payne replied that his staff studied the windows. He noted that the barn’s foundation is not suitable for adaptive reuse, is being moved, and will get a new foundation. The barn will be the closest to the new construction. Chair Knierim discussed Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Member M. Dunn asked if new windows will be framed with a similar border to how they are currently. Mr. Payne answered that the borders around the windows will remain. Member M. Dunn asked if the windows that are getting filled in with siding were from the 1970’s. Mr. Payne indicated that after reviewing all available information about those windows, it is hard to determine the exact date of the windows. Member M. Dunn asked about the simplification of the Northside barn door. Mr. Payne stated that they made no change to north side barn door but have made changes to the south side. Member Rose asked a question about the barn being attached to the canopy cover, whether that is the north or south side of the barn. Ms. Bzdek answered that the illustration is representative of the south side. Member Rose asked a question about the barn elevation. Ms. Bzdek clarified that south side elevation is the street side. Member Rose discussed the canopy that significantly changes the elevation and diminishes the view. He discussed the modifications to the appearance of the doors does not really provide a benefit based on the way it fits into the rest of the complex. Chair Knierim discussed the massing and building articulation from Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Member M. Dunn commented that the new widths fit the historic buildings better. She appreciated the improvement on the western end of the new building by the reduction. Regarding the massing next to the barn and whether the porch covering would be sufficient, she noted the most mitigating factor is that it is two ally-widths away. The distance helps meet the massing requirements. M. Dunn discussed that the porch roof adds horizontal line of connection. She discussed that it fits with Section 3.4.7- Massing and Articulation requirements. Member Carlock agrees with Member M. Dunn and their previous concerns were addressed. Regarding building materials, Member M. Dunn asked if the historic building had stone foundations. Ms. Bzdek answered that there is some sandstone. Mr. Payne answered that there are stone foundations on the primary farmhouse and is included on the new construction. Member M. Dunn asked if it would be rectangular sandstone. Mr. Payne answered that it will be irregular shaped, fieldstone patterning. Member M. Dunn asked for clarification on the manufactured stone in the new construction in the corners and edges. Mr. Payne replied that will be selectively used. There will not be seams, instead it will be wrapped around. They will be terminating the material change at inside corners instead of outside corners. Mr. Payne indicated that this process makes it look more monumental. Member M. Dunn agreed the look will be more authentic than wallpaper and more like stone. Chair Knierim agreed with Member M. Dunn that that is the goal in the code to make it look authentic. Regarding Section 3.7.4(e) – Shutters: Member Carlock asked questions about which buildings have shutters. Member M. Dunn answered the north side of the new construction is what concerned the Commission previously. Mr. Payne discussed compliance relative to window proportions. He noted the shutters on the barn will match type and not proportion. The scale is the fenestration patterns in proportions relative to the historic structures is the same, pursing a punched open pattern. Mr. Payne noted that there is a significant reduction of shutters throughout the project. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 July 20, 2022 Chair Knierim noted that there are not too many shutters. Member Nelson commented that historically shutters would be sized to cover the windows. She discussed that shutters provide a level of character and texture and an easy fix to size the shutters to fit the windows. Member M. Dunn noted that oversized shutters indicate that it’s a modern building and could be a valid design element. Member W. Dunn agrees with Member M. Dunn that the modern shutter design does not detract from the historic building. Member M. Dunn asked about which part of Section 3.4.7 the Commission was being asked to review. Mr. Payne confirmed that this project complies with 1) similar window pattern, instead of 2) similar window proportions. Member M. Dunn noted that it does not comply with number three, solid to void. Regarding Design Details: Member Carlock believes the details are sufficient. Member M. Dunn believes the porch roof helps tie in horizontally with the roofs of the historic homes, which is sufficient. Member Rose appreciated that the updated design is a good response to the Commission’s concerns about the overall mass instead of the overall profiling of the roof. Member Rose commented that the scale is sufficient. He is concerned about where the canopy meets the barn and why there is a need for dominant change in the barn door. Member Guenther noted the variety of different materials and structures that are in the site plan. He expressed appreciation to the architectural team for blending the unique structures together into one site plan that flows. Member Guenther asked a question about the canopy as a covered walkway at the entrance. He commended the design and overall philosophy that is saving and showcasing the agarin history of Fort Collins. Commission Deliberation Member Rose moves that the commission recommend approval of the development proposal based upon the following format: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends to the decision maker the development proposal for The Overlander by Balfour finding that it is in compliance with the standards contained the Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 based on the following elements: The treatment of the four historic resources on the site meets the Secretary of Interior Standard for Rehabilitation, the design of new construction meets in terms of massing, building materials, and facade details that are compatible with historic context and does not create a problem with visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction and meets the requirements outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7, and the proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources. and is approved with no conditions. Member Guenther seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 6:47 p.m.] 5. 1306 W MOUNTAIN – ADDITION – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to issue, with or without conditions, or to deny, a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building along with related rehabilitation. A previous version of the application of the project included demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building – that work is still proposed but based on approval from the HPC on February 17, 2022, is not included in this application for approval. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 July 20, 2022 (*** Secretary’s Note: Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. ***) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting that this a Final Design Review of a new proposed addition. He discussed the Commission’s previous approval of the items related to the demolition of the non-historic garage and constructing a new garage off the ally. He discussed the role of the Commission and to consider whether the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the designation of the property and reviewed the timeline for the proposed project. He provided additional details regarding the new proposed addition design and stated staff’s analysis of the concept sketches is that the applicable rehabilitation standards are generally met. He provided information related to specific items on which staff is recommending the Commission focus its discussion. He stated the primary questions from staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the window modification at the northwest corner of the addition. Applicant Presentation Jeff Schneider, representative of the property owners, provided answers to Commission questions from the work session, and discussed the design changes based on Commission’s concerns in May. He discussed the requirement of adding new windows and addressing the removal of the northwest window for life, health, and safety issues, among others. Mr. Schneider noted that the previous proposal of removing one window in the bathroom and adding two smaller windows in the bathroom, are closer to Mountain Avenue than the windows that he is proposing on the rear of the building. Public Input Eric Guenther commented that he believes the proposed addition meets the guidelines and should be approved without conditions. He commented that it meets the standards for scale, mass, materials, and general appearance. Mr. Guenther noted that the proposed interior changes will allow the applicants to age in place. Further, the northwest window changes will not have any impacts on the historic attributes, integrity, context, or characteristics of the home. Laura Bailey commented that she has concerns with the northwest windows. She believes that the windows break with the character of the home and are quite visible to traffic. She commented that she appreciated that the plan and design has been downsized considerably. She also noted that the livability of the interior space should not be addressed by changing the exterior historical character of the home. Commission Questions and Discussion Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office (“CAO”), indicated that the Applicant and Staff will be allowed to respond to public comments. No response from Staff. Mr. Schneider noted his position regarding the additional windows. Member Rose asked if the proposal for the casement windows, to meet egress requirements, includes a false meeting-rail. He expressed concerns about the appearance. Mr. Schneider replied that the grids are applied to the glass and not in-between the glass to simulate the appearance of a double-hung window. Member Nelson asked if the product is applied to both sides of the glass, as with simulated divided light. Mr. Schneider replied that individual panes are in-between the applied simulated divided light. Member Nelson asked if there is a shadow bar applied between the glass. Mr. Schneider replied there will be a spacer bar installed. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 July 20, 2022 Member Carlock asked if there are other examples of other historic buildings approved with similar window configurations as this proposal, where one window has been in-filled and other windows have been substituted. Mr. Bertolini commented that there have been similar requests, but none approved. Ms. Bzdek replied that no projects have been approved with that similar situation in the past seven years. Member Nelson asked for clarification on the sill height and dimensions of the existing window. Mr. Schneider indicated the existing window meets code requirements for minimum height. He provided information about the existing window opening as a comparison with proposed windows. He indicated the proposed casement windows will meet egress requirements. Member Carlock commented that rearranging the furniture in the bedroom to accommodate the existing window would not allow the Applicant’s the ability to age in place. Commission Deliberation Chair Knierim addressed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. He commented that Application 2 on the I.T.S. 14 was helpful, and would allow the windows, based on the Standard’s guidance, Packet Pg. 21. Member Carlock Margo agreed that the windows would be compatible under this standard. Member M. Dunn had concerns about application of the standard in this proposal. Member Carlock commented that the addition of the windows would make the livability of the space critical and does not impact the character defining features. Member Nelson noted that the issue to make the space more livable is not within the Commission’s purview. She commented that there are other designs that could allow the applicants to age in place without impacting the windows. Member Carlock had concerns about the interior dimensions and placement of furniture under existing options. Member M. Dunn noted that there are inherent limitations with living in a designated home. She noted that the Commission had concerns about the addition of windows at the May hearing. She commented that the defining characteristics of the exterior are key when deciding to make alterations or additions to the exterior of the house. Member Rose commented that this project has made significant changes and been dramatically downsized. He noted that one window has been made a character defining feature. Member M. Dunn addressed the downsizing of the project and that the code does not require the windows to be altered. Member M. Dunn moves that the historic preservation commission approve all plans and specifications for the Jackson/Bailey property located at 1306 W. Mountain, except the proposed changes to the NW bedroom windows, finding that all but the window proposal met the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval of the proposed treatment of the windows on the northwest bedroom’s west wall, which would inappropriately result in the removal of a historic window and the creation of two new window openings, which does not meet Secretary of Interior Standards 2 or 5, nor follow the guidance in Standards Bulletin #14. Member Nelson seconded. Commission Discussion Member Nelson noted that this project is smaller home where each window occupies a larger percentage of the façade, the windows are visible from the street, and the windows are character defining features. She commented that the historic material is unnecessary to remove, and the applicant has not established a need to deviate from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Member W. Dunn commented that the windows are important features of the home. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 July 20, 2022 Chair Knierim commented on the balance of modern livability and historic character defining features. Member Carlock, Member M. Dunn, and Member Nelson commented on egress issues with the current window and existing opening. Member M. Dunn noted that the Standards try to make the building functional, address any code requirements and to keep the structure intact. Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office, outlined the procedure in the event of a tie vote. He reviewed the role of the Standards in the Commission vote on the motion presented. The motion passed 4-2. [Timestamp: 7:56 p.m.] (***Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at 7:56pm – 8:06pm. ***) 6. 1802 N COLLEGE – APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILTY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation of the commercial property at 1802 North College Avenue. On April 22, 2022, 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 intensive-level survey site forms. When undergoing development review, landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPLICANT: Darren Haun, H & H Properties, LLC (Property Owner) (***Secretary’s Note: Member M. Dunn disclosed that her friend contacted her to comment on Item 6. Member M. Dunn directed her friend to the correct public comment procedure and promptly notified Claire Halveda, City Attorney’s Office. ***) Staff Report Jim Bertolini presented the staff report noting that this is an appeal of the staff finding of the determination of eligibility. Mr. Bertolini discussed the role of the Commission and noted this is a De Novo hearing to provide a determination of eligibility for The City of Fort Collins Landmark designation. Mr. Bertolini discussed the background of the project and reviewed the timeline. He provided additional history of the property and reviewed the applicable Land Use Code and Municipal Code standards. He discussed updated policies regarding staff public engagement and updated public comments. Mr. Bertolini reminded the Commission to consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building. He stated that the primary questions from staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the determination of eligibility. Applicant Presentation Jeffrey Cullers, counsel for the Applicant, gave the Applicant presentation and provided a history of the property ownership. He clarified that the current property owners are H&H Properties, LLC. He discussed the current condition of the property and reviewed the applicable criteria for determination of eligibility. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 July 20, 2022 Regarding the significance standard, Mr. Cullers noted that while the building is fifty-one years old, the Perez family opened the restaurant in the building in 1969. He noted the staff finding that the Perez family is associated with the historic trend but argued that the building is not significant nor associated with the historic trend. He discussed that the restaurant is not making any culinary contributions or otherwise having influence in the community outside of the restaurant itself. Mr. Cullers noted that staff provided evidence that Pobre Pancho’s is associated with institutionalized racism against Latinx people in Fort Collins but argued that the Perez story is not unique. He indicated that the family is associated with the historic trend of immigration, and the building is associated with the family, but the path is attenuated if the Commission determines eligibility based on the family’s association with the restaurant. Mr. Cullers noted that the restaurant survived a long time in a difficult industry but there is no evidence that the restaurant influenced the development of Fort Collins. He indicated that the success of the restaurant does not equate to a historical trend. Mr. Cullers detailed the Appellant’s response to the staff report. He discussed that there is no evidence that the building and the restaurant are associated with a historic trend of general migration of Latinx people to the City, State, and Nation. He discussed that Pobre Pancho’s is not associated with institutionalized racism against Latinx people in Fort Collins. He argued that the building is not associated the settlement of Latinx people north of the Poudre River because of gentrification due to the staff report and historic survey making many assumptions. Mr. Cullers discussed the Integrity standard based on the seven factors in the staff report and staff finding. He argued that the Perez family did not build the building and the integrity is not met because the building is generic, with no associations with Mexican culture or food. Mr. Cullers compared the building with other buildings known for Mexican, Latin, or Southwest influenced art-style. Mr. Cullers concluded by indicating that Pobre Pancho’s significance and legacy is not associated with the building. He discussed the practical application of a determination of eligibility. He discussed other ways of honoring the Perez family and asked the Commission to find that the building is not eligible as a historic landmark. Public Input Mark O’Donnell, Real Estate Broker Colorado Commercial, Fort Collins, Colorado. He has assisted H&H Properties, LLC, in the sale of 1802 N. College Ave., as the seller’s agent. He discussed the marketability limitations of the property if the property is eligible for designation. He discussed the hardship of H&H Properties, LLC running a restaurant on the property. Mr. Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office, (“CAO”) commented on distinction between designation of the property and eligibility for designation. Monica Bird, Frank Perez’s daughter, Fort Collins, Colorado. She discussed the history of the building and clarified the pictures that were shown by Mr. Cullers during Appellant’s presentation. She discussed the history of Frank Perez and his family. She discussed that the building has significance to the family as a physical representation and reminder of perseverance against racism. Ms. Bird noted that Frank Perez was a direct symbol of the Latino community, and the building has significance. She asked the Commission to determine the building is eligible for landmark designation. Mary Perez, Frank Perez’s wife, Fort Collins, Colorado. She discussed the history of the restaurant and the history of Pobre Pancho’s moving to 1802 N. College Avenue. She discussed the history of the Perez family. She noted that the building does have a significant history. She discussed that her family’s heritage in the building. She discussed that the building is eligible because the business ran for 51 years with a Hispanic owner. James Aron, Fort Collins, Colorado. He discussed his association with the restaurant and the Perez family. He noted that he loved the restaurant and Frank Perez. He noted that the building should be eligible for landmark designation because of the legacy of Frank and his family in Fort Collins. Emelia Perez, Frank Perez’s daughter, Fort Collins, Colorado. She indicated that she worked at Pobre Pancho’s since she was in junior high. She discussed the history of the building. She noted that the restaurant was a family, serving three generations. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 10 July 20, 2022 Carol Tunner commented on her history as a Historic Preservation Planner with the City of Fort Collins. She noted that Pobre Pancho’s is an institution that needs to be designated. She discussed her history with the restaurant. She noted that it was a locally owned business. She asked the Commission to find the building eligible for designation because Frank Perez and his family are influential in the Hispanic community on N. College Avenue. Blossom Sanchez commented that she has lived in Fort Collins for thirty-two years. She discussed her history with the building and her family. She noted that before the Latino community was in the area, the land was Native land. She noted the land is historical. She asked the Commission to find the building eligible for landmark designation. Asher Haun, principal owner H&H Properties, LLC, and Pobre Pancho’s. He commented on his history with the restaurant and with the building. He noted that he employs people from many different cultures and closing the restaurant was not bias based. He asked the Commission to find that the building is not eligible for landmark designation. [Timestamp: 9:51 p.m.] Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn asked Jeff Cullers to clarify his comment about Fort Collins’ use of police power. Mr. Cullers replied that he didn’t mean to use that term to include criminal justice. Member M. Dunn asked Mr. Cullers about institutional racism in Fort Collins. Mr. Cullers replied there is no evidence that the City behaved in a negative way toward the Perez family with permitting the restaurant or inspections. Member M. Dunn asked about assumptions in the historic survey. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, discussed policies and procedures the Commission may follow. Ms. Bzdek discussed the evidence in terms of the historical record and general procedure with reliance on historic survey reports in making determinations. Member Guenther asked for clarification on the process and about the implication of determination of eligibility. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, commented on the eligibility determination in the development review process. Member Guenther commented about the current physical condition of the property and on the implications if the property is eligible for designation. He discussed the future resale of the property if the integrity of the building is diminished. Mr. Bertolini discussed that an eligibility finding is neutral for owners but follows the property. He noted that the intention of the designation would be for owners to leverage resources for building maintenance. He further discussed modification of standards under the Land Use Code. Ms. Bzdek commented that a determination of eligibility will stand for five years but can be reevaluated if the circumstances change. Member Carlock commented about the possible outcomes on the property and clarified that Land Use Code 3.4.7(D) would apply and require preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic resources. Mr. Bertolini noted that an eligible property would be treated under this code as if it were a landmark. Ms. Bzdek noted that if a property has been designated a landmark, the Historic Preservation Commission or staff will be involved in the design review process. Member Nelson commented that significance for design and construction is different than significance for events and trends. Mr. Bertolini reviewed the standards for events and trends. Chair Knierim commented that the building should retain its eligibility because it tells a story that has historically been under told. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, commented on procedural aspects. Member Guenther asked about restrictions on type of businesses that can be on the property if designated. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, clarified that the use of the property is not necessarily affecting the historic character defining aspects of the exterior features. Member Guenther commented that an eligible designation on the property may not preserve the historic legacy and trends if there aren’t restrictions on the type of use on the property. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page 11 July 20, 2022 Mr. Yatabe, CAO, discussed making alterations to the property and not the use of the property would be under the Commission’s purview if a property was eligible for designation or designated. Mr. Bertolini reviewed the Rehabilitation Standards. Commission Deliberation Member Nelson commented about the link between significance and integrity. She noted the building is representative of place and events, not exterior architecture. Ms. Bzdek discussed the continuum of opportunities for storytelling and maintaining history through specific places. Member Carlock commented about the Perez family’s heartfelt comments. She noted that a different memorial such as a museum exhibit might be a better way to tell their story. Monica Bird discussed that their story will be best told by finding the building eligible for landmark designation rather than a street sign or museum exhibit. Mr. Cullers discussed the burdens upon the Appellant if the property is deemed eligible for designation. He offered a different definition of integrity for the Commission to consider. Member M. Dunn commented on the history of change of uses in other buildings in Fort Collins and discussed that a change of use does not mean a change of history. She commented on the issues of distinctive architecture or lack thereof. She noted the purpose of landmarking is to have a physical artifact in order to preserve local history. She discussed the relevant pattern and events, as well as the significance that supports the eligibility of the building. Chair Knierim noted that the plainness of the building is significant in itself. The building tells a story. Member Rose noted the heart-wrenching comments received. He discussed the practical, reasonable, balanced, and cost-efficient opportunities for properties. He noted the far-reaching aspects of an eligibility determination. Chair Knierim discussed the parameters the Commission may use to make decision. He noted that the Commission has police power. Member Nelson commented about significance of events and trends and that the building represents the work the family has done to build a community. The building serves as a wayfinding. Member Carlock noted that the building has significant significance but has concerns how the story will live in the building in the future. She is concerned that an eligibility designation will unduly impact the current owners. Member Nelson noted that an eligibility designation has not been documented to the Commission as a depreciation of assets. Mr. Yatabe, CAO, discussed Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, significance and integrity, and the role of the Commission. Member M. Dunn moves that the Historic Preservation Commission find the commercial property at 1802 N. College Avenue eligible, as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following three findings of fact: 1) The Pobre Pancho’s building is significant to the history of Fort Collins and the local Latino community under criterion 1 – Events, for its association with a Mexican immigrant family that established a restaurant business reflecting the spread of Mexican foodways, and which also speaks to the changing taste of local non-Mexican residents who came to embrace the flavors of Mexico, and also the site’s association with (perhaps even leading the trend) towards Mexican-American and Hispanic businesses moving north along 287 north of Fort Collins beginning during the 1960’s and a pattern of development that is still evident today; 2) The Pobre Pancho’s building is also significant to the history of Fort Collins and the local Latinx community under criterion 2 – People, for its association with four generations of the Perez family including Amelia Perez, Frank and Mary Perez, Monica Bird, and Karolyn Bird, who made their mark upon our local history through the Mexican restaurant business; and ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1