Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/19/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 October 19, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado And Remotely Via Zoom Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Regular Meeting October 19, 2022 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka Chair Knierim welcomed new Commission members Jenna Edwards and Bonnie Gibson. • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated two items were removed from the agenda since it was originally posted. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 October 19, 2022 • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:34 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. 809 W MOUNTAIN - SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 809 W Mountain Street. 3. 700 E ELIZABETH – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 700 E Elizabeth Street. Jim Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the September 21, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Anne Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 9-0. [Timestamp: 5:35 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. 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 couple of weeks. He provided Education and Outreach highlights, such as the Civil Rights Community Meeting, Museo Adobe remudding, and the upcoming Women’s Suffrage Events. Public Input None. [Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.] 5. 220 REMINGTON ST (BODE PROPERTY) CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition for the City Landmark at 220 Remington St., the Bode Property. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the HPC. APPLICANT: Dr. Jenna Slootmaker (owner) Chris Aronson, VFLA (design professional/architect) Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 October 19, 2022 (**Secretary’s Note: Member Nelsen withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Staff Report Jim Bertolini presented the staff report for the conceptual review for a proposed addition to the City landmark at 220 Remington Street. He showed slides of the property and noted the original footprint has been in place since 1901 with the exception of a very small shed addition that was later removed. Mr. Bertolini outlined the role of the Commission and discussed the history of the property, which was designated in 2014 under standard three for design and construction. He noted the project received a grant from the City’s design assistance program and he discussed the design concept provided with that assistance. He noted the applicant found that design would not meet the desired needs and therefore designed an alternative plan. Mr. Bertolini outlined the applicant’s proposal for an 850-square-foot rear addition that would attach onto and wrap around the northeast corner of the property. He stated staff’s overall analysis of the conceptual design is that it is generally consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. Applicant Presentation: Dr. Jenna Slootmaker, property owner, presented the applicant presentation. She discussed the challenges of the small space related to her dental practice. Chris Aronson, VFLA, presented the applicant presentation. He discussed the challenges of the small space for a medical office, including having an ADA restroom, lab room, a larger sterilization area and an adequate break room to help with staff retention. Additionally, the design seeks to maintain the proper parking lot depth. He also noted the design has changed to keep the north wall at or inside the existing wall. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim discussed the applicable Secretary of Interior standards. Member M. Dunn asked Mr. Aronson about the response to the design assistance program. Mr. Aronson replied the design assistance program design was not large enough and abutted to a portion of the building where there was a desire to maintain a window. He stated that design did not seem to delineate enough between the new architecture and the historic architecture. Member M. Dunn commended the applicant’s addition of the hyphen. She asked about the roof on the design assistance version. Mr. Aronson replied the ceiling height was too low. Member M. Dunn asked about the applicant’s proposal to place the gabled roof over the exam rooms. Mr. Aronson replied one of the goals was to enhance the patient experience through taller ceilings and additional natural light. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard two. Member Rose stated the applicant’s proposal achieves a better articulation of new versus old and is compatible yet distinctive. Member Carlock concurred. Member M. Dunn stated the proposal works well in terms of this standard particularly because it leaves more of the original building exposed and allows for reversibility. She stated she believes it is appropriate to remove the mud porch in this case. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard three. Member M. Dunn asked about the proposed siding material. Mr. Aronson replied he wants the Commission to weigh in on whether painted lap siding or corrugated metal would be more appropriate. Member M. Dunn stated metal is more of an industrial material and she would be concerned about its use. Member Rose asked if the metal would be installed horizontally or vertically. Mr. Aronson replied it would likely be vertical, but that could still be explored, as could be the color. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 October 19, 2022 Member Rose stated he would be concerned about the use of metal, though he does believe it is necessary to depart from the painted brick to make a distinction. Member Carlock agreed the metal siding may not be appropriate and she suggested a tighter row pattern for lap siding might be a better fit. Member Guenther commented on his desire to see good examples of the proposed siding and what it would look like on the addition. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard four. Member Carlock stated she has no concerns about the removal of the wall. Member M. Dunn and Chair Knierim concurred. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard five. He noted the proposal does not offer many changes to the original structure. Member M. Dunn stated she believes the standard is met by the proposal. Member Rose commented on the scale of the addition not overwhelming the scale of the house and not changing the view from the street. Member Guenther discussed the scale of recent projects and noted the Secretary of Interior standards suggest additions be no larger than 30% of the original footprint whereas this proposal is 68%. He asked how that can be justified in terms of setting precedent for future requests. Mr. Bertolini replied the 30% threshold is actually not in the federal guidelines; those guidelines call for additions to be compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and reversible. He stated the 30% number is used as a rule of thumb, but is not a requirement. Member M. Dunn noted design is more critical than size and she cited the Ginger and Baker site as one with a very large addition, but one that highlights the historic building. She commended this proposed design, particularly given the inclusion of the hyphen. Member Guenther concurred the proposed design is acceptable; however, he expressed concern the Commission’s messaging to the community is not consistent. Chair Knierim suggested placing the topic on a work session agenda. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard nine. Member M. Dunn asked about the broadness of the western side of the gable stating it seems a bit out of sorts. Member Guenther concurred and suggested exploring the angle of the gable in the back to possibly make it consistent with the angles of the historic building. Mr. Aronson discussed the view of the project from the street and stated the design will aim to be sensitive to the existing roof line. Members further discussed the roof line and appropriate treatment. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard ten regarding reversibility, which he stated is generally met. Mr. Aronson asked Mr. Bertolini about the next steps in the process. Mr. Bertolini replied the drawings should be refined into an actual drawing set with renderings then the project would go before the Commission as part of a final design review. He also noted there is a DDA easement on the property that was part of the 2014 rehabilitation. Public Input None. [Timestamp: 6: 32p.m.] (**Secretary’s Note: Member Nelsen returned at this point in the meeting.) Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 October 19, 2022 6. 825 N COLLEGE- APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBLITY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination for the commercial property at 825 North College Avenue as an “historic resource” under Land Use Code 3.4.7. On September 7, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property meets the requirements to be considered an “historic resource” under the City’s Land Use code based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, historic resources (properties that meet the City’s standards to qualify as a City Landmark) are subject to the project approval requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Grem Armstrong, GARA LLC (Property Owner) Claire Havelda, City Attorney’s Office, stated a procedural mistake was made on the City’s part regarding the publishing of a hearing notice in a newspaper of regional circulation. She asked Grem Armstrong, appellant, whether he would prefer to have the City correct that error or continue with the hearing while waiving any objection to the City missing that procedural item. Mr. Armstrong opted to proceed and acknowledged he will not be able to allege the hearing was unfair in the future. Staff Report Jim Bertolini presented the staff report noting this is an appeal of a staff finding determining that the property at 825 North College is eligible to be considered an historic resource under the City’s landmark criteria. He showed slides of the property and discussed the three distinct buildings on the property: a service station, a residence, and a garage. He noted this is a de novo hearing and the Commission is tasked with providing a determination of eligibility as to whether the property qualifies as an historic resource. Mr. Bertolini noted the historic survey of the property was kicked off by the receipt of a development proposal for a conceptual review in August. He summarized the reasons staff found the property to be eligible. Regarding the exterior material of the service station, Mr. Bertolini noted it is concrete block with metal paneling over the top on the front and sides and stucco on the rear. He went on to outline the history of the property and noted he received a verbal public comment over the phone from a resident who is opposed to the finding of eligibility. Applicant Presentation Grem Armstrong provided the applicant presentation. He discussed his experience with the City in 2005 in developing the Human Bean on North College Avenue. He questioned the qualifications of the individual at CDOT who determined the property to be historic in 2010. Mr. Bertolini replied CDOT regularly employs historians and added the main reason CDOT provided a historic survey form was because there was federal funding being utilized for the redevelopment of the North College Avenue highway, and as part of that, CDOT has responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act to account for its affects on any historic resources, or any property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Armstrong showed photos of the residence on the property and discussed the history of its additions, windows, and roof. He commented on the proposed project that would raze the buildings and pave Alpine Street. He stated he does not believe there is any historical integrity in the property and there is not enough room to incorporate the original gas station in the proposal. He requested the Commission allow him to move forward with its planned development with some type of recognition of the history of the property on the new development. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 October 19, 2022 Commission Questions and Discussion Member Guenther asked Mr. Bertolini about the CDOT determination of eligibility in 2010. Mr. Bertolini replied it was completed by an individual who met the federal standards for a preservation related field and would have been verified by others in the organization. Member Nelsen requested clarification regarding the integrity of the residence on the site. Mr. Bertolini replied the questions about integrity were based on the photographs of the home and the lack of documentation regarding its history. Member M. Dunn asked about the determination of the 2010 CDOT survey. Mr. Bertolini replied the survey found the service station and residence to both be potentially eligible for the National Register. He noted the argument for significance was much clearer for the service station and was not well supported for the residence. Member M. Dunn commented on other landmarked service stations on Route 66 and asked about other service stations that may have been designated nationally. Member Rose commented on an article published by History Colorado on the oblong box as a service station. Member Guenther asked why all the buildings on the property are being considered when the significance of the residence is not well established. Mr. Bertolini replied the Commission can consider each building individually. Member Guenther asked Mr. Armstrong if he owned the property in 2010 when the CDOT survey was completed. Mr. Armstrong replied in the affirmative and stated he knew nothing about CDOT’s designation until this year when the conceptual review was completed. He also noted the oblong box is not porcelain or enamel but is painted metal in this case. Member M. Dunn stated the CDOT report was written by a trained preservation historian who works for CDOT and the other people who examined the report were with History Colorado. Mr. Bertolini confirmed that information and stated that is the typical process under the National Historic Preservation Act for federal undertakings. Member Guenther asked if there is a process to notify the property owner that a determination has been made relative to their property that could have a future impact on its market value. Mr. Bertolini replied he is unfamiliar with CDOT’s internal policies for notification and noted the City is not beholden to CDOT’s findings in cases such as this and the 2010 report was only used as a secondary piece of literature to support the process required in the City Code. Member Guenther stated he finds the CDOT process to be flawed given the property owner is not at a minimum informed. Member Edwards asked if the City still provided its own finding. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Member Gibson requested clarification regarding the difference between a property being recommended as being eligible and a property being designated. Mr. Bertolini replied a property that is found eligible for the development review process is still offered some protections under the Land Use Code and the responsibility of a developer is to incorporate eligible resources into their project; however, one potential outcome is still demolition if the developer makes a successful request for a modification of standards which is not an option for a designated City landmark. Member M. Dunn stated the best way to avoid these types of surprises is for City Council to provide a budget item to help provide surveys to inform property owners in advance of the consideration of selling a property. She stated the ad hoc system wherein the development request triggers the survey causes these types of surprises. Member Nelsen asked about Section 106. Mr. Bertolini replied it refers to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act which requires federal agencies to account for their effects on historic resources for their undertakings. He noted most CDOT projects involve federal funding of some type from the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Bertolini and members commented on an article from History Colorado that was referenced but not included in the packet. Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 October 19, 2022 Ms. Havelda suggested the Commission could adjourn to the next hearing time to allow the applicant time to review the article, or the applicant could waive that right. Mr. Armstrong stated he would not waive that as the full article was not in the packet. Ms. Havelda requested the Commission not consider the parts of the article that were not referenced in the staff report. Commission Deliberation Chair Knierim requested the Commission consider whether the property fits the criteria for significance under events and trends for the service station and the garage. Member M. Dunn stated she struggles with the significance of the garage for events; however, the service station seems to fit the criteria based on movement of the community across the river. Member Guenther, Chair Knierim, and Member Nelsen concurred. Member Carlock stated she does not necessarily agree with the significance of any of the buildings under events and trends and the garage should not be considered. Member W. Dunn concurred. Chair Knierim requested the Commission consider whether the property fits the criteria for significance under persons and groups for the residence. Member Guenther stated he does not believe the events and trends were sufficiently established to warrant designation given the events do not necessarily represent the history of Fort Collins. Member Carlock stated the residence does not likely have any resemblance to what it looked like when events took place and it does not have historical significance. Member M. Dunn expressed concern about the number of shingle houses being lost in Fort Collins; however, she stated she does not believe this house has the level of significance necessary. She also stated she is not convinced the argument for historical significance based on people is pivotal enough to landmark the house. Member Nelsen concurred and shared trepidation regarding the house’s integrity. Member Rose concurred with concerns about integrity of the residence. Chair Knierim agreed the role of the women associated with the residence does not rise to a standard of being historically pivotal. Member Carlock commented on the possibility of the placement of a plaque and noted more people will be made aware of the history of the women from that than from the saving of the house. Member Rose commented on the lack of feeling and other aspects that keep the residence from meeting the standards for integrity. Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss the architecture of the oblong station. Member Carlock stated the original 1937 structure was unique; however, the modifications made in the 1960’s severely changed the original building and keep it from being an example of the oblong architecture. Member M. Dunn disagreed and stated the modified structure exactly meets the oblong box architecture. She stated it is classic and clear to her what the building is based on its structure. Member Guenther concurred with Member Carlock and stated the architectural significance is only functional. He stated the site as a whole is blighted, deteriorated, and has not been well maintained and he is compelled to look toward the future for the site. Member Rose concurred with Member M. Dunn and stated this station structure is relevant and eligible and fits exactly the prototypical style of the era in which it was modified. Member M. Dunn commented on not knowing the future of a property simply because it may be dilapidated now. She stated important buildings can be considered for landmarking regardless of whether they are dilapidated. Chair Knierim concurred with Member M. Dunn and stated this building tells a story. He stated he believes the station is eligible though the house and garage may not be. Member M. Dunn commented on the value of preserving car history for future generations. Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 October 19, 2022 Ms. Havelda suggested motions could be made for the station separate from those related to the house and garage. Member M. Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission find the residential house and the accessory garage located at 825 North College Avenue do not meet the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and are not historic resources for the purpose of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 based on the following findings of fact: they lack the level of significance and integrity that would be expected. Member Rose seconded. Yeas: Guenther, Nelsen, W. Dunn, Edwards, M. Dunn, Rose, Gibson, Carlock and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Chair Knierim requested the Commission address the service station regarding its significance in terms of events and trends and architecture. Member Rose commented on the commercial aspect of this kind of a facility weaving itself into history by the development and evolution of commerce in Fort Collins and the improvement of highways and transportation. He noted this was the first service station north of the river and stated he believes the building is eligible. Member Guenther stated he struggles with this designation and commented on early automotive advertising and his work in helping Ford develop dealerships over time. However, he stated he struggles with this particular oblong box being a very important architectural style as many of these buildings were built with a dispensable mindset. Member Carlock agreed the introduction of the automobile and the importance it played in the development of society are very important and legitimate, and looking at the original structures would have been more around the time when that trend occurred. She stated it was a well-established pattern by the 1960’s; therefore, it is not as significant of an event and trend. She noted there will be no ability to redevelop the area if the building is determined to be eligible. Ms. Havelda reminded the Commission that in this forum, the policy regarding what happens with future development is not relevant to its consideration. Member Guenther asked if that consideration is stated somewhere. Ms. Havelda replied City Council did not see fit to include future considerations of development within the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission as the Code stands now; however, Council does have the ability to take into account other policy considerations should a decision be appealed. Mr. Armstrong noted none of this would have occurred had a development request not been made. Ms. Havelda noted that is the frustration with the Code that Member M. Dunn discussed earlier. She suggested Mr. Armstrong make comments to Council because that will inform changes to the Code. Member M. Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission find the service station at 825 North College Avenue meets the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and is an historic resource for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 based on the fact that it embodies an important evolution in commerce and transportation in Fort Collins as businesses began to move north of the Poudre River in part enabled by the growing use of motorized transportation and on the fact that the architecture is a classic example of the utterly unornate oblong box style of garage architecture, and finding that the building has integrity to support both aspects of significance. Member Rose seconded. Yeas: Nelsen, W. Dunn, M. Dunn, Rose, Gibson and Knierim. Nays: Guenther, Edwards and Carlock. THE MOTION CARRIED. [Timestamp: 8:25 p.m.]