Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/04/2022 - REGULAR MEETINGFort Collins City Council Agenda Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 4, 2022 City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Zoom Webinar link: https://zoom.us/j/98241416497 NOTICE: Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month in the City Council Chambers. Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format, with a Zoom webinar in addition to the in person meeting in Council Chambers. City Council members may participate in this meeting via electronic means pursuant to their adopted policies and protocol. How to view this Meeting:: Meetings are open to the public and can be attended in person by anyone. Meetings are televised live on Channels 14 & 881 on cable television. Meetings are livestreamed on the City's website, fcgov.com/fctv Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Meetings are available through the Zoom platform, electronically or by phone. Meeting agendas, minutes, and archived videos are available on the City's meeting portal at https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/ Written comments can be mailed or dropped off at the City Manager's Office at City Hall, at 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Email comments about any item on the agenda to cityleaders@fcgov.com The public can join the Zoom webinar and comment from the remote meeting, joining online or via phone. During the public comment portion of the meeting and discussion items: In person attendees can address the Council in the Chambers. Speakers are required to sign up to speak on sign up sheets on the tables just outside the Chambers. There are four options for members of the public who would like to participate in Council meetings: Comment in real time:: Full instructions for online participation are available at fcgov.com/councilcomments. Join the online meeting using the link in this agenda to log in on an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer with a speaker and microphone. Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve audio experience. To be recognized to speak during public participation portions of the meeting, click the 'Raise Hand' button. Participate via phone using the call in number and meeting ID below: Call in number: 346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 982 4141 6497 During public participation opportunities in the meeting, press *9 to indicate a desire to speak. Submit written comments:: Documents to Share: If residents wish to speak to a document or presentation, the City Clerk needs to be emailed those materials by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting. Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Public Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented. NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details. City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 8 City Council Summary Agenda City Council Regular Meeting Agenda October 4, 2022 at 6:00 PM Jeni Arndt, Mayor Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem Susan Gutowsky, District 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 City Council Chambers 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins & via Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/98241416497 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion Channel 14 and 881 on Xfinity Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead City Attorney City Manager City Clerk PROCLAMATIONS & PRESENTATIONS 5:00 PM A) PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS No proclamations scheduled. REGULAR MEETING 6:00 PM B) CALL MEETING TO ORDER C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE D) ROLL CALL E) CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA REVIEW  City Manager Review of Agenda  Consent Calendar Review, including removal of items from Consent Calendar for individual discussion. F) COMMUNITY REPORTS G) PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY TOPICS OR ITEMS OR COMMUNITY EVENTS (Including requests for removal of items from Consent Calendar for individual discussion.) Individuals may comment regarding any topics of concern, whether or not included on this agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to Council. • Those who wish to speak are required to sign up at the table in the lobby, or online if participating remotely. City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 8 • Each speaker will be allowed to speak one time during public comment. If a speaker comments on a particular agenda item during general public comment, that speaker will not also be entitled to speak during discussion on the same agenda item. • All speakers are asked by the presiding officer to identify themselves by raising their hand (in person or using the Raise Hand option on Zoom), and if in person then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for those who are not able to stand while waiting). Those participating online will be called to speak following those attending the meeting in person. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and, if their comments relate to a particular agenda item, to identify the agenda item number. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be provided to the City Clerk. • A timer will beep one time and turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time has ended. [**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development, consult the Development Review Center page on the city’s website at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview, or contact the Development Review Center at 970.221.6760.] H) PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP I) COUNCILMEMBER REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION J) ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar is intended to allow Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by either Council or the City Manager will be considered separately under their own Section, titled “Consideration of Items Removed from Consent Calendar for Individual Discussion.” Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by Council with one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of: • Ordinances on First Reading that are routine; • Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine; • Those of no perceived controversy; • Routine administrative actions. 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2022 Regular Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2022 Regular meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 8 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2022, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue From Philanthropic Donations Received in 2022 Through City Give for Various City Programs and Services as Designated by the Donors. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, appropriates $90,234 in philanthropic revenue received through City Give. These miscellaneous gifts to various City service areas support a variety of programs and services and are aligned with both the City’s strategic priorities and the respective donors’ designation. In 2019, City Give, a formalized enterprise-wide initiative was launched to create a transparent, non-partisan governance structure for the acceptance and appropriations of charitable gifts. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Provide Financial Support to the United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos for Nueva Vida Mobile Home Park. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, provides financial support to United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos (UN/VU), a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation that recently acquired ownership of the Parklane Mobile Home Park. On August 1, 2022, residents of the Parklane Mobile Home Park (Parklane MHP), with the help of a newly formed nonprofit (United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos, UN/VU), outbid a commercial owner’s offer and purchased their park. With this purchase, residents of Parklane have become one of only six mobile home parks in Colorado purchased by residents. UN/VU is seeking City funding toward several urgent and necessary infrastructure repairs to the park. This item was discussed at the September 1, 2022, Council Finance Committee. 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2022, Annexing the Property Known as the Peakview Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, annexes a 5.78- acre portion of private property that will be used for the construction of Greenfields Drive, a future arterial street within the East Mulberry Corridor. The property to be annexed is a portion of the property subject to the Peakview Planned Land Division (“PLD”) development application which is currently being processed by Larimer County and is expected to be approved prior to completion of this annexation. The remaining property subject to the PLD is expected to petition for annexation as a condition of the County’s approval. The Initiating Resolution for this annexation was adopted on August 16, 2022. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this agenda. This Annexation request is in conformance with State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 8 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2022, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Peakview Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map and Lighting Context Area Map. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, zones the property included in the Peakview Annexation No. 1 Annexation into the General Commercial (C- G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone districts and placement into the LC1 and LC2 Lighting Context Areas. This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 2(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures most recently adopted in Resolution 2022-068. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2022, Authorizing the Release of a Restrictive Covenant on Property at 331 North Howes Street Owned by Villages, Ltd. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, authorizes the release of the Agreement of Restrictive Covenants Affecting Real Property for the propert y located at 331 North Howes Street. This property is owned by Villages, Ltd, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation managed by Housing Catalyst. In exchange for repaying the original $3,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) loan funds, the City will allow early release of a restrictive covenant which would otherwise expire in 2023. 7. Items Pertaining to the Annual Adjustment Ordinance. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2022, Making Supplemental Appropriations from Various City Funds. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Various City Funds. The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to appropriate dedicated and additional revenues or prior year reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover related expenses that were not anticipated, and therefore, not included in the 2022 annual budget appropriation. The additional revenue is primarily from fees, charges for service, rents, contributions, donations, and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2022, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Nonexclusive Stormwater Drainage Easement on Redtail Grove Natural Area to WWW Properties, LLC. The purpose of this item is to authorize conveyance of a permanent, nonexclusive drainage easement to WWW Properties, LLC (owners of Fort Collins Nissan and Fort Collins Kia) on Redtail Grove Natural Area. The proposed easement area aligns with an existing hist oric drainage path for stormwater. WWW Properties, LLC will construct underground water quality and detention facilities on their property to capture stormwater, decrease peak flow rates into Fossil Creek, and decrease the amount of water overtopping the Fossil Creek Trail, as well as the time the trail is overtopped, during significant storm events. City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 8 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2022, Authorizing the Conditional Conveyance of Certain City-Owned Property Rights to Chris Vandemoer and Geo. A. Henderson Co. The purpose of this item is to seek Council authorization for the conditional conveyance of certain City-owned real property rights to Chris Vandemoer and Geo. A. Henderson, Co. (collectively “Vandemoer”). The proposed conveyance is part of a proposed settlement agreement between the City, Vandemoer, and The Nature Conservancy (“TNC”) to obtain necessary property rights on the primary private access road for all three phases of the City’s Halligan Water Supply Project (“Halligan Project”), in which the City intends to replace or modify a dam and enlarge Halligan Reservoir. Vandemoer owns certain real property adjacent to the reservoir that includes a private road that serves as the primary access point to the reservoir and the dam. The property is also encumbered by two conservation easements held by TNC. Since late 2018, City representatives have negotiated with Vandemoer to obtain property rights necessary for the Halligan Project. The parties are currently in eminent domain litigation for Phase 1 of the Project and have had productive conversations regarding a global settlement for all three phases of the Halligan Project. The conveyance of the City-owned property would only occur if: (1) the parties enter into a settlement agreement; and (2) the City completes construction of the Halligan Project. This Ordinance does not seek approval of the settlement agreement itself. The decision whether to enter into the settlement agreement would be made by the City Manager following a recommendation by City staff, in consultation with outside legal counsel and the City Attorney’s Office. This Ordinance is limited only to authorizing the conditional conveyance of City-owned property. The structure of the settlement agreement is explained more fully below. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Net Metered Renewable Energy Generation System Sizing and Adopting Administrative Rules for Net Metered System Sizing. This Ordinance amends sizing requirements in City Code that limit the generating size (i.e. production capacity) of renewable energy systems, removing reference to 120% of a customer’s annual electric consumption and adopts administrative program rules to guide the Utilities’ Executive Director to define allowable generation system sizing consistent with the City’s 2030 energy and climate goals. 11. Resolution 2022-101 Granting A Revocable Permit to Current Holders of Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits Issued Pursuant to Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020- 17A and Emergency Ordinance No. 124, 2020, to Temporarily Continue to Occupy Public Rights-of-Way. The purpose of this item is to bring forth a resolution that addresses a timing gap between terminating emergency rules and regulations and consideration of code changes to allow expanded outdoor permitting on an on-going basis. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR K) CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP (This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.) L) STAFF REPORTS - None M) COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 8 N) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION O) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PLANNED FOR DISCUSSION The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: • Mayor introduced the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff • Staff presentation (optional) • Mayor requests public comment on the item (three minute limit for each person) • Council questions of staff on the item • Council motion on the item • Council discussion • Final Council comments • Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all have an opportunity to speak. If attending in person, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. 12. Resolution 2022-102 Adopting Findings of Fact Supporting the Historic Preservation Commission’s Determination That 1802 North College Avenue was Eligible for Landmark Designation and Denying the Landowner’s Appeal. The purpose of this item is to make findings of fact regarding the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s Decision Finding the Property at 1802 North College Avenue a Historic Resource for the Purposes of Development Review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 and therefore eligible for Landmark Designation. The appeal was heard by Council on September 20, 2022. 13. Items Relating to the Designation of Indigenous Peoples’ Day. A. Native American Community Update. B. Resolution 2022-103 Recognizing the Second Monday in October as “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Acknowledging and Supporting the Native and Indigenous Peoples Living in Fort Collins, and Affirming the City’s Commitment to Recognize and Include the Voices and Interests of Native and Indigenous Peoples in the City’s Commitment to Work Towards Equity. Members of the Fort Collins Native American and Indigenous community collectively have created a resolution recognizing the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Staff from the Equity and Inclusion Office also will share an update on the work that has been taking place with the Native American community this year. 14. Public Hearing #2 on the 2023-24 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins. This is the second public hearing on the City Manager’s 2023-24 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on the 2023-24 budget. Both hearings were set by Council adoption of Resolution 2022-097 at its September 6, 2022, meeting. The City Manager’s 2023-24 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the City Clerk’s Office by appointment only and online at fcgov.com/budget. City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 8 Public input will also be taken during the budget adoption meetings on Tuesday, November 1 and Tuesday, November 15, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. 15. 1306 West Mountain Avenue Landmark Design Review Appeal. The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider an appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) Decision on July 20, 2022, regarding proposed alterations to the City landmark at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, also known as the Jackson-Bailey House & Garage. This appeal is regarding the final design review decision of the applicants’ project by the HPC. The HPC is tasked by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, with assessing whether a proposed exterior project on a City Landmark meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to issue, with or without conditions, or to deny, a Certificate of Appropriateness. In the application that was the subject of the July 20, 2022, decision being appealed, the applicant proposed an addition onto the rear elevation of the main historic building along with related rehabilitation including the modification of windows along the north end of the west elevation. The HPC approved the addition but denied the modification of windows and the Appellant is appealing the denial of the windows both on fair hearing and interpretation and application grounds. A previous application to make alterations to the same property was approved by the HPC on February 16, 2022, with the written decision issued on and dated February 17, 2022, and included demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, construction of a new garage building, and modification of basement windows for egress compliance under the International Existing Building Code. The previous application included an addition to the house that was denied but a modified addition was approved as part of the July 20, 2022, HPC decision. A Notice of Appeal was filed on August 2, 2022, under the following grounds: 1. The HPC failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code, and Charter, specifically City Code Sec. 14-53, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards 2 and 5), and the Secretary of the Interior’s “Interpreting Standards” Bulletin #14 regarding Modifications to Windows on Secondary Elevations. 2. The HPC was biased against the appellant by reason of conflict of interest or other close business, personal or social relationship that interfered with the HPC’s independence of judgement. The HPC’s sole consideration was whether the project proposed at 1306 West Mountain Avenue met the City’s adopted standards for reviewing projects on historic buildings, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically those for adaptive reuse, or Rehabilitation. P) OTHER BUSINESS OB 1. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers. (Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.) City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 8 Q) ADJOURNMENT Every regular Council meeting will end no later than midnight, except that: (1) any item of business commenced before midnight may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the Council may, at any time prior to adjournment, by majority vote, extend a meeting beyond midnight for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter that has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters for consideration at the meeting that have not yet been considered by the Council, will be deemed continued to the next regular Council meeting, unless Council determines otherwise. Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. City Council Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 1 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2022 Regular Meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2022 Regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Minutes, September 20, 2022 Page 9 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 13 City Council Proceedings September 20, 2022 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM A) PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation Declaring September 15-October 15, 2022 as Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month. B. Proclamation Declaring September 17-23, 2022 as Constitution Week. C. Proclamation Declaring October 1 as Tour de Corgi Day. D. Proclamation Declaring October 9-15 as Fire Prevention Week. E. Proclamation Declaring October 15-16 as The Cupboard’s 50th Anniversary Days. Mayor Jeni Arndt presented the above proclamations at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. B) CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Jeni Arndt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, with hybrid participation available via the City’s Zoom platform. C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Jeni Arndt led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. D) ROLL CALL PRESENT Mayor Jeni Arndt Councilmember Susan Gutowsky Councilmember Julie Pignataro Councilmember Tricia Canonico ABSENT Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis Councilmember Shirley Peel Councilmember Kelly Ohlson STAFF PRESENT City Manager Kelly DiMartino City Attorney Carrie Daggett City Clerk Anissa Hollingshead Page 10 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 13 City Council Proceedings E) CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Kelly DiMartino provided an overview of the agenda, including:  There were no changes to the published agenda.  All items on the consent agenda were recommended for approval.  Noting an extended Community Report as part of the meeting from Platter River Power Authority. F) COMMUNITY REPORTS 1. Platte River Power Authority Report Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director, introduced the community report and representatives from Platte River Power Authority. PRPA CEO Jason Frisbie led the presentation. Also assisting in the presentation were Raj Singam Setti, Chief Transition and Integration Officer, and Eddie Gutierrez, Chief Strategy Officer. G) PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY TOPICS OR ITEMS OR COMMUNITY EVENTS (Including requests for removal of items from Consent Calendar for individual discussion.) Alan Braslau, Fort Collins resident and member of the Energy Board, spoke regarding wholesale energy price increases and associated retail rate increases and the need to support energy assistance programs. He also spoke about the need to expand efforts to meet challenges around transportation that contribute to carbon issues. Fred Kirsch, Fort Collins resident, spoke on behalf of Community for Sustainable Energy... in supporting thinking bigger around a commercial scale solar production program. He delivered signatures collected in support of this. Tom Weatherly, Fort Collins resident, spoke to request the ending of the Spin program for bike and scooter rentals due to the way these are being parked and impeding access on sidewalks and roadways. He provided photos. Paul Gessler, representing the group Back from the Brink, spoke regarding nuclear weapons and the need to end the threat of nuclear war and asked council to endorse the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Also requested was two hours of time a week in the Council Chambers to hold public information events regarding this topic. Yenny Andreu, Fort Collins resident, spoke as a Colombian immigrant to thank the Council for their support of immigrant communities. Tallon Nightwalker, director of Northern Colorado Wildlife Center, spoke in support of having wildlife health and support in the City's budget beyond the current non-profit being funded that only provides euthanasia services. Jesus Castro, resident of Fort Collins, spoke regarding his work with the immigrant community in Fort Collins and his appreciation for the support of the Fort Collins community. Maya Ortega, resident of Fort Collins, spoke in support of the Art to Live program that is part of a proposed budget offer. Jerry Gavaldon, Fort Collins resident and president of the Museo Tres Colonias board, shared his appreciation for the help of Maren Bzdek and others across the City in work done on the Museo. Page 11 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 13 City Council Proceedings Patricia Miller, Fort Collins resident, shared her appreciation for the support of immigrant communities in Fort Collins. Kellie Falbo with the Sustainable Living Association, participating online, shared her support for offer 32.16, Seed Funding for a Partner-Led Sustainable Business Program. H) PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP Councilmember Gutowsky acknowledged the appreciation of the Museo and offered her encouragement for the community to visit and enjoy the Museo and see the adobe as well as the altars. Councilmember Canonico expressed appreciation for the reminder transportation is a big part of decarbonization. She also requested more information on the nuclear weapons treaty. Mayor Arndt thanked everyone for coming out, and shared agreement there is room for improvement with Spin as a private partner. Regarding the request for use of public facilities, it was noted staff would follow up with the resident making that request regarding City policies. I) COUNCILMEMBER REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION None. J) CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 6, 2022 Regular Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the September 6, 2022 Regular meeting. Approved. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2022, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Emergency Access Easement to Poudre Fire Authority on City-owned Real Property Located at 430 N. College Avenue. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2022, authorizes the conveyance of an Emergency Access Easement (EAE) to Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) on City- owned real property located at 430 N. College Avenue. The City leases this property, which is the location of the Powerhouse Energy Campus, to the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF). CSURF has submitted plans to the City to make improvements to the property to support a hydrogen fueling station and turbine generator. As a condition of approval, the City, as property owner, is required to convey an EAE to PFA to support fire truck and emergency equipment access, which is a common requirement for new development and improvements on certain properties. Conveyance of the EAE is the final action needed for the City’s Planning, Development, and Transportation Department to approve the project and issue construction permits as CSURF has met all other lease and development review requirements. Adopted on Second Reading. Page 12 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 13 City Council Proceedings 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2022, Appropriating Philanthropic Revenue Received by City Give for the 2022 Parks Independence Day Cele bration and the 2022 Community Development and Neighborhood Services Urban Design Awards. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2022, appropriates philanthropic revenue designated for the 2022 Independence Day Celebration and the 2022 Community Development and Neighborhood Services Urban Design Awards. Adopted on Second Reading. 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2022, Conditionally Vacating a Portion of Coleman Street Right-of-Way. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2022, adopts the conditional vacation of a portion of Coleman Street right-of-way that is no longer desirable or necessary to retain for street purposes. The right-of-way area, once vacated, will be retained in its entirety as a public utility and public access easement to the City. The right-of-way vacation will be conditional upon the demolition of the existing street stub of Coleman Street and the reconstruction of the vacated area as a landscape and pedestrian area. These conditions are outlined in detail in the Ordinance. Adopted on Second Reading. 5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2022, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue From Philanthropic Donations Received in 2022 Through City Give for Various City Programs and Services as Designated by the Donors. The purpose of this item is to request appropriation of $90,234 in philanthropic revenue received through City Give. These miscellaneous gifts to various City service areas support a variety of programs and services and are aligned with both the City’s strategic priorities and the respective donors’ designation. In 2019, City Give, a formalized enterprise-wide initiative was launched to create a transparent, non-partisan governance structure for the acceptance and appropriations of charitable gifts. Adopted on First Reading. 6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Provide Financial Support to the United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos for Nueva Vida Mobile Home Park. The purpose of this item is to provide financial support to United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos (UN/VU), a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation that recently acquired ownership of the Parklane Mobile Home Park. On August 1, 2022, residents of the Parklane Mobile Home Park (Parklane MHP), with the help of a newly formed nonprofit (United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos, UN/VU), outbid a commercial owner’s offer and purchased their park. With this purchase, residents of Parklane have become one of only six mobile home parks in Colorado purchased by residents. UN/VU is seeking City funding toward several urgent and necessary infrastructure repairs to the park. This item was discussed at the September 1, 2022, Council Finance Committee. Adopted on First Reading. Page 13 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 13 City Council Proceedings 7. Items Relating to the Peakview Annexation No. 1. A. Resolution 2022-099 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Peakview Annexation No. 1. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2022, Annexing the Property Known as the Peakview Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of this item is to annex a 5.78-acre portion of private property that will be used for the construction of Greenfields Drive, a future arterial street within the East Mulberry Corridor. The property to be annexed is a portion of the property subject to the Peakview Planned Land Division (“PLD”) development application which is currently being processed by Larimer County and is expected to be approved prior to completion of this annexation. The remaining property subject to the PLD is expected to petition for annexation as a condition of the County’s approval. The Initiating Resolution for this annexation was adopted on August 16, 2022. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this agenda. This Annexation request is in conformance with State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. Adopted and Adopted on First Reading. 8. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2022, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Peakview Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map and Lighting Context Area Map. The purpose of this item is to zone the property included in the Peakview Annexation No. 1 Annexation into the General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone districts and placement into the LC1 and LC2 Lighting Context Areas. Adopted on First Reading. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2022, Authorizing the Release of a Restrictive Covenant on Property at 331 North Howes Street Owned by Villages, Ltd. The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from Council to release the Agreement of Restrictive Covenants Affecting Real Property for the property located at 331 North Howes Street. This property is owned by Villages, Ltd, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation managed by Housing Catalyst. In exchange for repaying the original $3,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) loan funds, the City will allow early release of a restrictive covenant which would otherwise expire in 2023. Adopted on First Reading. Page 14 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 13 City Council Proceedings 10. Resolution 2022-100 Supporting a Grant Application for Gray and Black Market Marijuana Enforcement Funding for Fort Collins Police Services. The purpose of this item is to obtain Council support for the City to apply for grant money to support enforcement of gray- and black- market marijuana activity for Fort Collins Police Services. Adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR K) ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Pignataro moved, seconded by Councilmember Gutowsky, to approve the recommended actions on items 1-10 on the consent calendar. The motion carried 4-0. Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Francis, Councilmember Peel, and Councilmember Ohlson. L) CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP (This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.) None. M) STAFF REPORTS None. N) COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Susan Gutowsky  Attended and shared a recognition on behalf of the City at the Food Coop 50th Anniversary celebration.  Spoke at the First United Methodist Church regarding current and future Council activities.  Attended the monthly meeting of the Behavioral Health Policy Council, with an update on how the facility under construction is doing, currently at 50% complete.  Attended the City’s Volunteer recognition event last week at Gardens on Spring Creek with several other members of Council.  Attended a Women Transforming Government event last week with Councilmember Peel.  Attended the Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month celebration over the weekend held at the Aztlan Center. Tricia Canonico  Attended an event at Harmony Village Mobile Home Park last Saturday with elected officials across the area that provided an opportunity to share resources with the community. Julie Pignataro  Attended the Neighbor-to-Neighbor Welcome Home benefit on September 8 raising funds to help keep people in their homes. Page 15 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 13 City Council Proceedings Jeni Arndt  Added that volunteers are essential to the community.  Noted Linden Street opened and hosted a nice celebration last Friday.  Acknowledged the regionalism and collaboration that has been occurring, including the event held the prior weekend across local jurisdictions to help in resolving outstanding warrants. Clerk’s Note: Mayor Arndt called for a ten-minute break at 7:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:03 p.m. O) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION None. P) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PLANNED FOR DISCUSSION 12. Public Hearing #1 on the 2023-24 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins. This is the first public hearing on the City Manager’s 2023-24 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on the 2023-24 budget. To receive further public input, a second public hearing is scheduled for Council’s Tuesday, October 4, 2022, regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers with the option for remote participation through the online Zoom meeting platform. Both hearings were set by Council adoption of Resolution 2022-097 at its September 6, 2022, meeting. The City Manager’s 2023- 24 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the City Clerk’s Office by appointment only and online at fcgov.com/budget. Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer, was present on behalf of staff to address any questions. Faith Johnson, Fort Collins resident, spoke in support of offer 50.15, Art to Live. 13. Appeal of 1802 North College Avenue City Landmark Eligibility for Development Review. The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider an appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) Decision on July 20, 2022, determining that the property at 1802 North College Avenue, Pobre Pancho’s, is eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark and subject to the provisions of Land Use Code 3.4.7. Appeals of quasi-judicial commission decisions are processed under Municipal Code Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3. The Council is tasked, after considering the evidence, to uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission (Sec. 2-56). The Council may also remand the matter to the HPC or an alternate decision -maker in certain circumstances under Sec. 2-56. A Notice of Appeal of the HPC’s decision was filed on August 3, 2022. The appellant, H and H Properties, LLC, (H&H) appealed the decision on two grounds. First, H&H argues that the HPC considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Second, H&H argues that the HPC failed to properly interpret and apply provisions of the City Code, specifically Municipal Code Sec. 14-22, Standards for Eligibility, and Sec. 14-23 Process for Determining Eligibility. This item is a quasi-judicial matter and will be considered in accordance with the Council appeal procedures described in Division 3 of Article II of Chapter 2 of the City Code. Mayor Arndt introduced the item and the nature of the appeal. Page 16 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 13 City Council Proceedings City Attorney Carrie Daggett provided a brief overview of the appeal process. STAFF EXPLANATION AND PRESENTATION Paul Sizemore, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, presented on behalf of staff as set forth in the slide deck in the agenda materials to provide an explanation of the nature of the appeal. CONFLICTS Mayor Arndt asked if any Councilmembers wished to disclose any potential conflict of interest issues. No conflicts were disclosed. SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS Mayor Arndt asked Councilmembers who participated in the site visit on September 16 to describe their observations that may be relevant to the appeal. Councilmember Gutowsky noted she attended the site visit, and was able to observe the exterior condition of the building. PARTIES IN INTEREST PRESENT Mayor Arndt asked the appellant and property owner as well as any parties in interest to identify themselves. Present in support of the appeal:  Jeff Cullers, attorney for the appellant, H&H Properties  Asher Haun, owner of H&H Properties, the subject property owner and appellant  Mike Kroneberger, a party in interest as the owner of an adjacent property having received hearing notices Present and opposed to the appeal:  Monica Bird, party in interest as someone who spoke at the hearing  Mary Perez, party in interest as someone who spoke at hearing  Maria Perez, party in interest as someone who spoke at hearing TIME ALLOCATIONS Mayor Arndt provided the time allocation, indicating each side of the appeal would be provided 20 minutes in total for each side of the appeal to make any initial presentations, and then 10 minutes for each side for rebuttals. PROCEDUAL ISSUES Mayor Arndt asked if there were any general procedural issues or objections to be addressed before the Council began hearing arguments. No issues or objections were raised. APPELLANT AND PARTIES IN INTEREST IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL PRESENTATION Mayor Arndt invited the appellant and other parties-in-interest in support of the appeal to make their presentation in support of the appeal. Page 17 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 13 City Council Proceedings Asher Haun, owner of H and H Properties, the subject property owner and appellant provided information about his acquisition and ownership of the property. As part of the information provided, he included details on the losses the restaurant sustained under his ownership even while he undertook substantial updating of the facility with the intention to continue operations. Jeff Cullers, attorney for H and H Properties, presented as set forth in his slide deck in support of the appeal. His presentation included details on H and H Properties, LLC’s ownership of the site, renovations done, and objections to the significance findings of the Historic Preservation Commission. Mark Kroneberger, owner of North College Motors, spoke in support of the appeal. He noted Frank Perez, as the prior owner of the business, had attempted to sell the property for more than 15 years and would not have supported this action because of its impact on his ability to market and sell the property. PRESENTATION BY PARTIES IN INTEREST OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL Mayor Arndt invited those opposed to the appeal to make their presentation against the appeal. Monica Bird came forward and requested to provide the Council with written materials that include supporting information for her remarks. City Attorney Daggett noted the materials had been reviewed by her office and a determination was made new evidence was included. Because of this, she indicated the Council would need to make a determination regarding allowing new evidence outside of the normal parameters allowed under the appeal process. Mayor Arndt ruled new evidence would not be permitted. Monica Bird, daughter of Frank Perez, spoke against the appeal and in support of the determination of eligibility for this property, providing information about the life story of Frank Perez and his journey as a Mexican immigrant to Fort Collins, as part of the larger context for Mexican immigration to the community and resulting struggles in establishing livelihoods, including starting businesses. Mary Perez spoke against the appeal and in support of the determination of eligibility for this property. She provided information about her husband, Frank Perez, and his life history and work establishing the business at the subject property. Amelia Perez, daughter of Frank Perez, spoke against the appeal and in support of the determination of eligibility for this property, noting her niece still owns 5% of the business and no notice was provided to her or any other family members about the intention to close down the business and sell the site. APPELLANT REBUTTAL Jeff Cullers requested all new evidence presented orally be struck. City Attorney Daggett noted the objection would be noted for the record, including specifically the following information provided during comments from those opposed to the appeal:  Frank Perez’s involvement with Holy Family Church generally,  Frank Perez’s involvement in Church fundraisers at Holy Family Church. and  Ownership information about El Burrito restaurant in Fort Collins. His rebuttal continued, noting historic landmarking can be a great thing but can also be abused. He indicated a belief there is a personal conflict involved in this situation, referencing quotes attributed to Monica Bird regarding the closure in news coverage in the Coloradoan. In response to some of the assertions made by those opposed to the appeal, he indicated there was evidence presented Page 18 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 13 City Council Proceedings in the Historic Preservation Commission hearing about the abrupt closure of the restaurant being standard for the restaurant industry. He noted this is not about racism, although the Perez family is trying to turn it into that, and that the restaurant on this site, Pobre Panchos, did not have anything to do with the sugar beet industry in Fort Collins and that part of the history of Mexican immigrants in the community. REBUTTAL BY THOSE OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL Monica Bird indicated she was sad and upset when the restaurant suddenly closed, in a human response to the circumstances, but does not want ill will and is trying to work with outside parties for a win-win outcome. She noted her dad would want something to commemorate the hard work of himself and other Latinos. He would want to make it so it is recognizable and to help other people. She understands they don’t own the building right now and she is trying to work on something with other members of the community. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilmember Pignataro  Asked about when the property was surveyed. Staff indicated the property was not surveyed until March of this year as part of the development review process for a land use application. It was not part of a proactive historic survey.  Asked if the process is the same for voluntary or involuntary designations. Staff indicated that it is not for the eligibility process.  Asked for details about the current stage. This is regarding eligibility but is not a landmark designation. Landmark designation can occur with nomination by a property owner, or by nomination by three city residents.  Asked about how historic integrity is measured related to specific places, such as evaluating someone’s home versus workplace. There is evaluation around the period of occupation and how well the property still reflects that story. Councilmember Gutowsky  Noted the comments about the information that was presented by Ms. Bird as new evidence. She asked about the comments by the appellant’s attorney regarding statements made by Ms. Bird and whether that constituted new evidence.  Asked if a property can be sold without the consent of all owners. Mr. Cullers noted the property is owned by H and H Properties and can be sold by the authorized decision makers of H and H Properties. Mr. Haun noted the 5% share of ownership associated with the Perez family is of the restaurant business, not the property.  Asked for clarification on who was being referenced as the historian. It was noted it was a third- party historian contracted by the City.  Asked if the fact Mr. Perez was attempting to market his property previously was new information. Mr. Cullers stated he was uncertain, but that the fact Mr. Perez sold the restaurant is evident and a clear indication of his desire to do so.  Asked staff to share the benefits to the owners of the property should the property be designated. Staff noted this specific decision is related to a development review and therefore has no associated financial incentives. If the property were to ultimately be designated, there are financial incentives available to the property owner as a result of the designation.  Asked Mr. Cullers where he resides, given comments made that indicate a lack of knowledge about the history of this community. It was deemed that question was not relevant. Page 19 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 11 of 13 City Council Proceedings Mayor Arndt  Asked staff if the eligibility determination has an impact on value. Staff indicated it is a complex question and depends on the market and a number of factors. Where there is a difference between the zoning’s highest and best use and what is allowed with a historic designation, it can result in a decrease in value. The financial incentives available tend to help put things in favor of historic designation.  Asked Ms. Bird in terms of value and timing why had the family not sought eligibility before the sale of the property. She responded her father was humble and didn’t see himself that way or that it was potentially eligible. Councilmember Canonico  Noted determinations can be subjective, in this case through the use of third-party historian. She noted a trend was identified based on one determination and wondered if more than one opinion could have been sought. Mayor Arndt followed up and asked if the City ever looks at more than one historian. Staff indicated the historian used relies on other evidence and materials drawing from wider sources that are reflected in the survey form and its bibliography. Mayor Arndt  Asked how the business and the place relate, given it seems clear the business is historic but less so that the place is. Staff noted the role of historic preservation is identifying when the building connects a historic trend to the place where that story occurred. Councilmember Gutowksy  Noted another business in the area has previously been designated. The Council requested to have City Attorney Daggett discuss the short list of things brought up as new evidence by both sides of the appeal:  Information presented by opponents to the appeal about:  Mr. Perez’s involvement with Holy Family  Involvement with a fundraiser  Ownership of El Burrito  Council for the Appellant read quotes from a newspaper The mayor ruled all these items should be struck from the record and not relied on by the Council in making its determination. Mayor Arndt closed the hearing at 9:54 a.m. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilmember Gutowsky indicated she was able to make the following conclusions as a result of the evidence provided to the Council:  Gathered from the survey the restaurant was moved north of the Poudre River from downtown;  It played a role in Greatly enhanced Hispanic culture in the Fort Collins community;  Does believe it was a fair hearing and that staff correctly interpreted the standards in the designation. Councilmember Pignataro shared the following conclusions: Page 20 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 12 of 13 City Council Proceedings  Feels the HPC was doing what they are intended to do and did adhere to code;  Expressed worried about the future of this building and what is going to look like in 10 years;  In the future, it will be necessary to address the appeal process and the historic preservation efforts. Councilmember Canonico indicated her finding that the HPC did follow the parameters identified. Mayor Arndt shared the following conclusions:  Equally uneasy with involuntary eligibility and the timing, with the potential impact on value;  As a resident of Fort Collins since 1964 has seen the social segregation that had occurred as well as the historic trends and value of people operating businesses;  The way the code reads and with the process as it stands, the hearing was fair and there is rationale behind the findings. Councilmember Pignataro moved, seconded by Councilmember Canonico, that the Council find that the HPC conducted a fair hearing in their consideration of the Eligibility for Landmark Designation of 1802 North College Avenue and did not consider false or misleading evidence relevant to their decision because:  the evidence regarding the closing Pobre Panchos is described as “irrelevant” by the Appellant; not “relevant” as required by City Code for appeal; and  the evidence regarding Mr. Frank Perez directly related to the analysis under Section 14-22 “Significance” upon which the HPC made its eligibility determination. The motion carried 4-0. Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Francis, Councilmember Peel, and Councilmember Ohlson. Councilmember Pignataro moved, seconded by Councilmember Canonico, that the Council find that the HPC properly interpreted and applied the following relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in their consideration of the eligibility determination for 1802 North College Avenue because:  the Significance criteria of the Fort Collins Municipal Code Sections 14-22(a)(2) Persons/Groups was met because the evidence that was presented they properly interpreted; and  the Integrity criteria of the Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-22(b) was met also because the evidence presented was properly interpreted; and further moved that the Hearing Officer correctly decided all criteria that are the subject of this appeal not specified in this motion, and that the appeal is denied with respect to those issues. The motion carried 4-0. Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Francis, Councilmember Peel, and Councilmember Ohlson. Q) OTHER BUSINESS A. Possible consideration of the Initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers. (Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.) None. Page 21 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 13 of 13 City Council Proceedings R) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council. the meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk Page 22 Item 1. October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Nina Bodenhamer, City Give Director John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2022, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue From Philanthropic Donations Received in 2022 Through City Give for Various City Programs and Services as Designated by the Donors. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, appropriates $90,234 in philanthropic revenue received through City Give. These miscellaneous gifts to various City service areas support a variety of programs and services and are aligned with both the City’s strategic priorities and the respective donors’ designation. In 2019, City Give, a formalized enterprise-wide initiative was launched to create a transparent, non- partisan governance structure for the acceptance and appropriations of charitable gifts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City has long been the beneficiary of local generosity and has a valuable role in our community’s philanthropic landscape. Generosity is demonstrated in both large and modest gifts, each appreciated for its investment in the mission and the range of services the City strives to deliver. In 2022, the City received several individual philanthropic donations supporting various departments totaling $90,234 and these funds are currently unappropriated. As acknowledged by Section 2.5 of the City's Fiscal Management Policy 2-Revenue approved by Council, the City Manager has adopted the City Give Financial Governance Policy to provide for the responsible and efficient management of charitable donations to the City; and 52.2.C. of the City Give Policy authorizes the City Give Director to accept donations of $5,000 or less for the City service area as designated by the donor. This Appropriation also includes a gift $50,000 received by The Gardens on Spring Creek made by The Friends of the Gardens designated for operations. Page 23 Item 2. These generous donations have been directed by the respective donors to be used by the City for designated uses within and for the benefit of City service areas and programs as each donation is described in Exhibit “A” attached to the Ordinance. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This Ordinance will appropriate $90,234 in philanthropic revenue received through City Give for gifts to various City service areas to support a variety of programs and services. The funds have been received and accepted per the City Give Administrative and Financial Policy. The City Manager has also determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the designated funds and will not cause the total amount appropriated in these funds to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received in these funds during fiscal year 2022. The proposed increase to appropriated expenditures is summarized below: 2022 Unanticipated Revenue General Fund $ 9,819 Cultural Services Fund $ 68,225 Transportation Fund $ 11,500 Golf Fund $ 690 These donations have been received and accepted per the City Give Administrative and Financial Policy. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION None. PUBLIC OUTREACH None. ATTACHMENTS First Reading Attachments not included. 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Exhibit A Page 24 Item 2. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 097, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM PHILANTHROPIC DONATIONS RECEIVED IN 2022 THROUGH CITY GIVE FOR VARIOUS CITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AS DESIGNATED BY THE DONORS WHEREAS, since March 2022, the City has received twenty-seven individual philanthropic donations of $5,000 or less and two individual donations of $5,000 up to $100,000, which twenty-nine donations total $90,234, and these funds are currently unappropriated; and WHEREAS, these donations have been directed by the donors to be used by the City for certain designated uses within and for the benefit of certain City service areas as each donation is described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, as acknowledged by Section 2.5 for the City’s Fiscal Management Policy 2 – Revenue approved by City Council, the City Manager has adopted the City Give Financial Governance Policy to provide for the responsible and efficient management of charitable donations to the City (the “City Give Policy”); and WHEREAS, Section 52.2.C. of the City Give Policy authorizes the City Give Director to accept donations of $5,000 or less for the City service area intended by the donor to be benefited and Section 52.2.D. of the City Give Policy authorizes the City Manager to accept donations of more than $5,000 up to $100,000; and WHEREAS, as so authorized, the City Give Director and City Manager have accepted for the benefited City service areas, as applicable, the donations to be appropriated in this Ordinance to be used as directed by each donor as described in Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, to make a supplemental appropriation by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriation, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, do not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriations described in Section 2 of this Ordinance and determined that the amount of each of these appropriations is available and previously unappropriated from the funds named in Section 2 and will not cause the total amount appropriated in each such fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received in those funds during this fiscal year; and WHEREAS, these appropriations will serve the public purpose of providing additional revenue to each of the benefited service areas to aid in accomplishing the public purposes for which each service area is established thereby benefiting the public’s health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Page 25 Item 2. -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from the following funds these amounts of philanthropic revenue received in 2022 to be expended as designated by the donors in support of the various City programs and services as described in Exhibit “A”: General Fund $ 9,819.00 Cultural Services Fund $ 68,225.00 Transportation Fund $ 11,500.00 Golf Fund $ 690.00 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of September, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 26 Item 2. Exhibit “A” City Give 215 N Mason Street, 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6687 fcgov.com UNANTICIPATED REVENUE (2022 Donations) City Department/Donor Designation Donor Gift Date Gift Amount Digital Access & Equity German Marshall Fund 03/10/2022 2,000.00 Open Streets, Fc Moves Midtown Veterinary 08/10/2022 2,000.00 Open Streets, FC Moves HS&D 08/11/2022 2,000.00 Parks/Forestry Kevin Aldrich & Toni Patton 08/04/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Linda Sanchez 03/24/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Sally Bowly 04/21/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Mark Johnson 04/21/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Sean Burns 05/31/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Kim Kelley 05/31/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Ft Collins Pickleball 07/14/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Michael Smith 07/27/2022 500.00 Parks/Forestry Deklan & Susan Dieterly 07/27/2022 500.00 The Gardens on Spring Creek National Audubon Society 03/07/2022 4,000.00 The Gardens on Spring Creek Friends of the Gardens 03/14/2022 13,200.00 The Gardens on Spring Creek Friends of the Gardens 04/04/2022 50,000.00 The Gardens on Spring Creek Grant ($25); NoCo Daylilly Club ($1,000) 06/21/2022 1,025.00 Finance Admin/City Give Community Foundation of NoCo 07/01/2022 3,319.00 Youth Bike, FC Moves FoCo Fondo 08/12/2022 5,000.00 Youth Bike, FC Moves Bohemian Foundation/Music Event 08/13/2022 2,500.00 Youth Golf Scholarship William and Wendy Lopez 03/04/2022 100.00 Youth Golf Scholarship Jennifer & Randall Schwartz 07/01/2022 50.00 Youth Golf Scholarship Larry Pippitt 07/11/2022 100.00 Youth Golf Scholarship Patty & Jerry Johnstone 07/15/2022 50.00 Youth Golf Scholarship John & Kelly Bailey 08/03/2022 50.00 Youth Golf Scholarship Misc. Donors, 08/17/2022 165.46 Youth Golf Scholarship Ross & Kelly Liggett 08/18/2022 100.00 Youth Golf Scholarship James & Julie Spencer 08/19/2022 25.00 Youth Golf Scholarship Pam Harrold 08/20/2022 25.00 Youth Golf Scholarship Merle & Norma Gier 08/21/2022 25.00 Page 27 Item 2. October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy and Housing Programs Manager JC Ward, Senior Planner Ingrid Decker, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Provide Financial Support to the United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos for Nueva Vida Mobile Home Park. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, provides financial support to United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos (UN/VU), a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation that recently acquired ownership of the Parklane Mobile Home Park. On August 1, 2022, residents of the Parklane Mobile Home Park (Parklane MHP), with the help of a newly formed nonprofit (United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos, UN/VU), outbid a commercial owner’s offer and purchased their park. With this purchase, residents of Parklane have become one of only six mobile home parks in Colorado purchased by residents. UN/VU is seeking City funding toward several urgent and necessary infrastructure repairs to the park. This item was discussed at the September 1, 2022, Council Finance Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Parklane Mobile Home Park (Parklane MHP) is a mobile home community established in 1958 with 68 manufactured homes and a duplex located within the growth management area of the City. Approximately 200 adults and more than 100 children reside in the community. While Parklane MHP is outside City limits, the park is located in the East Mulberry enclave and will likely be annexed into the City at some point in the future. See location map. When the owner of Parklane MHP decided to sell the park in 2021, the residents had an opportunity to organize to preserve the park as an affordable mobile home community, ensuring that these homes remain affordable to low-income households and are operated with a commitment to creating community that provides safe and secure housing options. History of UN/VU and Purchase of the Mobile Home Park Over six years ago, a trusted relationship was established between the residents of Parklane MHP, the Genesis Project – a faith-based neighbor of the park – and the Matthews House, a local non-profit Page 28 Item 3. empowering youth and families to close the poverty cycle in Northern Colorado. In December of 2021, all three parties became aware that the park was for sale and an offer had been made by a private buyer. The park residents, the Genesis Project and the Mathews House knew they would need to organize quickly to take advantage of the opportunity to purchase afforded a group or association of homeowners or their assignees by Colorado Revised Statute 38-12-217. The residents organized and considered several possible structures before requesting the creation of UN/VU. Once formed, UN/VU was assigned the residents’ rights to purchase the park. While this is not the same as a resident owned community structure, this was done to give the residents time to make decisions on what governance and leadership is best for their community long term. Resident ownership may be an option in the future, but for purposes of the purchase, UN/VU will own the park and the residents will govern the community. Historically, Parklane, like most mobile home parks, was operated with divided ownership of assets. While homes could be rented or owned by the resident, the land beneath the home was rented from a private property owner. This opportunity to purchase provided by Colorado law allowed the residents to not only own their homes but to have control of their community. The residents have led the work of setting the goals, vision and voice of UN/VU and are preparing for the journey to discern what resident leadership, ownership, and governance will work best for the future. This may lead to residents owning the community in the future, and allowed UN/VU to attract funding and negotiate to purchase the park. Financing to purchase the park for about $6.8 million was obtained primarily from Impact Development Fund, Bohemian Foundation, and Larimer County. Larimer County provided $1 million which will be forgiven at the rate of $50,000 per year for 20 years provided the park remains affordable. Additional funding came from individuals and the United Way of Larimer County. On August 1, 2022, Parklane MHP residents, with the help of the newly formed nonprofit UN/VU, outbid a commercial owner’s offer and purchased their park. They became one of six mobile home parks in Colorado to accomplish buying their mobile home park. One of the first things they did was change the name of the park to Nueva Vida Mobile Home Park. Summary timeline of organizing efforts: ● December 9th, 2021 - Notice of Intent to Sell Parklane MHP received by Parklane Residents ● December 15th, 2021 - UN/VU filed for non-profit status (Residents selected name of nonprofit) ● December 19th, 2021 - 51% of votes needed to move forward for UN/VU to represent Parklane Residents in counteroffer obtained ● February 22, 2022 - Notice to accept a Final Unconditional Offer of Parklane MHP received by Parklane Residents (90-day statutory time limit restarted) ● April 22nd, 2022 - UN/VU goes under contract for Parklane MHP ● August 1st, 2022 - UN/VU closes on Parklane MHP ● August 19th, 2022 - UN/VU has block party in Parklane to celebrate the purchase and residents revealed new voted upon name “Nueva Vida Mobile Home Park” ● September 2022-September 2023 - Resident led process with support from FLTI and CU Sustainable Community Development Legal Clinic community meetings to explore long term governance and ownership options Request for Support While purchase financing has been secured, UN/VU has requested financial assistance from the City for immediate infrastructure needs identified during the due diligence process for acquisition. Delayed maintenance has created safety issues for the residents. A priority needs assessment identified at least $1M in immediate infrastructure upgrades required for the park including: Page 29 Item 3. Identified Need Estimate of Cost Tree Maintenance/Removal $75,000 Water & Sewer Pipes TBD Asphalt/concrete replacement $550K – 850K Curbs & concrete repairs $50,000 At the City Council meeting on April 5, 2022, under Other Business on the Agenda, several City Councilmembers asked staff to examine possible assistance options supporting the purchase of this park. See City Council Minutes attached. Based on the extensive needs identified which will need to be assessed to the residents if outside funding is not secured, this request is for $125,000 to be provided to UN/VU as a grant to be used to partially offset the cost of any of the infrastructure needs noted above. This amounts to less than $2,000 per household. While this amount will not cover the entire identified costs, it will show local support which often can be leveraged for additional funding. Grant Management The City will contract with UN/VU to establish specific terms for the grant and provide oversight for the use of these funds. Generally:  The City’s Neighborhood Services Department will negotiate the contract and administer this grant.  UN/VU has agreed to use approved City vendors for the infrastructure upgrades paid for with this grant, if possible, because they have been vetted and approved. UN/VU will work with City staff and the City Purchasing Department to select qualified vendors to ensure they are properly licensed and insured.  The grant will be administered as reimbursement for work completed on a project-by-project basis until all funds have been expended.  Funds must be used by December 31, 2023. City Policy Alignment In 2013, the City published the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. This document acknowledged that mobile home parks are important sources of housing for lower income working families, seniors and people with disabilities living in Fort Collins. The 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan’s objective to Preserve the Long-term Affordability and Physical Condition of Existing Stock of housing included action items to maintain the current available stock of affordable housing including mobile home parks. This policy was reinforced in the 2021 Housing Strategic Plan specifically in Strategy 24:  Support community organizing efforts in manufactured home communities and increase access to resident rights information, housing resources, and housing programs. Page 30 Item 3. The outcome of this strategy is to increase stability and housing options for manufactures housing residents (both renters and owners) and improve housing equity. Lastly, supporting the conversion of a MHP from a private owner to resident governance aligns with the following 2022 Strategic Objectives:  Neighborhood Livability and Social Health 1.1 – Increase housing supply and choice and address inequities in housing to ensure that everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford.  Neighborhood Livability and Social Health 1.4 – Advance equity for all with an emphasis on racial justice to remove systemic barriers so that persons of all identities, including race, ethnicity, religion, gender and gender identity, age, class, sexual identity, mental and physical abilities, and ability can fully participate in City services and experience equitable community outcomes.  Neighborhood Livability and Social Health 1.5 – Enhance the quality of life and sense of belonging in neighborhoods by connecting neighbors to City services, building community, and fostering harmonious relationships.  Neighborhood Livability and Social Health 1.8 – Preserve and enhance mobile home parks as a source of affordable housing and create a safe and equitable environment for residents. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Affordable Housing Board discussed the opportunity to purchase Parklane MHP at its April 7, 2022, meeting and supported the efforts of UN/VU to acquire the park. See Minutes and Memorandum. This was also discussed at the September 1, 2022 Council Finance Committee meeting. See Minutes. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This Ordinance will appropriate $125,000 of General Fund Reserves to be provided to UV/VU to be used to partially offset the cost of infrastructure upgrades. It can be used for tree maintenance or removal, repairing or replacing water and/or sewer pipes, replacement of asphalt or concrete, or repairing concrete or curbs. PUBLIC OUTREACH All meetings of the Affordable Housing Board, the Council Finance Committee, and the City Council where this was discussed were open to the public. No additional outreach was conducted on this request. ATTACHMENTS First reading attachments not included. 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 31 Item 3. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 098, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE UNITED NEIGHBORS/VECINOS UNIDOS FOR THE NUEVA VIDA MOBILE HOME PARK WHEREAS, the residents of Parklane Mobile Home Park, located in the City’s growth management area (the “Park”), were recently able to organize and purchase the Park with financial assistance from Impact Development Fund, Bohemian Foundation, and Larimer County; and WHEREAS, the Park, now owned by United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos (“UN/VU”), a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, has been renamed Nueva Vida Mobile Home Park; and WHEREAS, UN/VU is seeking City funding of $125,000 to put towards approximately $1,000,000 in urgent and necessary infrastructure repairs to the Park including tree maintenance and removal, water and sewer pipes, and asphalt and concrete work; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting on April 5, 2022, several City Councilmembers asked staff to examine possible options to support the residents’ purchase of the Park; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Board discussed the opportunity for the residents to purchase the Park at its April 7, 2022 meeting and supported the efforts of UN/VU to acquire the Park; and WHEREAS, this funding request was further discussed by the Council Finance Committee at its meeting on September 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the funding would be provided and managed as a grant from the City to UN/VU pursuant to a grant agreement administered by the City’s Neighborhood Services Department (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement would require UN/VU to use City-approved vendors, wherever possible, for work paid for with City funds, to ensure vendors are qualified, and properly licensed and insured; and WHEREAS, the City would reimburse UN/VU for work completed until all funds have been expended, with a deadline of December 31, 2023 for expenditure of the City funds; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of preserving the long-term affordability and condition of existing housing stock in the Fort Collins area, including mobile home parks; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Manager, to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves Page 32 Item 3. -2- accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the General Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received in this Fund during this fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby appropriates from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($125,000) to be expended in the General Fund for providing financial support to the United Neighbors/Vecinos Unidos for the Nueva Vida Mobile Home Park. Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an Agreement with UN/VU for expenditure of the funds appropriated herein on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such other terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City and carry out the intent of this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of September, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 33 Item 3. -3- Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 34 Item 3. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Kai Kleer, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2022, Annexing the Property Known as the Peakview Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, annexes a 5.78-acre portion of private property that will be used for the construction of Greenfields Drive, a future arterial street within the East Mulberry Corridor. The property to be annexed is a portion of the property subject to the Peakview Planned Land Division (“PLD”) development application which is currently being processed by Larimer County and is expected to be approved prior to completion of this annexation. The remaining property subject to the PLD is expected to petition for annexation as a condition of the County’s approval. The Initiating Resolution for this annexation was adopted on August 16, 2022. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this agenda. This Annexation request is in conformance with State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Contiguity The subject property gains the required one-sixth contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary on two sides with Springer Fisher Annexation which was annexed in 2001. As a result, there is 39.70% of the total perimeter contiguous to the existing municipal boundary which exceeds the required minimum (16.66%). Page 35 Item 4. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 Enclave Implications Annexing the 5.78-acre property does not create or contribute to creating an enclave and is a logical extension of municipal boundaries. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no City financial impacts related to this annexation. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION At its August 18, 2022, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. Further, the Commission recommended that the land be placed into the General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone districts. This unanimous action was taken as part of the Commission’s consent agenda; therefore, there are no minutes. PUBLIC OUTREACH Given that the future use of the land area will be solely used for the purposes of constructing a street, there was no neighborhood meeting for this annexation and zoning. All applicable mailings and postings per Section 2.9 (Amending the Zoning Map) and 2.12 (Annexation of Land) of the Land Use Code have been followed. ATTACHMENTS First reading attachments not included. 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 36 Item 4. ORDINANCE NO. 099, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE PEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 1 TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution 2022-082 finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings for the Peakview Annexation No. 1, as defined therein and described below; and WHEREAS, Resolution 2022-099 setting forth findings of fact and determinations regarding the Peakview Annexation No. 1 was adopted concurrently with the first reading of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to annex the property to be known as the Peakview Annexation No. 1 as described below (the “Property”) to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby incorporates the findings of Resolution 2022- 082 and Resolution 2022-099 and further finds that it is in the best interests of the City to annex the Property to the City. Section 3. That the Property, more particularly described as: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PM, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., BEING MONUMENTED BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 23503" AT THE WEST END AND A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 22573" AT THE EAST END, SAID LINE BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°11'21"E. BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, S88°55'11"E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE, THE FOLLOWING THIRTY-EIGHT (38) COURSES: Page 37 Item 4. 1. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 827 07 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 2. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°15'25" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 16.50 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 3. S11°01'07"E A DISTANCE OF 41.76 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 4. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 116.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°15'25" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 22.79 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 5. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 75.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 6. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 166.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°41'42" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 19.40 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 7. S06°56'01"W A DISTANCE OF 85.38 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 8. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 134.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°41'42" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.66 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 9. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 182.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 10. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°54'53" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 14.54 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 11. S09°40'35"E A DISTANCE OF 52.35 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 12. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 116.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°54'53" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 2007 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 13. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 102.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 14. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 166.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°23'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.51 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 15. S06°37'34"W A DISTANCE OF 78.77 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 16. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 134.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°33'20" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 22.35 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 17. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,033.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°59'32" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 180.15 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE 18. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°47'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 17.28 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 19. S24°42'34"E A DISTANCE OF 43.84 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; 20. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S64°54'15"W, HAVING A RADIUS OF 108.19 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°37'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 20 06 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT; 21. S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 50.10 FEET; 22. S13°42'52"E A DISTANCE OF 50 01 FEET; 23. S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 36.74 FEET; Page 38 Item 4. 24. S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 47.62 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 25. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2000 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°07'00" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1.09 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 26. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 129.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°04'32" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.18 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 27. S19°49'08"E A DISTANCE OF 108.53 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 28. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 179.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 °22'20" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 4.29 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 29. S21°11'28"E A DISTANCE OF 91.99 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 30. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 49.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°31'40" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 53.47 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 31. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 541.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°46'51" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 54.58 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 32. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 291.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°27'22" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 48 03 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 33. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°32'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 8.88 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 34. S50°56'41"E A DISTANCE OF 28.81 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 35. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2000 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°31'31" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 3.32 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 36. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°29'51" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 125.94 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 37. S34°58'22"E A DISTANCE OF 155.19 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 38. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 21700 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48°41'45" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 184.43 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EAST MULBERRY STREET AND A POINT OF NON-TANGENT; HENCE ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N89°11'21"W A DISTANCE OF 161.98 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, THE FOLLOWING SIXTEEN (16) COURSES: 1. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS N41°03'41"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°57'58" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 68.98 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 2. N34°58'22"W A DISTANCE OF 155.19 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; Page 39 Item 4. 3. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 217.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°12'50" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 46.26 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 4. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2000 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°54'23" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.95 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 5. N67°05'34"W A DISTANCE OF 29.69 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 6. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07° 34'05" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 3.83 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 7. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 189.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°18'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 50.49 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 8. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 409.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°14'40" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 123.10 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 9. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 54.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°02'58" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.57 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 10. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 79.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50°07'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 69.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 11. S05°14'45"E A DISTANCE OF 94.32 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 12. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°00'00" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT REVERSE CURVE; 13. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S56°47'06"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1012 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°04'04" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.73 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT REVERSE CURVE; 14. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S85°00'07''W, HAVING A RADIUS OF 517.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°14'12" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.25 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 15. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 11.14 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; 16. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS N89°37'29"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.51 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°12'43" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.02 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID EAST MULBERRY STREET AND A POINT OF NON-TANGENT; THENCE ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N89°11'21"W A DISTANCE OF 154.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE, N00°14'19"E A DISTANCE OF 2,604.37 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 251,753 SQUARE FEET OR 5.7794 ACRES Page 40 Item 4. is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Peakview Annexation No. 1, which annexation shall become effective upon completion of the conditions contained in Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) Section 31-12-113, including, without limitation, all required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4. That, in annexing the Property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the Property hereby annexed except as may be provided by ordinances of the City. Section 5. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 37-45-136(3.6), to the inclusion of the Property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of September, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 41 Item 4. October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Kai Kleer, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2022, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Peakview Annexation No. 1 to the City of Fort Collins and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map and Lighting Context Area Map. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, zones the property included in the Peakview Annexation No. 1 Annexation into the General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone districts and placement into the LC1 and LC2 Lighting Context Areas. This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 2(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures most recently adopted in Resolution 2022-068. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend adoption of the ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The requested zoning for this annexation is General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N- C) and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) which conforms to the adjacent zoning of the Springer Fisher property which was annexed into the City in 2021. Context The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Use N Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) Agriculture S Commercial Corridor (Larimer County) E Mulberry Street / Greenfields Court Page 42 Item 5. Direction Zone District Existing Land Use E Commercial Corridor (Larimer County) Agriculture W General Commercial (C-G) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Agriculture City of Fort Collins Structure Plan The Structure Plan map shows the area within the Peakview property as a combination of Mixed Neighborhood, Suburban Mixed Use, and Neighborhood Mixed Use designations (see attached Structure Plan map). The Structure Plan future land use designations represent general citywide policy guidance. The Land Use Code does not include zoning to reflect these new designations in City Plan and specifically states that where there are conflicts with City Plan and an overlapping subarea plan, that the subarea plan shall prevail. In this case, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP), which is a subarea plan and is further discussed below, reflects more detailed and specific land use policy guidance than City Plan. East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) The EMCP includes four future land use designations within the Peakview property, including General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Employment (E), and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N). These designations reflect the policy direction of the plan for a commercial mixed-use district and supporting higher-density mixed-use neighborhoods within walking distance to the commercial hub located northwest of the East Mulberry and Greenfields Court intersection (see attached EMCP map). The proposed Peakview Annexation No. 1 proposes zoning consistent with the EMCP and matches that of the adjacent property that was annexed and zoned as part of the Springer Fisher Annexation. Residential Sign District Staff recommends that the portion of the property with the MMN zone district designation be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and that the portion of the property with the C-G and N-C zone district designations be placed in the Non-Residential Sign District. The Sign Districts are established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in areas of the community where the predominant character of the neighborhood is residential. Lighting Context Area On March 26, 2021, the City of Fort Collins adopted new exterior lighting standards and established Lighting Context Areas that correspond to the City’s zone districts. The corresponding districts identified by Table 3.2.4-1 of the City’s lighting code are LC1 and LC2. As part of this item, staff recommends placement of the portion of the property to be zoned M-M-N into the LC1 Lighting Context Area and the portion of the property to be zoned N-C and C-G into the LC2 Lighting Context Areas as indicated by the attached Lighting District map. The following are how each respective district is described:  LC1 - Low ambient lighting. The vision of human residents and users is adapted to low light levels. Lighting may be used for safety and convenience, but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. Typical locations include low and medium density residential areas, commercial or industrial areas with limited nighttime activity, and the developed areas in parks and other natural setting. Page 43 Item 5.  LC2 - Moderate ambient lighting. Areas of human activity where the vision of human residents and users is adapted to moderate light levels. Lighting may typically be used for safety and convenience, but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. Typical locations include high density residential areas, shopping and commercial districts, industrial parks and districts, City playfields and major institutional uses, and mixed-use districts. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION At its August 18, 2022 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. Further, the Commission recommended that the land be placed into the General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone districts. This unanimous action was taken as part of the Commission’s consent agenda; therefore, there are no minutes. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no City financial impacts related to the zoning of the subject property. PUBLIC OUTREACH Given that the future use of the land area will be solely used for the purposes of constructing a street, there was no neighborhood meeting for this annexation and zoning. All applicable mailings and postings per Section 2.9 (Amending the Zoning Map) and 2.12 (Annexation of Land) of the Land Use Code have been followed. ATTACHMENTS First reading attachments not included. 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 44 Item 5. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 100, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE PEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 1 TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AND APPROVING CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT MAP AND LIGHTING CONTEXT AREA MAP WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 099, 2022, annexing to the City of Fort Collins the property known as the Peakview Annexation No. 1 (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2.9.2, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting on August 18, 2022, unanimously recommended zoning the Property to be known as the Peakview Annexation No. 1 (the “Property”) as General Commercial (“C-G”) Zone District; Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) Zone District; and Neighborhood Commercial (“N-C”) Zone District, as more particularly described below and determined that the proposed zonings are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zonings of the Property are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed zonings against the applicable criteria set forth in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code and finds the proposed zonings to be in compliance with all such criteria; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zonings of the Property as described below, finds it to be in the best interests of the City, and has determined that the Property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including Page 45 Item 5. -2- the following portion of the Property in the General Commercial (“C-G”) Zone District as more particularly described as: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2, OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9, S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 1981.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S89°59'11"E A DISTANCE OF 135.68 FEET; THENCE S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 44.23 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°07'00" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1.09 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 129.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°04'32" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.18 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S19°49'08"E A DISTANCE OF 108.53 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 179.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°22'20" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 4.29 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S21°11'28"E A DISTANCE OF 91.99 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 49.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°31'40" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 53.47 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 541.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°46'51" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 54.58 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 291.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°27'22" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 48.03 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°32'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 8.88 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S50°56'41"E A DISTANCE OF 28.81 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; Page 46 Item 5. -3- THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°31'31" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 3.32 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°29'51" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 125.94 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S34°58'22"E A DISTANCE OF 155.19 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 217.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48°41'45" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 184.43 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MULBERRY STREET; THENCE ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N89°11'21"W A DISTANCE OF 161.98 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS N41°03'41"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°57'58" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 68.98 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE N34°58'22"W A DISTANCE OF 155.19 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 217.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°12'50" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 46.26 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°54'23" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.95 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE N67°05'34"W A DISTANCE OF 29.69 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°34'05" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 3.83 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 189.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°18'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 50.49 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 409.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°14'40" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 123.10 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; Page 47 Item 5. -4- THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 54.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°02'58" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.57 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 79.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50°07'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 69.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S05°14'45"E A DISTANCE OF 94.32 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°00'00" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S56°47'06"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.12 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°04'04" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.73 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S85°00'07"W, HAVING A RADIUS OF 517.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°14'12" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.25 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 11.14 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS N89°37'29"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.51 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°12'43" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.02 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF SAID MULBERRY STREET; THENCE ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N89°11'21"W A DISTANCE OF 154.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE, N00°14'19"E A DISTANCE OF 623.34 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 148,324 SQUARE FEET OR 3.4050 ACRES. Section 3. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the following portion of the Property in the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M- N”) Zone District as more particularly described as: Page 48 Item 5. -5- BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2, OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9, S88°55'11"E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 827.07 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°15'25" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 16.50 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S11°01'07"E A DISTANCE OF 41.76 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 116.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°15'25" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 22.79 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 75.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 166.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°41'42" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 19.40 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S06°56'01"W A DISTANCE OF 85.38 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 134.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°41'42" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.66 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 182.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°54'53" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 14.54 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S09°40'35"E A DISTANCE OF 22.45 FEET; THENCE N89°03'37"W A DISTANCE OF 47.12 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE, N00°14'19"E A DISTANCE OF 1320.69 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 57,671 SQUARE FEET OR 1.3239 ACRES. Page 49 Item 5. -6- Section 4. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the following portion of the Property in the Neighborhood Commercial (“N-C”) Zone District as more particularly described as: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2, OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9, S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 1320.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S89°03'37"E A DISTANCE OF 47.12 FEET; THENCE S09°40'35"E A DISTANCE OF 29.90 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 116.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°54'53" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 20.07 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 102.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 166.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°23'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.51 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S06°37'34"W A DISTANCE OF 78.77 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 134.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°33'20" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 22.35 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1033.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°59'32" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 180.15 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°47'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 17.28 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; THENCE S24°42'34"E A DISTANCE OF 43.84 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; Page 50 Item 5. -7- THENCE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S64°54'15"W, HAVING A RADIUS OF 108.19 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°37'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 20.06 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT; THENCE S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 50.10 FEET; THENCE S13°42'52"E A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET; THENCE S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 36.74 FEET; THENCE S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 3.39 FEET; THENCE N89°59'11"W A DISTANCE OF 135.68 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE, N00°14'19"E A DISTANCE OF 660.34 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 45,758 SQUARE FEET OR 1.0505 ACRES. Section 5. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7.1(M) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that only the Property zoned as “M-M-N” is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 6. That the Lighting Context Area Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.2.4(H) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the Property zoned as “M-M-N” is included in the LC1 Lighting Context Area and the Property zoned as “N-C” and “C-G” are included in the LC2 Lighting Context Area. Section 7. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of September, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 51 Item 5. -8- Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 52 Item 5. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy and Housing Programs Manager Ingrid Decker, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2022, Authorizing the Release of a Restrictive Covenant on Property at 331 North Howes Street Owned by Villages, Ltd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2022, authorizes the release of the Agreement of Restrictive Covenants Affecting Real Property for the property located at 331 North Howes Street. This property is owned by Villages, Ltd, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation managed by Housing Catalyst. In exchange for repaying the original $3,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) loan funds, the City will allow early release of a restrictive covenant which would otherwise expire in 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Over the last decade, Villages, Ltd., a 501(c)(3) affordable housing non-profit managed by Housing Catalyst, f/k/a/ the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA), the City’s housing authority, has been liquidating aging, scattered site, single family homes and duplexes from its portfolio due to the high operating and maintenance costs associated with this type of housing. Upon sale, the proceeds leverage funding to preserve multifamily housing and to build additional new affordable housing in Fort Collins. On October 1, 2001, FCHA received a grant from the City of $174,931 in CDBG funding to rehabilitate 41 rental dwelling units in 11 buildings. At the completion of the rehabilitation projects, FCHA recorded a Restrictive Covenant on all 41 units, enforceable by the City, requiring FCHA to maintain the units as affordable rental housing for twenty years.  The property at 331 North Howes Street is one of these buildings. This Covenant is scheduled to be released on October 1, 2023, which is 20 years from project completion.  Seven of the properties encumbered by this Covenant have already repaid their portion of the grant and the City has released the Covenant with respect to those properties. They have been sold with the sales proceeds leveraged into multifamily housing that is more efficient and easier to maintain long-term. This happened over time, starting in 2009 and through 2013.  The remaining three properties are multifamily units that will remain in the restricted inventory. Page 53 Item 6. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 The property located at 331 North Howes Street received $3,000 of the initial grant for building rehabilitation. See attached map. This property currently has extensive long-term capital needs. (Attachment 2-3). It is currently vacant. It is in a desirable location and close to other public housing that has been sold. The affordable rent structure does not support the ongoing operations of this property. For that reason, Villages, Ltd., through Housing Catalyst, has offered to repay the $3,000 City investment in exchange for the early release of the Restrictive Covenant, which would otherwise expire in October of 2023. See attached Request to Release Restrictive Covenants. The funding returned to the City would be added to the funds distributed in Social Sustainability’s annual competitive grant process. Villages, Ltd. is currently strategically liquidating inventory, such as this single family scattered-site home, that are hard to operate as affordable rentals. Housing Catalyst has not specifically identified a buyer for this property. Housing Catalyst is selling some of its public housing units to Elevation Community Land Trust to provide permanently affordable for-sale affordable homes and continues to communicate with Elevation about properties that fit Elevation’s requirements when liquidating inventory. Regardless, Housing Catalyst will select the buyer based on furthering its mission while meeting the needs of the community. Sales proceeds will be used to leverage funding for Housing Catalyst’s extensive pipeline of both rehabilitation projects and new construction of affordable housing. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The removal of the Restrictive Covenant one year prior to original expiration will initially result in the loss of one single family unit of affordable housing; however, Villages, Ltd. is not currently leasing the unit because of its condition. The $3,000 repayment of Community Development Block Grant funding will be returned to the City’s Competitive Grant Process and will be available to fund future affordable housing projects. Approval of this request will lessen the financial burden experienced by Villages, Ltd., related to the operation of a scattered-site single family unit with extensive long-term capital needs. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Affordable Housing Board supports this request. PUBLIC OUTREACH The Affordable Housing Board meeting where this was discussed was open to the public. No additional public outreach was done for this request. ATTACHMENTS First reading attachments not included. 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 54 Item 6. ORDINANCE NO. 101, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON PROPERTY AT 331 NORTH HOWES STREET OWNED BY VILLAGES, LTD. WHEREAS, on October 1, 2001, the City entered into a Recipient Contract with the Fort Collins Housing Authority, now known as Housing Catalyst (“FCHA”), through which FCHA received a grant from the City of $174,931 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to rehabilitate 41 affordable rental housing units in eleven buildings in Fort Collins (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, as required by the Recipient Contract, at the completion of the Project FCHA recorded a Restrictive Covenant enforceable by the City on all the units in the Project, requiring the units to remain affordable for twenty years (the “Covenant”); and WHEREAS, the Covenant is set to expire in October 2023; and WHEREAS, FCHA used $3,000 of the grant proceeds to make improvements to a single- family rental property located at 331 North Howes Street (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is owned by Villages, Ltd., a 501(c)(3) corporation managed by FCHA; it is currently vacant and has extensive long-term capital needs; and WHEREAS, the Recipient Contract does not require repayment of the grant funds, but Villages, Ltd. has offered to repay the City’s $3,000 investment in the Property in exchange for the early release of the Covenant on the Property so that FCHA can sell the Property and use the proceeds for other multifamily housing; and WHEREAS, the City would add the repaid grant funding to the funds distributed through the Social Sustainability’s annual competitive grant process; and WHEREAS, the City’s right under the Covenant to restrict the use of the Property constitutes an interest in real property owned by the City that the City would be giving up by releasing the Covenant; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code states that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property owned by the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Board reviewed this request at its regular meeting on September 1, 2022, and voted to support the Council’s granting of this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Page 55 Item 6. Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that releasing the Covenant on the Property on the terms and conditions described herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute such documents as are necessary to release the Property from the Covenant upon repayment of the $3,000 in CDBG funds, on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, along with such other terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of September, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 56 Item 6. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 10 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Items Pertaining to the Annual Adjustment Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2022, Making Supplemental Appropriations from Various City Funds. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Various City Funds. The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to appropriate dedicated and additional revenues or prior year reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover related expenses that were not anticipated, and therefore, not included in the 2022 annual budget appropriation. The additional revenue is primarily from fees, charges for service, rents, contributions, donations, and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION These Ordinances appropriate additional revenue and funds received this fiscal year and from prior year reserves in various City funds and authorize the transfer of previously appropriated amounts between funds and/or capital projects. The City Charter permits Council at any time during a fiscal year to make supplemental appropriations of additional revenue and other funds received as a result of rate/fee increases or new revenue sources, such as grants and reimbursements. The Charter also permits Council to provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves through a supplemental appropriation. Additionally, it authorizes Council to transfer any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount from one fund or project to another fund or project upon recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended 1) remains unchanged; 2) the purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or 3) the proposed transfer is from a Fund or project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance. Page 57 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 10 The City Manager is recommending the proposed appropriations in these Ordinances and has determined that they are available and previously unappropriated from their respective Funds and will not cause the total amount appropriated from such Funds to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received in each such Fund during this fiscal year. If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures. The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested appropriations. Also included are transfers between funds of unappropriated funds which must be appropriated for expenditure but the transfer will be done administratively. A table with the specific use of prior year reserves appears at the end of this Agenda Item Summary. A. GENERAL FUND 1. Security Classes provided by Emergency Preparedness and Security (EPS) Revenue collected from security class participants is intended to help offset the cost of providing security training from FRCC for a 3-day Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) class in April and a 5-Day CPTED training in August 2022. This request includes revenue collected between December 2021 - July 2022 and helps offset all class incurred expenses for 2022. This model uses initial investment to prime the pump, using collected fees to supplement ongoing training. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (2021 class revenue) $13,621 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $14,290 FOR: Security Classes $27,911 2. Land Bank Operational Expenses This request is intended to cover expenses related to the land bank property maintenance needs for 2022. Since expenses vary from year to year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these costs. Expenses in 2022 include general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses, electricity, repairs, and other as applicable. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank reserve) $2,750 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $2,750 Funding Additional Revenue Prior Year Reserves TOTAL General Fund $903,898 $692,164 $1,596,062 Data & Communications Fund 0 12,500 12,500 Equipment Fund 104,000 314,847 418,847 Sales & Use Tax Fund 48,076 0 48,076 Natural Areas Fund 48,076 0 48,076 Golf Fund 0 368,348 368,348 CCIP Fund 25,000 0 25,000 Cultural Services Fund 25,000 0 25,000 Water Fund 80,000 0 80,000 Light & Power Fund 4,500,000 0 4,500,000 Transportation Services Fund 442,094 0 442,094 GRAND TOTAL $6,176,144 $1,387,859 $7,564,003 Page 58 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 10 3. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources. A listing of these items follows: a. $36,516 – 2022/2023 BATTLE Grant (Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement) Grant: Police Services was awarded a grant from the Colorado State Patrol to help prevent auto theft in Colorado. b. $44,805 – 2022/2023 Black Market Marijuana Grant: Police Services was awarded the Marijuana grant to support the investigation and prosecution of black market or illegal marijuana cultivation and distribution in the city. c. $75,152 – 2022 Body Worn Camera Grant: In December of 2021, Police Services was awarded a grant to help fund the upgrade of body worn cameras because of the passing of HB 21-1250. This item is to appropriate the money that was received in 2022. d. $11,400 - 2022 Click it or Ticket Grant: In 2021 Police Services was awarded a Click it or Ticket Grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for officers to work overtime to conduct enforcement activities. e. $7,868 - Contribution to Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce: As a part of the City of Fort Collins contribution to the Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce, any Drug Offender Surcharge, or Court Ordered Restitution that is remitted from Larimer County Court to Fort Collins Police, is then passed along to the NCDTF. Any additional restitution that is collected by FCPS is additionally passed along to the NCDTF. f. $11,400 - 2021/2022 High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) Grant: Police Services was awarded a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement. g. $15,000 – 2022/2023 HVE Grant: Police Services was awarded a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement h. $7,682 – 2021 ICAC Grant (Internet Crimes Against Children): In June of 2021 Police Services was awarded the ICAC grant, but the corresponding appropriation was inadvertently excluded from last year’s Annual Adjustment Ordinance. i. $300,000 - Northern Colorado Regional Communication Network (NCRCN) Police Radios Upgrades and Repairs: Police Radios have been failing on an increasing level due to aging infrastructure for the Radio Towers in the surrounding area. Information Services is cur rently working with Motorola and Bearcom to assess the current need, which is still in process. This request is utilizing the dedicated reserves within the General Fund for NCRCN. j. $208,465 - Police Reimbursable Overtime: Police Services help schedule security and traffic control for large events. Since these events are staffed by officers outside of their normal duties, officers are paid overtime. The organization who requested officer presence is then billed for the costs of the officers' overtime. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) partners with Larimer County to staff events at The Ranch. Police receives reimbursement from Larimer County for officers’ hours worked at Ranch events. k. $42,022 - School Resource Officers: Police Services have a contract with Poudre School District to provide officers on location at a majority of the schools for safety and support. The school district pays Police Services based on a predetermined contract amount and also partially reimbursing for overtime incurred. This request if for the previously billed overtime and anticipated overtime for the remaining year. l. $8,962 - DUI Enforcement: Proceeds that have been received for DUI enforcement from Larimer County. Page 59 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 10 m. $96,243 - Police Miscellaneous Revenue: Police Services receives revenue from the sale of Police reports along with other miscellaneous revenue, like restitution payments, evidence revenue and SWAT training. TOTAL APPROPRIATION FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022/2023 BATTLE Grant) $36,516 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022/2023 Black Market Marijuana Grant) $44,805 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022 Body Worn Camera Grant) $75,152 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022 Click it or Ticket Grant) $11,400 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce) $7,868 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2021/2022 HVE Grant) $11,400 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2022/2023 HVE Grant) $15,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2021 ICAC Grant) $7,682 FROM: Prior Year Reserves (NCRCN Police Radios Upgrades & Repairs) $300,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Police Reimbursable Overtime) $208,465 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (School Resource Officers) $42,022 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement) $8,962 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Police Miscellaneous Revenue) $96,243 $865,515 FOR: Help prevent auto theft $36,516 FOR: Support the investigation of illegal marijuana cultivation $44,805 FOR: Upgrade body worn cameras $75,152 FOR: Overtime for Seat Belt enforcement $11,400 FOR: Contribution to Northern Colorado Drug Task Force $7,868 FOR: Overtime for DUI enforcement $11,400 FOR: Help prevent Internet Crimes Against Children $15,000 FOR: Police Radios Upgrades & Repairs $7,682 FOR: Police Reimbursable Overtime for events $300,000 FOR: Overtime for School Resource Officers $208,465 FOR: DUI enforcement $42,022 FOR: Police Miscellaneous Revenue $8,962 $96,243 $865,515 4. Radon Kits Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung -cancer risk from in-home radon exposure. This appropriation would recover kit sales for the purpose of restocking radon test kits. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (radon kit sales) $1,471 FOR: Radon test kit purchase $1,471 5. Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Finance requests the appropriation of $109,010 to cover the amount due for the 2021 Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate program as established in Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, of the Municipal Code. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates. Page 60 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 10 FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Assignment) $109,010 FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $109,010 6. Restorative Justice Grant A grant in the amount of $67,612 has been awarded and received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Diversion fund for the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) and Reflect Program for all other offenses. No match is required for this grant. The grant period is July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. Restorative Justice Services and its three programs has been partially grant-funded since its inception in 2000. The Council yearly accepts grant funds from Colorado Division of Criminal Justice to support Restorative Justice Services. This grant helps fund youth referred to the program from the 8th Judicial District Attorney’s Office or in lieu of a summons. Since it began, Restorative Justice Services has provided a restorative justice alternative to more than 3,300 young people who committed chargeable offenses in our community. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Restorative Justice Grant) $67,612 FOR: Restorative Justice Services $67,612 7. Appropriation from prior year reserves for IRS alternative fuel vehicles refund in the Equipment Fund (refer to item C34) Operation Services applied for, and received, a refund from the IRS for alternative fuel vehicles. These funds were received in 2021 but were inadvertently not included in the 2022 annual appropriation ordinance. This will appropriate these funds from the prior year reserves of the General Fund for an administrative transfer to and expenditure from the Equipment Fund of Operation Services. FROM: Prior Year General Fund reserves (IRS refund) $266,783 FOR: Equipment Fund - Alternative fuel vehicles $266,783 8. Unanticipated Revenue and Expense associated with Purchase of Civic Center Condos In January of 2022 the City of Fort Collins purchased the Civic Center Condos on Mason Street. These condos are leased out with rental payments coming into the City. The management of the condos have come with costs for operations and maintenance (O&M), and additional appropriation is being requested to cover the O&M costs. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $255,010 FOR: Operations and Maintenance costs $255,010 B. DATA & COMMUNICATIONS FUND 1. Accela Permitting System Upgrade The Information Technology (IT) Department is requesting funds from the Development Tracking Systems (DTS) restricted reserves to fund this unanticipated expense request to upgrade the City's permitting platform system. The City's IT Department recently received notice that the Accela permitting platform will no longer be supported based on the current version the City is utilizing. This is requiring the City to upgrade to the latest version to avoid losing software support and any potential security risk s associated with being out-of-date. Upon initiating the upgrade process, staff identified the need for consultant support to assist the City in upgrading its Development, Test, and Production Accela Civic Platform environments. The City intends to contract with TruePoint Solutions, a vendor that has provided Accela support in the past, to provide services as needed, including software installation, pre-installation/upgrade preparation assistance and post-upgrade support. Once completed, the City's permitting platform will be up to date. It Page 61 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 10 will include a new user interface that offers additional features and functionality not currently available, as well as improve the overall performance of the platform. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (DTS assignment) $12,500 FOR: Accela Permitting System Upgrade $12,500 C. EQUIPMENT FUND 1. Unanticipated Fuel Revenue from Price Increase The price of wholesale fuel has been higher than budgeted. This has in turn also increase the price at which the various City departments will pay for fuel provided by Operation Services. With the anticipated elevated fuel prices for the remainder of the year. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $50,000 FOR: Fuel price increase $50,000 2. Charge Ahead Grant 2022 This is a State of Colorado Charge Ahead grant to install multiple electric vehicle chargers at multiple locations. This grant requires a 20% local match which will come from the Operations Services 2022 operating budget. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Charge Ahead Grant) $54,000 FOR: Electric vehicle chargers $54,000 3. IRS alternative fuel vehicles refund from General Fund to Equipment Fund (refer to item A7) Operation Services applied for, and received, a refund from the IRS for alternative fuel vehicles. These funds were received in 2021 but were inadvertently not included in the 2022 annual appropriation ordinance. This will appropriate these funds from the prior year reserves of the General Fund for an administrative transfer to and expenditure from the Equipment Fund of Operation Services. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (IRS refund) $266,783 FOR: Alternative fuel vehicles $266,783 4. Equipment Fund Debt Service Payment The original appropriation for these Certificates of Participation (COPS) was done through Ordinance No. 73, 2022. This request is for the first interest payment owed under the COPs, which payment is due in December 2022. This amount is a one-time payment and will come out of Equipment Fund reserves. This amount was not included in the original Ordinance because it was not anticipated that the first interest payment would be due in 2022. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $48,064 FOR: 2022 interest payment on loan $48,064 Page 62 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 10 D. SALES & USE TAX FUND 1. Sales Tax to Natural Areas (refer to item E1) Sales tax collections were higher than expected in 2021, this is to transfer remaining amount due to Natural Areas Fund. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales tax collections) $48,076 FOR: Natural Areas Fund land purchase and operations $48,076 E. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. Sales Tax to Natural Areas (refer to item D1) Sales tax collections were higher than expected in 2021, this is to transfer remaining amount due to Natural Areas Fund. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $48,076 FOR: Natural Areas land purchase and operations $48,076 F. GOLF FUND 1. Golf Fund Debt Service Payment The original appropriation for the payment of these Certificates of Participation (COPs) was done through Ordinance No. 72, 2022. This request is for the first interest payment owed under the COPs, which is due in December 2022. This amount is a one-time payment and will come out of Golf Fund reserves. This amount was not included in the original Ordinance because it was not anticipated that the first interest payment would be due in 2022. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $80,022 FOR: 2022 interest payment on loan $80,022 2. Golf Player Assistant Pay This is the cost associated with contractual labor payment increases to Golf Professionals for fees associated with the required payment of Player Assistants. The Golf Fund is an enterprise fund and receives no tax dollar support. In 2022, the Golf Division required the contracted golf professionals at all three of the City’s golf courses to pay for Player Assistants on the golf course. In the past these positions were filled by volunteers that were reimbursed only with playing privileges. Recent changes in labor laws have required these individuals be paid for the work. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $288,326 FOR: Contractual Labor payment increases $288,326 G. COMMUNITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CCIP) FUND 1. Carnegie Library renovation operations & maintenance support (refer to item H1) This is the 2022 amount for the operations and maintenance support for the Carnegie Library renovation as part of the Community Capital Improvements Program. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $25,000 FOR Cultural Services (Carnegie Library) $25,000 Page 63 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 10 H. CULTURAL SERVICES FUND 1. Carnegie Library renovation operations & maintenance support (refer to item G1) This is the 2022 amount for the operations and maintenance support for the Carnegie Library renovation as part of the Community Capital Improvements Program. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue via transfer $25,000 FOR Carnegie Library Operations & Maintenance $25,000 I. WATER FUND 1. Bureau of Reclamation 2019 additional amount - Grant Xeriscape Incentive Program This Bureau of Reclamation grant R19A00169 was awarded to Water Conservation for the Xeriscape Incentive Program. The Bureau has increased that award by $5,000. The Bureau released the additional funds after having retained the amount for administrative costs. This money goes toward Xeriscape Incentive Program reimbursements for customers. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Bureau of Reclamation grant) $5,000 FOR Xeriscape Incentive Program $5,000 2. Bureau of Reclamation 2022 - Grant Xeriscape Incentive Program A Bureau of Reclamation grant was awarded to Water Conservation for the Xeriscape Incentive Program. The full grant award of $75,000 will be used as customer reimbursements for the program. The match funding requirement will be met by the program participants' required match. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Bureau of Reclamation grant) $75,000 FOR Xeriscape Incentive Program $75,000 J. LIGHT & POWER FUND 1. Wholesale Purchased Power Through July 2022 the amount of wholesale purchased power needed for Residential, Commercial & Industrial sales has exceeded the budgeted amount of $1,833,680. One of the factors for this increase in cost, besides increased demand, is the amount of intermittent energy sold to Fort Collins Utilities as opposed to dispatchable energy. Intermittent energy costs just over twice the amount of dispatchable energy costs. While our costs for wholesale purchased power have exceeded budget, so has our revenue generated by sales of that energy to the rate payers. Through July 2022 revenues are in excess of budget by $4,469,729. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (sales of purchased power) $2,000,000 FOR Wholesale purchased power $2,000,000 2. Systems Additions & Replacement Through July 2022 the system additions & replacement budget, which is comprised of several business units, is over budget by $1,297,000. The related revenues generated from development and upgrades to the electric system are over budget by $3,894,735 through July 2022. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (electric capacity charge) $2,500,000 FOR Electric systems additions & replacements $2,500,000 Page 64 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 10 K. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. South Timberline Corridor - Fort Collins-Loveland Water District - Reimbursement for Water Line Improvements Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) agreed to reimburse the City for water line improvements within the footprint of the City's South Timberline Corridor project. FCLWD asked that the City perf orm the water line improvements as part of the transportation capital improvement project to minimize traffic disruptions. The water line improvements were not required as part of the City's transportation project. The total amount of the reimbursement is $132,094 and will be credited to the South Timberline Corridor project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (reimbursement) $132,094 FOR South Timberline Corridor project $132,094 2. Shift Your Ride Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program: Electric Micromobility Pass and Education Series Pilot The contract with SPIN requires them to pay $10,000 to the City annually for transportation programs deemed appropriate by staff. These funds will be used to cover printing costs, payroll taxes on the employee SPIN passes, and other expenses associated with the program. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Vendor payment (SPIN)) $10,000 FOR Shift Your Ride TDM Program $10,000 3. Streets: Work for Others The Planning, Development and Transportation Work for Others program is a self -supported program for all “Work for Others” activities within Streets. Expenses are tracked and billed out to other City departments, Poudre School District, CSU, CDOT, Larimer County, developers and other public agencies. The original budget of $3.0M was an estimate based on scheduled projects and anticipated rates. Due to increased cost of asphalt, fuel, parts, and other materials, an additional $300,000 is requested to cover costs through the end of 2022. Revenue for performing the work will offset the expense (note: expense will not be incurred without offsetting revenue). FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (reimbursement for work done) $300,000 FOR Work for Others program $300,000 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This Ordinance increases total City 2022 appropriations by $7,564,003. Of that amount, this Ordinance increases General Fund 2022 appropriations by $1,596,062, including use of $692,164 in prior year reserves. Funding for the total increase to City appropriations is $6,176,144 from unanticipated revenue and $1,387,859 from prior year reserves. The following is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves: Page 65 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 10 BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance A for Consideration 2. Ordinance B for Consideration Item #Fund Use Amount A1 General Fund Emergency Preparedness and Security (EPS) Security Classes $13,621 A2 General Fund Land Bank Operational Expenses 2,750 A3i General Fund NCRCN Police Radios Upgrades and Repairs 300,000 A5 General Fund Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate 109,010 A7 General Fund IRS alternative fuel vehicles refund from General Fund to Equipment Fund 266,783 B1 Data & Comm. Fund Accela Permitting System Upgrade 12,500 C3 Equipment Fund IRS alternative fuel vehicles refund from General Fund to Equipment Fund (refer to item A7)266,783 C4 Equipment Fund Equipment Fund Debt Service Payment 48,064 F1 Golf Fund Golf Fund Debt Service Payment 80,022 F2 Golf Fund Golf Player Assistant Pay 288,326 Total Use of Prior Year Reserves:$1,387,859 Page 66 Item 7. ORDINANCE NO. 102, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM VARIOUS CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City has received additional revenue and other funds this fiscal year that were not anticipated; and WHEREAS, the City has also received revenue and other funds that has been anticipated but was not appropriated in the 2022 annual appropriation or previous supplemental appropriations; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending the appropriations described herein and determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the Funds named within Section 2 of this Ordinance and will not cause the total amount appropriated in each Fund named within Section 2 of this Ordinance to exceed the current estimate of actual a nd anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received in each such Fund during this fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the public’s health, safety, and welfare, and therefore, wishes to authorize the expenditures described in this Ordinance and that such expenditures will serve the public purposes for which they are designated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from the following Funds the amounts of additional revenue and other funds to be expended for the public purposes stated below. A. GENERAL FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $14,290 FOR: Security Classes (City Manager’s Office) $14,290 Page 67 Item 7. 2a. FROM: Additional Revenue (2022/2023 BATTLE Grant) $36,516 FOR: Help prevent auto theft (Police Services) $36,516 2b. FROM: Additional Revenue (2022/2023 Black Market Marijuana Grant) $44,805 FOR: Support the investigation of illegal marijuana cultivation (Police Services) $44,805 2c. FROM: Additional Revenue (2022 Body Worn Camera Grant) $75,152 FOR: Upgrade body worn cameras (Police Services) $75,152 2d. FROM: Additional Revenue (2022 Click it or Ticket Grant) $11,400 FOR: Overtime for Seat Belt enforcement (Police Services) $11,400 2e. FROM: Additional Revenue (Northern Colorado Drug Taskforce) $7,868 FOR: Contribution to Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (Police Services) $7,868 2f. FROM: Additional Revenue (2021-22-23 HVE Grant) $26,400 FOR: Contribution to Northern CO Drug Task Force (Police Services) $26,400 2g. FROM: Additional Revenue (2021 ICAC Grant) $7,682 FOR: Help prevent Internet Crimes Against Children (Police Services) $7,682 2h. FROM: Additional Revenue (Police Reimbursable Overtime) $208,465 FOR: Overtime for School Resource Officers (Police Services) $208,465 2i. FROM: Additional Revenue (School Resource Officers) $42,022 FOR: DUI enforcement (Police Services) $42,022 2j. FROM: Additional Revenue (DUI Enforcement From Larimer County) $8,962 FOR: Police Miscellaneous Revenue (Police Services) $8,962 2k. FROM: Additional Revenue (Police Miscellaneous Revenue from Sales) $96,243 FOR: Police Miscellaneous Revenue (Police Services) $96,243 3. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (radon kit sales) $1,471 FOR: Radon test kit purchase (Environmental Services) $1,471 4. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Restorative Justice Grant) $67,612 FOR: Restorative Justice Services (Neighborhood Services) $67,612 5. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Purchase of Civic Center Condos) $255,010 FOR: Operations and Maintenance costs (Operation Services) $255,010 Page 68 Item 7. B. EQUIPMENT FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Fuel Price Increase) $50,000 FOR: Fuel Price Increase (Operation Services) $50,000 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Charge Ahead Grant) $54,000 FOR: Electric vehicle chargers (Operation Services) $54,000 C. SALES AND USE TAX FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales tax collections) $48,076 FOR: Natural Areas land purchase and operations (Natural Areas) (Refer to item D1.) $48,076 D. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales tax collections) $48,076 FOR: Natural Areas land purchase and operations (Natural Areas) $48,076 E. COMMUNITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CCIP) FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Carnegie Operations) $25,000 FOR: Cultural Services (Carnegie Library)(Refer To Item F1) $25,000 F. CULTURAL SERVICES FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Library Ops and Renovation) $25,000 FOR: Cultural Services (Cultural Services) $25,000 G. WATER FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Bureau of Reclamation grant 2019) $5,000 FOR: Xeriscape Incentive Program (UT Customer Connections) $5,000 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Bureau of Reclamation grant) $75,000 FOR: Xeriscape Incentive Program (UT Customer Connections) $75,000 H. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (sales of purchased power) $2,000,000 FOR: Wholesale purchased power (UT Electric Systems) $2,000,000 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (electric capacity charge) $2,500,000 FOR: Electric systems additions & replacements (UT Distribution) $2,500,000 Page 69 Item 7. I. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (reimbursement) $132,094 FOR: South Timberline Corridor project (Engineering) $132,094 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Vendor payment (SPIN)) $10,000 FOR: Shift Your Ride TDM Program (FC Moves) $10,000 3. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (reimbursement for work done) $300,000 FOR: Work for Others program (Streets) $300,000 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 70 Item 7. ORDINANCE NO. 103, 2022 YEAR OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR-YEAR RESERVES IN VARIOUS CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City has prior year-reserves available for appropriation; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such funds were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending the appropriations described herein and has determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the Funds named within Section 2 of this Ordinance and will not cause the total amount appropriated in each Fund named within Section 2 of this Ordinance to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received in each such Fund during this fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the public’s health, safety, and welfare, and therefore, wishes to authorize the expenditures described in this Ordinance and that such expenditures will serve the public purposes for which they are designated in Section 2 below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2: That there is hereby appropriated from the following Funds the amounts of prior year reserves set forth below to be expended for the public purposes stated below. A. GENERAL FUND 1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (2021 class revenue) $13,621 FOR: Security Classes (City Manager’s Office) $13,621 2. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank reserve) $2,750 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $2,750 3. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (NCRCN Police Radios Upgrades & Repairs $300,000 FOR: Police Radios Upgrades & Repairs $300,000 4. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Assignment) $109,010 FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $109,010 Page 71 Item 7. 5. FROM: Prior Year General Fund reserves (IRS refund) $266,783 FOR: Equipment Fund - Alternative fuel vehicles (Operation Services) (Refer to Item C2) $266,783 B. DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS FUND 1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (DTS assignment) $12,500 FOR: Accela Permitting System Upgrade $12,500 C. EQUIPMENT FUND 1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $48,064 FOR: 2022 interest payment on loan $48,064 2. FROM: Prior Year General Fund Reserves (IRS refund) $266,783 FOR: Alternative fuel vehicles (Operation Services) (Refer to Item A5) $266,783 D. GOLF FUND 1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $80,022 FOR: 2022 interest payment on loan $80,022 2. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $288,326 FOR: Contractual Labor payment increases $288,326 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4 th day of October, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 72 Item 7. Passed and adopted on final reading this 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 73 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 4 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Katie Donahue, Natural Areas Director Julia Feder, Environmental Program Manager Alynn Karnes, Land Conservation Specialist Tawnya Ernst, Sr. Real Estate Specialist Ingrid Decker, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2022, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Nonexclusive Stormwater Drainage Easement on Redtail Grove Natural Area to WWW Properties, LLC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to authorize conveyance of a permanent, nonexclusive drainage easement to WWW Properties, LLC (owners of Fort Collins Nissan and Fort Collins Kia) on Redtail Grove Natural Area. The proposed easement area aligns with an existing historic drainage path for stormwater. WWW Properties, LLC will construct underground water quality and detention facilities on their property to capture stormwater, decrease peak flow rates into Fossil Creek, and decrease the amount of water overtopping the Fossil Creek Trail, as well as the time the trail is overtopped, during significant storm events. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Redtail Grove Natural Area is a 51-acre natural area situated west of College Avenue between Harmony and Trilby Roads. The natural area conserves riparian habitat along Fossil Creek while providing visitor use amenities, including the paved Fossil Creek Trail, to adjacent neighborhoods and businesses along College Avenue. WWW Properties, LLC owns three parcels (totaling 24+/- acres) south of the natural area, including the site of the existing Fort Collins Nissan dealership. WWW Properties intends to expand its operations at the Nissan dealership site to collocate a Kia dealership that is currently at another location. It submitted expansion plans for conceptual review to the City’s Development Review Center in the fall of 2021. The City’s Land Use Code requires mitigation of any stormwater generated on the property due to the proposed development. Late last year, representatives of WWW Properties contacted Natural Areas’ staff with a request for a non-exclusive drainage easement as they explored alternatives to route stormwater flows. Page 74 Item 8. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 4 Currently and historically, stormwater from the east side of WWW Properties’ land flows north into a natural drainage swale in the southeast corner of Redtail Grove Natural Area. Stormwater from the west side of the WWW Properties’ land drains west to Lang Gulch. During significant storm events, existing drainage flows overtop Fossil Creek Trail. WWW Properties’ proposed development plan would increase the paved area on their property, which in turn would increase the amount of impermeable surface, lessening the ability of stormwater to naturally infiltrate the soil. Therefore, this development would increase the overall volume of water that would run downhill through the existing swale and enter Fossil Creek, if no mitigation actions were taken. Numerous alternatives for mitigation were reviewed as part of the design process. The preferred alternative for protecting the Redtail Grove Natural Area involves the installation of underground water quality detention facilities on WWW Properties’ land. T he applicant has secured a letter of intent from the owner of the property (Silverthorne, LLC) that lies between the WWW Properties’ land and the natural area to collaborate on easements through this property. However, the stormwater would still flow across the natural area to Fossil Creek. WWW Properties’ project team has met with staff (including Natural Areas, Park Planning and Development, and Utilities-Stormwater representatives) on several occasions to discuss permitting and master storm drainage issues related to the proposed development. In addition, multiple internal discussions between these departments, as well as the Parks Department, have occurred to determine a preferred alternative to manage the potential increased flows. Alternatives Analysis: The following location and design alternatives were submitted by WWW Properties in its alternatives analysis to manage the stormwater outfall coming from the eastern portion of the property: Alternative 1 (Preferred): WWW Properties would install underground water quality detention facilities on its land. The collected stormwater from these facilities would release to Fossil Creek across the Silverthorne property. Once reaching the natural area’s border, the stormwater would flow along a 30’-wide, 370’+/- long segment of a natural drainage swale, through an existing 12” culvert under the Fossil Creek Trail, and into Fossil Creek. The total proposed easement area is 11,045 square-feet (0.254 acres). The installation of the underground water quality detention facilities would:  Filter stormwater runoff for water quality prior to being released.  Help slowly release the collected stormwater and mitigate for some of the existing issues during storm events. This includes reducing projected peak flow rates and decreasing the quantity of water and duration of time the Fossil Creek Trail is overtopped during significant storm events.  Direct stormwater flows along a historic drainage way. This preferred alternative would not involve any construction or installation disturbance on Natural Areas’ property or to the Fossil Creek Trail. Installation of larger or additional culverts was considered as part of this alternative. However, impacts of culvert installation would include:  Closing Fossil Creek Trail for approximately two weeks to remove pavement, install the culvert, and reconnect the trail.  Construction equipment would be mobilized across approximately 500 feet of natural area and paved trail, likely necessitating restoration. Page 75 Item 8. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 4 Alternative 2: This alternative is in the same location as the preferred alternative. However, a storm sewer would be constructed to carry water from WWW Properties’ land and through the natural area before discharging in Fossil Creek. The sewer would require permanent maintenance access across the natural area for the added infrastructure. This alternative would require significant disturbance through the natural area and within existing wetlands, floodway and erosion buffer at Fossil Creek. Historic drainage patterns would also be disrupted. Alternative 3: This alternative mirrors Alternative 2, but the storm sewer would be constructed on the northeast portion of WWW Properties’ land where it directly connects to Natural Areas’ property. As in Alternative 2, the sewer would require permanent maintenance access across the natural area for the added infrastructure. This alternative would require significant disturbance through the natural area and within existing wetlands, floodway, and erosion buffer at Fossil Creek. Historic drainage patterns would also be disrupted. Alternative 4: This alternative would reroute stormwater runoff via a pipe to the west of WWW Properties’ land and discharge the water to Lang Gulch, where the western portion of the property’s stormwater runoff would already be directed, to avoid passing the water over the natural area. Detention of all the property’s runoff would not be possible through underground facilities on the western side of the property. A direct connection to Lang Gulch for the east side’s outfall would increase the flowrates that would be seen to Lang Gulch and ultimately to Fossil Creek. Impacts to Lang Gulch would be significant with an added pipe for outfall and additional, un-detained runoff being directed to the channel. While discharge of stormwater into Lang Gulch would keep the drainage on WWW Properties land, this alternative has the potential to increase erosion, putting sediment and additional untreated water into Lang Gulch and Fossil Creek. Lang Gulch, a small tributary to Fossil Creek, contains significant rock outcrops with numerous fossils, native vegetation, and a narrow fringe of wetlands. Alternative 5: This alternative contemplated drainage onto College Avenue/Highway 287. WWW’s project team has met with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) about diverting the water through the right -of-way at College Avenue in a storm sewer, until it reaches the box culvert that drains into Fossil Creek underneath College Avenue. CDOT staff have said they cannot accept increased flow rates into CDOT right-of-way. Due to the significant amount of disturbance for all culvert installation or replacement designs, or the addition of a storm sewer through the natural area (Alternative 2 and 3) staff did not believe that these designs and alternatives are the best way to protect the existing natural resources. Ultimately, a no-build approach (Alternative 1 without culvert installation) was selected as the preferred option. Additionally, Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would greatly reduce or eliminate the stormwater that has historically flowed across the swale on Redtail Grove, removing water from a portion of the Redtail Grove habitat. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Application fee $3,000 Mitigation Fee - non-wetland - $3,800/ac. @ 0.254 acres $3,800 Easement fee - $5,000/ac. - $0.254/ac. @ 50% of fair market value $1,270 To mitigate for an increase in volume of stormwater outflow through the historic natural area drainage path, Natural Areas staff is requesting the applicant provide payment in lieu to mitigate a portion of land on both Page 76 Item 8. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 4 sides of the existing culvert with native vegetation, slowing down the volume of water entering and exiting the culvert at one time. This would prevent erosion to the natural area over time. These estimated fees would be paid to the Natural Areas Department to support administrative costs and land conservation efforts. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board reviewed this request at its July 13, 2022, meeting. Conversation centered around the presentation of the easement proposal and analysis as well as the overall Natural Areas’ easement policy. Following the presentation, the Board voted to table the WWW Properties’ request indefinitely. Questions and concerns regarding the clarity of the proposal details have been addressed in the revised package presented to Council. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Vicinity Map 3. Site Map 4. Land Conservation and Stewardship Minutes, July 13, 2022 Page 77 Item 8. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 104, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PERMANENT, NONEXCLUSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON REDTAIL GROVE NATURAL AREA TO WWW PROPERTIES, LLC WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property located south of Harmony Road along South College Avenue known as Redtail Grove Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, WWW Properties, LLC (“WWW”) owns property south of the City Property, at 5811 South College Avenue, which is the site of the Fort Collins Nissan dealership (the “WWW Property”); and WHEREAS, the City is in the process of reviewing a Final Development Plan for the WWW Property that would include taking down the existing building on the property and replacing it with a new Kia dealership and a new Nissan dealership; and WHEREAS, for the proposed development to be approved, WWW must acquire any needed easements to manage stormwater drainage issues associated with increased development on its property; and WHEREAS, WWW and City staff considered five alternatives for managing stormwater outfall and concluded that the preferred option is to collect stormwater in underground water quality detention facilities on the WWW property and then direct it in an easement over a historic natural drainage swale on downstream properties, including the City Property, to Fossil Creek; and WHEREAS, this option benefits the City Property by filtering stormwater runoff for water quality before it is released and reducing the ov ertopping of the Fossil Creek Trail on the City Property during significant storm events; and WHEREAS, the location of the proposed stormwater easement is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Easement”); and WHEREAS, WWW would pay the City fair market value of $1,270 for the Easement, plus a $3,000 application fee, and a $3,800 mitigation fee that Natural Areas will use to plant vegetation on the City Property to mitigate erosion from stormwater drainage; and WHEREAS, the Easement would be nonexclusive and would not grant WWW any right to install any new improvements on the City Property; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any interests in real property owned by the City, provided the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Page 78 Item 8. -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Easement to WWW as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Easement to WWW on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022 and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Page 79 Item 8. EXHIBIT A Page 80 Item 8. EXHIBIT A Page 81 Item 8. Vicinity Map Page 82 Item 8. Site Map Redtail Grove boundary Nissan-KIA boundary Proposed drainage Page 83 Item 8. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board July 13, 2022 Regular Meeting – Excerpt 7/5/2022 – MINUTES Page 1 Nissan-KIA Drainage Easement Alynn Karnes, Land Conservation Specialist introduced a potential drainage easement to Fort Collins Nissan-KIA across the southeast corner of Redtail Grove Natural Area. The Nissan-KIA dealership development plan requires that a drainage path be identified and formalized to mitigate their stormwater outfall from the development. This proposed easement path follows an existing natural drainage swale where stormwater already flows from the uphill Nissan-KIA property into Fossil Creek. Natural Areas staff were contacted in late 2021 with an easement request to address the additional volume of water anticipated from the proposed development and formalize the historic stormwater flows. Staff discussed alternative analyses for drainage and design options to mitigate the increased volume of stormwater into Fossil Creek with the developer, and the Utilities and Parks Departments. Alternative analyses included: laying a pipe under Nissan-KIA, private landowner, and Natural Areas properties to convey the stormwater directly to Fossil Creek, diverting a pipe up the northeasterly side of the Nissan-KIA property parallel to College Avenue and placing a storm sewer to drain to Fossil Creek along a new drainage path, and piping the stormwater to the western side of the property to outfall into Lang Gulch. Upon assessment, these alternatives appeared to either require a higher level of disturbance and long-term maintenance to the natural area property or physically were not viable options. Alternative designs to the proposed drainage path included: a detention pond on the southeast corner of the property, or the installation or addition of a larger culvert underneath Fossil Creek Trail. In all alternative design scenarios, there would be significant damage done to the natural area vegetation and/or trail that would need to be mitigated for and restored. In all proposed alternative designs, the trail would need to be closed to the public for approximately two weeks during construction. City staff collectively determined that Nissan-KIA’s proposed underground stormwater detention design on their property, with a slow release of drainage to Fossil Creek, protects the natural area more than the other options of granting a detention pond on the property or increasing the size or number of culverts that convey drainage under the trail. Discussion: The Board and NAD staff had an extensive discussion about the alternative options to include drainage, stormwater standards compliance, Fossil Creek water quality from the car lot runoff, monitoring of the water discharged, amount of runoff and additional cars on the car lot. Member Cunniff inquired about auto service drainage. The dealership uses a contained part cleaner and then a skimmer for oils and particulates that are then hauled off-site. Alynn expressed that most of the drainage will go into Lang Gulch. Member Cunniff made a motion to table the Nissan-KIA Drainage Easement indefinitely. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 8-0. Page 84 Item 8. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 4 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Jason Graham, Utilities Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Services Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2022, Authorizing the Conditional Conveyance of Certain City- Owned Property Rights to Chris Vandemoer and Geo. A. Henderson Co. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to seek Council authorization for the conditional conveyance of certain City- owned real property rights to Chris Vandemoer and Geo. A. Henderson, Co. (collectively “Vandemoer”). The proposed conveyance is part of a proposed settlement agreement between the City, Vandemoer, and The Nature Conservancy (“TNC”) to obtain necessary property rights on the primary private access road for all three phases of the City’s Halligan Water Supply Project (“Halligan Project”), in which the City intends to replace or modify a dam and enlarge Halligan Reservoir. Vandemoer owns certain real property adjacent to the reservoir that includes a private road that serves as the primary access point to the reservoir and the dam. The property is also encumbered by two conservation easements held by TNC. Since late 2018, City representatives have negotiated with Vandemoer to obtain property rights necessary for the Halligan Project. The parties are currently in eminent domain litigation for Phase 1 of the Project and have had productive conversations regarding a global settlement for all three phases of the Halligan Project. The conveyance of the City-owned property would only occur if: (1) the parties enter into a settlement agreement; and (2) the City completes construction of the Halligan Project. This Ordinance does not seek approval of the settlement agreement itself. T he decision whether to enter into the settlement agreement would be made by the City Manager following a recommendation by City staff, in consultation with outside legal counsel and the City Attorney’s Office. This Ordinance is limited only to authorizing the conditional conveyance of City-owned property. The structure of the settlement agreement is explained more fully below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Discussions and Negotiations Vandemoer’s property serves as the primary access point to Halligan Reservoir. An existing private road traverses Vandemoer’s property and ends at the Halligan dam. City staff have been communicating with Vandemoer for more than five years to share information, better understand Page 85 Item 9. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 4 Vandemoer’s concerns, and to work towards addressing those concerns while also moving the Halligan Project forward. A map of the Reservoir area is included with this AIS for reference. Pursuant to Council authorization in Ordinance No. 013, 2020, the City is engaged in eminent domain litigation with Vandemoer, TNC, and other parties to acquire access rights along the existing road for Phase 1 (Permitting and Design) of the project. City staff and Vandemoer have been negotiating a possible settlement of the litigation that would result in the City obtaining the property rights it needs from Vandemoer for all three phases of the Project, including construction and ongoing operation. More recently, City staff have been communicating with TNC about the Project’s impacts to TNC’s conservation easements. The ongoing eminent domain litigation only concerns Phase 1 of the Project, which does not impact TNC’s conservation easements. However, a settlement of property rights for Phase 2 would impact the conservation easements because that is when construction will begin, the road would be modified, and more substantial use of the road will occur. Phase 3 includes perpetual use of the road, which may also have impacts to the conservation easements. Accordingly, a proposed 3-phase settlement includes expanding the scope of the pending eminent domain case to include the property rights for Phases 2 and 3. Because the City’s use in those later phases would impact the conservation easements, TNC’s agreement to the settlement is appropriate. TNC has made certain requests regarding project means and methods with the intent towards mitigating impacts to wildlife and conservation interests. City staff and TNC are continuing discussions regarding the feasibility of those requests. Proposed Agreement Benefits While this Ordinance does not ask Council to approve the settlement agreement, an explanation of the proposed settlement framework may be helpful. City staff views the proposed settlement agreement as beneficial to the City because the proposed agreement would give the City the property rights it needs on this primary access to Halligan dam for all three phases of the Project and would eliminate the risk and expense of ongoing and future eminent domain litigation. The City would acquire from Vandemoer property rights for all three phases as follows:  Phase 1 o The City would continue to have access along the existing road from Highway 287 under the existing temporary access agreement with Vandemoer.  Phase 2 o The City's Phase 2 property rights would begin when its Phase 1 rights end. o In exchange for compensation, the City would have a temporary construction easement generally along the existing road on Vandemoer’s property. o The City would be able to widen and modify the road to meet the access needs of heavy equipment and materials. o When this temporary construction easement, the City's access rights would transition to its Phase 3 rights.  Phase 3 o The City would have permanent property rights it will need to operate and maintain the Reservoir, including, but not limited to, use of the improved road for access to the reservoir for all reservoir and dam operations, inspection, maintenance, repair. The City would also have the property rights it needs to raise the water level of the reservoir. Consideration from the City In exchange for Vandemoer conveying the property rights to the City, the City would pay a negotiated amount as a single payment for all property rights acquired, impaired or damaged. This amount is currently Page 86 Item 9. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 4 contemplated to be $1,543,000 but is subject to change as negotiations continue. The intent is that the single payment will compensate both Vandemoer and TNC, which is customary in eminent domain cases. This amount would also cover all claims for costs and attorney fees either Vandemoer or TNC might be entitled to. Consideration would also include the City conditionally conveying property rights to Vandemoer, which is the purpose of the proposed Ordinance. The City owns real property at the reservoir by way of a Halligan Reservoir agreement with the North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”), dated November 8, 1993, pursuant to which NPIC conveyed property to the City and retained the right to the return of that property in the event the City terminates the project. Accordingly, the City’s conveyance of property rights to Vandemoer would be conditioned upon the City completing construction of the Project and NPIC’s right to reacquire property irrevocably lapsing or being expressly released in writing by NPIC. The City would conditionally convey fee title to Vandemoer of three parcels of City land adjacent to the reservoir, totaling approximately 23 acres, while retaining for the City an access easement to the reservoir for inspection and maintenance. The land to be conveyed to Vandemoer would include a permanent restrictive covenant that would prohibit commercial uses and building on the property. Cattle grazing would be allowed, but the City could fence out livestock to protect wetlands and vegetation under restoration. The City would also conditionally grant Vandemoer an access easement (~7 acres) over City land that would fluctuate with the water level. The easement would only allow pedestrian access and cattle grazing, although the City could fence out livestock to protect wetlands and vegetation under restoration. No commercial uses or improvements would be allowed, such as buildings or roads. The conveyance of any City property rights to Vandemoer would not take place until: (1) after the City entered into the proposed settlement agreement; (2) the City finished construction of the Project; and (3) the North Poudre Irrigation Company’s right to reacquire the City property rights is extinguished. This means that if the City ultimately does not pursue the Halligan Project, the City would retain the property rights that are the subject of this Ordinance. Consideration from Vandemoer In exchange, Vandemoer would convey to the City:  The City would continue to have its temporary access along the road for Phase 1 permitting and design.  Three parcels of land in fee for the permanent inundation of reservoir water, totaling approximately 5 acres.  A permanent inundation easement on his land for high water events and to allow the City access for inspection and maintenance, covering approximately 9 acres.  A temporary construction easement for the construction in Phase 2 construction, which would become a permanent access easement at Phase 3 operations and maintenance. Settlement with TNC TNC has a conservation easement on a portion of Vandemoer's land that would be impacted by the City work on the Project. Staff are coordinating with TNC to incorporate mitigation measures into the Project and, to the extent necessary, subordinate the conservation easements on those portions of the Vandemoer property that will be impacted by the improvement and use of the road for Phases 2 and 3. Page 87 Item 9. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 4 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS While negotiations are ongoing and settlement is not final, the estimated compensation to be paid by the City is $1,543,000. City staff calculates that the exchange in real property interests between the City and Vandemoer, combined with the value of avoiding the risks and expense of protracted litigation, is equivalent to or exceeds the City receiving fair market value for the City property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Ordinance Exhibit A 3. Ordinance Exhibit B 4. Vicinity Map Page 88 Item 9. ORDINANCE NO. 105, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY RIGHTS TO CHRIS VANDEMOER AND GEO. A. HENDERSON CO. WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution 2003-121, City Council authorized the City Manager to proceed with investigation, planning, regulatory review processes, site acquisition, design, and construction of the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project, now referred to as the Halligan Water Supply Project (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City is proceeding with Phase 1 of three phases of the Project, which will include site visits and data collection related to the permitting and design work for the reservoir enlargement and replacement or modification of the dam and diversion structures; and WHEREAS, to accomplish the work of Phase 1, the City needs access to Halligan Reservoir; and WHEREAS, Chris Vandemoer and Geo. A. Henderson Co. (collectively, “Vandemoer”) jointly own property adjacent to the reservoir and which is encumbered by conservation easements owned by The Nature Conservancy (“TNC”); and WHEREAS, the primary access to the reservoir and the Halligan dam is by a private road that crosses Vandemoer’s property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authorization by City Council in Ordinance No. 013, 2020, the City is engaged in eminent domain litigation with Vandemoer, TNC, and other parties to acquire access rights along the existing road for Phase 1 of the Project; and WHEREAS, negotiations with Vandemoer and TNC have led to the possible settlement of access rights and real property acquisitions for all three phases of the Project; and WHEREAS, part of the proposed settlement with respect to Vandemoer would include a cash payment by the City to Vandemoer as compensation for certain property rights the City would unconditionally acquire from Vandemoer, including land in fee, temporary and permanent access easements, and a permanent inundation easement; and WHEREAS, the City owns real property at the reservoir by way of a Halligan Reservoir agreement with the North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”), dated November 8, 1993, pursuant to which NPIC conveyed property to the City and retained the right to the return of that property in the event the City terminates the project to enlarge Halligan Reservoir; and WHEREAS, as additional consideration for said settlement, the City would convey certain property rights to Vandemoer, conditioned upon the City completing construction of the Project and NPIC’s right to reacquire property either irrevocably lapsing or being expressly released in writing by NPIC; and Page 89 Item 9. WHEREAS, the property rights the City would conditionally convey to Vandemoer are described on Exhibits “A” and “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “City Property Rights”); and WHEREAS, more specifically, the City would conditionally convey to Vandemoer fee interest in certain real property, subject to a restrictive covenant that would limit Vandemoer’s use of the property and subject to a flood easement to allow the City to inundate the property during high water events; and WHEREAS, the City would also conditionally convey to Vandemoer a permanent shoreline access easement that would allow Vandemoer the use of other City property to access the reservoir; and WHEREAS, if City Council approves the conditional conveyance, City staff has determined the City will receive sufficient value for the City Property Rights by way of the value of the property rights it would obtain from Vandemoer in the proposed settlement combined with the value of avoiding the risk and expense of eminent domain litigation to obtain property rights for all three phases of the Project; and WHEREAS, the parties are engaged in ongoing negotiations with the intent of executing a settlement agreement in advance of the Phase 1 eminent domain trial set to begin October 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the proposed settlement of all three phases would include the City’s acquisition of property rights that are desirable and necessary for the design, permitting, construction, long-term maintenance and operation of the Project, is in the City’s best interest, and enhances public health, safety, and welfare because it is in furtherance of the Project, which will meet the demands of future Fort Collins Utilities customers and provide added reliability for all Utilities customers; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(b) of the City Code further requires that, for the conveyance of real property that is part of the City’s water or utility systems, the City Council must also find that the disposition will not materially impair the viability of the particular utility system as a whole and that it will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determination and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Page 90 Item 9. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines, pursuant to Section 23- 111(a) of the City Code, that it is necessary in the public interest and in the best interests of the City to conditionally convey the City Property Rights as described herein for the purpose of settling the eminent domain litigation with Vandemoer and TNC so that the City acquires all property interests it needs from Vandemoer and TNC for all three phases of the Project. Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds and determines, pursuant to Section 23- 111(b) of the City Code, that the conveyance of the City Property Rights will not materially impair the viability of the City’s water utility system as a whole and will be for the benefit of the citizens and residents of the City; Section 4. That the City Council finds and determines, pursuant to Section 23-114 of the City Code, that the disposition of the subject real property interests described in this Ordinance will result in the City receiving value in an amount equal to or greater than the fair market value of such land. Section 5. That the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute deeds and other instruments of conveyance to conditionally convey the City Property Rights to Vandemoer, and the City Manager is authorized to execute such other documents related to the property conveyances as may be necessary, all on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of such property interest, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the interests to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 91 Item 9. Passed and adopted on final reading this 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 92 Item 9. EXHIBIT A Page 93 Item 9. EXHIBIT A Page 94 Item 9. EXHIBIT A Page 95 Item 9. EXHIBIT A Page 96 Item 9. EXHIBIT A Page 97 Item 9. EXHIBIT A Page 98 Item 9. EXHIBIT B Page 99 Item 9. EXHIBIT B Page 100 Item 9. EXHIBIT B Page 101 Item 9. EXHIBIT B Page 102 Item 9. %/0&3:&683ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU&LW\3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU6WDWH/DQG%RDUG71&3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHU9DULRXV3ULYDWH/DQGRZQHUV1RUWK)RUNRIWKH&DFKHOD3RXGUH5LYHU13,&Vicinity MapPage 103Item 9. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF John Phelan, Energy Services Senior Manager and Policy Advisor Leland Keller, Energy Services Engineer Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Net Metered Renewable Energy Generation System Sizing and Adopting Administrative Rules for Net Metered System Sizing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance amends sizing requirements in City Code that limit the generating size (i.e. production capacity) of renewable energy systems, removing reference to 120% of a customer’s annual electric consumption and adopts administrative program rules to guide the Utilities’ Executive Director to define allowable generation system sizing consistent with the City’s 2030 energy and climate goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Renewable energy system generation sizing requirements in City Code tied to 120% of customer consumption (the “120% Rule”) were designed as a financial limit, mitigating the financial exposure for Fort Collins Utilities in paying retail solar credit rates by limiting the size of customer-sited generation. As Fort Collins seeks to achieve the ambitious target of 5% of energy delivered in 2030 to be generated by local renewable resources, as well as the electrification of transportation and buildings, the existing sizing requirements represent an inflexible constraint on that effort, imposing a point-in-time limit on how and when customers can make investments in electrification and renewable generation. Administrative rules submitted for Council adoption with this Ordinance, in combination with Utilities metering standards and electric rates, provide similar financial risk management as the 120% Rule, while aligning with policies and strategies to achieve 2030 goals. This Ordinance does not propose changes to solar credit rates. Rather, solar credit rates will be included with the electric rate agenda item at the Council meeting November 1. Understanding the Existing 120% Rule Sizing Requirement The existing City Code Sections governing electric rates (Sec. 26-464 for residential and all rate categories following) limit the size of a renewable energy generation system (typically solar) to a production capacity Page 104 Item 10. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 of no more than 120% of a customer’s annual historical electric use. The intent of the 120% Rule is to support customers who want to self-generate electricity in an amount that matches their typical annual use and enables them to offset a majority of their electric bill (i.e. net-metering), rather than creating a situation where Utilities is buying/crediting for excess energy produced by customers whose generation significantly exceeds their regular consumption. 120% Rule Key Points  The intent was to set a practical financial limit; it was not related to distribution system requirements or capacity.  The 120% Rule is defined in City Code and was aligned with state statute until the passage of SB21- 261 in 2021, which expanded the sizing limit to 200% in other Colorado utility service territories.  The 120% Rule is currently applied only at the time of solar system interconnection application and is not tracked or (re)calculated related to electric use by subsequent homeowners.  Additional sizing limitations on solar systems include the National Electric Code (NEC) related to the home’s electric panel and the customer service entrance capacity.  The proposed changes to City Code will not affect reference to 120% sizing in the Platte River Power Supply Agreement that constrains renewable generation system sizing in circumstances where a third party is the generator, rather than the utility electric customer. Why Replace the 120% Code Language with Administrative Rules The 120% Rule has been an effective tool for many years. However, new practices are needed that will better serve updated community climate and renewable strategies along with existing advanced metering and time-based electric rates. Utilities and Platte River are planning for widespread solar adoption by 2030 with an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 solar systems in place providing between 60 and 75 megawatts of capacity. More flexibility for customer solar generation under administrative policies, maintained by the Utilities Executive Director pursuant to Section 26-463 of the City Code will:  Encourage solar systems that serve increased use from electrification (e.g. electric vehicles, heat pumps). Customers are regularly inquiring about sizing their solar systems to accommodate increased usage as they electrify their home heating, cooking and transportation. These electrification strategies are a key strategy for Our Climate Future and will be essential to reducing emissions from natural gas and petroleum.  Accelerate local solar contribution to reaching community renewable electricity goals. The increa sed size of solar systems envisioned supports the ambitious target of reaching 5% local renewable electricity, as a part of our 100% renewable electricity goal by 2030. With aligned rate and incentive components, this is an effective approach to leverage customer interest and investment.  Simplify and streamline solar application and interconnection processes for customers, solar trade allies and staff. The 120% Rule adds multiple evaluation steps to the solar application process for all parties without providing significant short or long-term benefit. Additional rationale for replacing the 120% Rule include:  It is applied as a one-time estimate when a new solar application is received. It represents only a snapshot of the home and current customer.  It does not take into account a customer’s future potential electrification, nor can it be used for customers without a use history (e.g. new home or recent move). There is no tracking of usage of homes with solar that change ownership or when a customer’s household situation changes.  As solar has become common, residents are purchasing existing homes with solar, and the system sizing may not be aligned with the new household’s usage. Page 105 Item 10. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Adoption of this ordinance has no direct impact to City finances. Utilities uses the Budgeting for Outcomes process to plan for purchases of surplus renewable energy from solar customers based on the applicable rate structures adopted by Council. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Energy Board voted to recommend Council adopt the Ordinance based on the materials presented and discussion at the September 8, 2022, Energy Board meeting. PUBLIC OUTREACH Utilities shared a draft of the proposed administrative rules with the Colorado Solar and Storage Association and gathered input from local solar contractors, each of whom voiced enthusiastic support. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Exhibit A 3. Work Session Summary, June 28, 2022 4. Presentation Page 106 Item 10. ORDINANCE NO. 106, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGARDING NET METERED RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM SIZING AND ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR NET METERED SYSTEM SIZING WHEREAS, Chapter 26 of the City Code regulates and governs the provision of utility services, and sets forth definitions and terms for applying fees and bill-credits for delivery of specified utility services; and WHEREAS, such provisions require periodic updating and modification for purposes of clarification and to ensure that the Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, customers, residents and changing technology for and manner of delivering utility services; and WHEREAS, Utilities staff has identified provisions of Chapter 26 of the Code where updates to net metered customer solar generation project sizing criteria are required to align with Colorado statute, Utility practices, and the City’s Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2015, City Council adopted Resolution 2015-030, updating City Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals to reduce emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, to 80% below 2005 levels by 2030, and to be carbon neutral by 2050; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, enacting a rate structure to encourage customer net metered energy generation and further City Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-091, acknowledging the global climate emergency and reaffirming the City’s commitment to climate action, as reflected in City Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and WHEREAS, since 2011, Chapter 26 of the City Code reflected the sizing limit on new customer net metered energy generation systems found in Colorado Revised Statutes §40-2-124, i.e. systems sized to supply no more than one hundred twenty percent of the aver age annual consumption of electricity by the consumer at the customer’s site (“120% Rule”); and WHEREAS, in 2021, the Colorado General Assembly adopted SB 21-261, amending the statutory sizing limit on customer net metered energy generation systems to allow sizes up to 200% of the “reasonably expected annual total consumption of electricity at all properties owned or leased by a customer within a public utility’s service territory”; and WHEREAS, Section 26-463 of the City Code provides that rules, regulations, and standards applicable to electric service and persons receiving electric service provided by the City may be adopted by the Utilities Executive Director and approved by ordinance of the City Council; and Page 107 Item 10. WHEREAS, Sections 26-464 through 26-470 of the City Code provide that the Utilities Executive Director may advance programs to assist customers or provide incentives to customers to reduce energy consumption in furtherance of Council-adopted policies; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, Utilities staff presented to Council a recommendation to remove the 120% Rule language from Chapter 26 of the City Code to incentivize customer investment in net metered energy generation systems up to size limits set by the Utilities Executive Director based on Council-approved administrative rules; and WHEREAS, the proposed Renewable Energy System Sizing administrative rules attached hereto as Exhibit “A” establish criteria to consider when energy consumption is not a reliable factor for limiting the size of a customer’s new net metered system; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2022, the Energy Board reviewed the Renewable Energy System Sizing administrative rules, and unanimously recommended approval by Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is desirable to maintain appropriate net metering utility service practices and the recommended update of such practices in the City Code, as set forth herein, is in furtherance of benefits available to utility ratepayers; and WHEREAS, the Utilities Executive Director recommends Council approve the administrative rules in Exhibit “A,” incorporated by this reference, to update system sizing practices and incentivize customer investment in net metered energy generation systems; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that continued customer investment in net metered energy generation systems directly benefits electric utility ratepayers by facilitating local renewable energy generation, and the recommended administrative rules, regulations, and standards set forth in Exhibit “A” are in the best interests of the electric utility and its customers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 26-463(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-463. - Electric rates; general service rules, regulations and interconnection standards. (a) The rules, regulations and Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System applicable to electric service and persons generating electricity or receiving electric service from the City shall be such rules, regulations and Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Page 108 Item 10. Collins Distribution System as are adopted by the Utilities Executive Director and approved by ordinance of the City Council. . . . Section 3. That Section 26-464(h), (p)(1)a. and (r)(1)b. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-464. - Residential energy service, schedule R. . . . (h) Conservation assistance, rebates and incentives. The utility may establish programs to assist customers or provide incentives to customers in order to reduce energy consumption or system peak demands consistent with Council -adopted policy applicable to the utility. Such programs m ay include financial or technical assistance, incentives or rebates and shall be consistent with program objectives approved by the Utilities Executive Director. The Utilities Executive Director will notify Council of changes to the reference customer class average annual electricity consumption size used to evaluate net metered systems. … (p) Net metering. (1) . . . a. The qualifying facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of a customer class average annual electricity consumption or the customer- generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer-generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way. The customer class average annual electricity consumption size will be reviewed annually by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section; and . . . (r) Net metering—Community solar projects. (1) . . . b. The generating capacity of the customer's interest in a subscriber- owned facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section to supply no more Page 109 Item 10. than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of a customer class average annual electricity consumption or the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at the customer-generator's point of service, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way. The customer class average annual electricity consumption size will be reviewed annually by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section. . . . Section 4. That Section 26-465(h), (q)(1)a. and (r)(1)b. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-465. - All-electric residential service, schedule RE. . . . (h) Conservation assistance, rebates and incentives . The utility may establish programs to assist customers or provide incentives to customers in order to reduce energy consumption or system peak demands consistent with Council -adopted policy applicable to the utility. Such programs may include financial or technical assistance, incentives or rebates and shall be consistent with program objectives approved by the Utilities Executive Director. The Utilities Executive Director will notify Council of changes to the reference customer class average annual electricity consumption size used to evaluate net metered systems. . . . (q) Net metering. (1) . . . a. The qualifying facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of a customer class average annual electricity consumption or the customer- generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer-generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way. The customer class average annual electricity consumption size will be reviewed annually by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section; and . . . Page 110 Item 10. (r) Net metering—Community solar projects. (1) . . . b. The generating capacity of the customer's interest in a subscriber- owned facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of a customer class average annual electricity consumption or the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at the customer's point of service, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way. The customer class average annual electricity consumption size will be reviewed annually by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section. . . . Section 5. That Section 26-466(q)(1)a. and (r)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-466. - General service, schedule GS. . . . (q) Net metering. (1) . . . a. The qualifying facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (g) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer- generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way; and; and . . . (r) Net metering—community solar projects. (1) Net metering service is available to a customer who holds an exclusive interest in a portion of the electric energy generated by a community solar project Page 111 Item 10. when the generating capacity of the customer's interest is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (g) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at the customer's point of service, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way. . . . Section 6. That Section 26-467(r)(1)a. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-467. - General service 25, schedule GS25. . . . (r) Net metering. (1) . . . a. The qualifying facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer- generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way; and . . . Section 7. That Section 26-468(u)(1)a. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-468. - General service 50, schedule GS50. . . . (u) Net metering. (1) . . . a. The qualifying facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (i) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer- Page 112 Item 10. generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way; and . . . Section 8. That Section 26-469(v)(1)a. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-469. - General service 750, schedule GS750. . . . (v) Net metering. (1) . . . a. The qualifying facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (i) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer- generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way; and . . . Section 9. That Section 26-470(s)(1)a. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-470. - Substation service, schedule SS. . . . (s) Net metering. (1) . . . a. The qualifying facility is sized according to program objectives set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (g) of this Section to supply no more than two one hundred twenty (120) (200) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer- generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by Page 113 Item 10. easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way; and . . . Section 10. That the Renewable Energy System Sizing administrative rules set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 26-463(a) of the City Code. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 18th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 114 Item 10. Utilities Administrative Policy Solar System Sizing Issue Date: October 2022 Issued by: Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director Page 1 of 2 Executive Summary These administrative rules adhere to the legal parameters and objectives established in the Fort Collins Municipal Code Sections 26-464 through 26-470. The processes and procedures contained within are based on procedures established and tested under the Solar Rebate Program (Program) from 2010 to date. The Program is managed by Utilities Energy Services division in collaboration with Light & Power, Finance and Customer Connections. The Utilities Program Manager (UPM) is supported by the Utilities Program Specialist (UPS) who are primarily responsible for the implementation of these requirements. Solar System Sizing Summary: As described in this policy: •For customer-owned systems, allowable solar sizing is determined by compliance with either: o intended renewable energy offset is no more than 200% of the customer’s annual electric use at the time of interconnection application, or o generating capacity is no more than the allowable reference system size (currently 12 kW-DC, based on the residential customer class average annual electricity consumption). •Systems that are not owned by the customer will be limited to an intended renewable energy offset of less than 120%. •If sufficient electric use history is not available, then Utility established standard values can be substituted. •Sizing takes into account generation onsite and Community Solar shares. •Sizing does not include the Green Energy Program participation, the share of grid energy delivered to all customers generated by renewable resources, or on-site battery storage equipment. Purpose: The purpose of this policy for Solar System Sizing is to is to provide specific details and procedures for the allowable sizing of customer-sited renewable energy generation resources in alignment with Fort Collins Municipal Code Sections 26-464 through 26-470. Nothing contained herein is intended to supersede the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicability: This policy applies to the Utilities Electric Service Areas of the City. Authorized by: City Council, October 2022 Utilities Executive Director, October 2022 Revised: EXHIBIT A Page 115 Item 10. Utilities Administrative Policy Solar System Sizing Issue Date: October 2022 Issued by: Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director Page 2 of 2 Sizing Assessment Terms and Methods: Sizing analysis of solar PV systems and other qualifying renewable generators refers to the following terms and methods: •Intended renewable energy offset = (modeled annual energy production of all renewable sources) / (average annual electric consumption), where: o Annual energy production of all renewable sources is the sum of the modeled average annual energy production (or average of observed data for installed generation) of qualified renewable energy generation sources located onsite as well as offsite sources owned by the customer or benefitting that unique customer account (such as Community Solar) o Average annual electric consumption is the customer’s total electric energy consumption at the site over the previous 24 calendar months divided by 2. •Allowable reference system size: Staff will annually review the annual sector consumption values and determine a system size that aligns with the 200% sizing criteria on an average basis. The value of this reference size is 12 kilowatts-DC as of October 2022 for residential customers, based on the residential customer class average annual electricity consumption. •For customers who have less than 6 months of electric usage history that’s representative of their full occupation of the premises, the best available information on the electric use of the proposed building(s) will be substituted. New homes may use a Home Energy Rating Score (HERS) or other energy modeling provided for energy code compliance. For older homes, Utilities reference data for energy use per square foot will be combined with Larimer County Tax Assessor’s office building size data (sum of “Total Sq Ft” + the “Bsmt. Fin. Sq Ft” values) to calculate annual electric use. For example, the average annual electric consumption for single-family detached homes with gas heat built before 2020 is 3 kWh per square foot of conditioned space. Solar System Size Allowance This policy is subject to revision at the discretion of the Utilities Executive Director. EXHIBIT A • • • • o o • For solar systems not owned by the owner of the property where installed, solar system sizing is limited to 120% of intended renewable energy offset. For solar systems owned by the same owner as the property where it is to be installed, solar PV system sizing is limited by the following combination of program rules: At the time of project application, the contractor shall provide the intended renewable energy offset percentage. Staff will approve the system size if either of the following conditions are met: intended renewable energy offset is less than 200%, or system size is less than the allowable reference system size (currently 12 kW-DC, based on the residential customer class average annual electricity consumption). If the total size of the generation system is greater than allowable reference system size and the intended energy offset is greater than 200%, the customer may submit an exception request documenting why the system is oversized. Exceptions related to electrification of customer loads or anticipated increases in use may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Page 116 Item 10. Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 222 Laporte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.212.2900 V/TDD: 711 utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 1, 2022 TO: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers THRU: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director FROM: John Phelan, Energy Services Manager and Policy Advisor RE: June 28, 2022 Work Session Summary: Solar 120% Sizing Rule and Rates The purpose of this memo is to summarize the discussion from the work session regarding the solar 120% sizing rule and associated electric utility rates. Councilmembers Arndt, Francis, Pignataro, Peel, Gutowsky and Ohlson were present. The overall objectives for local solar policy and practice are twofold: 1) to support scaled up adoption in alignment with Our Climate Future and resource planning targets; with 2) a sustainable and equitable funding for Utilities customer service, operations, and infrastructure. The existing sizing requirement articulated in City Code limits new solar systems to provide no more than 120% of a customer’s historical use. Combined with replacement of the 120% rule, proposed changes to several components of the current rate structure align with accomplishing these outcomes. Feedback from Council included:  Several Councilmembers expressed support for all five of the primary recommendations presented by staff.  Staff responded to several questions related to how solar sizing may impact requirements related to Platte River Power Authority.  Councilmembers expressed support for continued collaboration with Platte River and the other member cities towards accomplishing community energy goals.  A Councilmember asked about the role of community solar in addition to rooftop solar.  A Councilmember asked questions about several rate components, expressing: o An interest to re-examine the base rate o Strong support for the tier component of the time-of-day rate o Support for replacing the 120% sizing rule, and o Pointed to the staff proposed next step of a written summary of potential benefits and risks of removing the tier component from the current rates Next steps:  Bring forward ordinance language to revise City Code with regards to the Solar 120% Rule with replacement by an administrative model for flexibly managing solar sizing, including coordination with Platte River  Deliver a written summary to Council regarding the potential benefits and risks of removing the tier component of the TOD rate regarding electrification, customer service, and solar  Prepare related options for the fall electric rate ordinances that support solar and electrification goals CC: Gretchen Stanford, Utilities Deputy Director Customer Connections Lance Smith, Utilities Finance Director Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst DocuSign Envelope ID: 31823B63-2273-47DD-BAC6-BBAEC167C6B4 Page 117 Item 10. ENERGY BOARD September 8, 2022 – 5:30 pm 222 Laporte Ave – Colorado Room ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Alan Braslau (remote), Steve Tenbrink, Dan Gould, Marge Moore (remote), Emilio Ramirez (remote), Jeremy Giovando (remote), John Fassler, Bill Becker, Sidra Aghababian Board Members Absent: OTHERS PRESENT Staff Members Present: Christie Fredrickson, Adam Bromley, Brian Tholl, John Phelan, Leland Keller (remote), Honore Depew (remote), Cyril Vidergar (remote), Heather Young, Shannon Ash, Lance Smith (remote), Kendall Minor Members of the Public: Tom Loran, Rich Stave SOLAR 120% RULE CODE REVISIONS John Phelan, Energy Services Manager & Energy Policy Advisor Leland Keller, Energy Services Engineer Staff is proposing to replace the 120% rule in code because it will encourage solar systems that serve increased use from electrification (e.g., electric vehicles, heat pumps), accelerate contribution to reaching the community’s renewable electricity goals, as well as simplify application process for customers, solar trade allies, and staff. Our Climate Future targets 5% local solar and Platte River Power Authority’s resource planning includes 100 to 150 megawatts of distributed solar by 2030. Along with this change, staff anticipates 60-75 megawatts of solar (and increase of 2.5) inclusive of 5,000-7,000 solar systems (roughly 20% of single- family homes). In order to sustainably scale solar in the community, staff will have to evaluate the Cit y’s rate mechanisms after the change, as well as on an annual basis. If the utility m aintains the current solar credit rate as retail rates increase over time, there will be no reduction in benefit (the self-consumed benefit continues to increase). Staff will also annually review all the rate components (base charges, solar credit, distribution facilities, and Time-of-Day charges) to ensure it remains sustainable The new proposed ordinance reads as follows: “The qualifying facility is sized according to policies set by the Utilities Executive Director under Subsection (h) of this Section, relative to an allowable reference size or the customer generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer-generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way.” The recommended ordinance will replace 120% language in all rate codes with reference to the Utilities Director Administrative Rules. The proposed rules for customer-owned systems will have sizing approval for up to 200% of historical annual use, or 12 kW DC or less. For third party-owned systems (Purchase Power Agreements or leases) will have sizing approval for up to 120% of historical annual use, limited by the Platte River power supply agreement. The rules include details on how percentages are calculated, options for homes without history, and a process for exceptions. Council adopts these rules and they can be subsequently adapted administratively. If these changes are approved, it is expected to reduce staff review of calculations from roughly 600 to less than 40 annually. Board member Braslau said the sizing limits don’t read clearly to him and suggested clarifying it by noting that the system is limited to 12 kW of it can be larger if it falls beneath 200% of the home’s historical usage. Page 118 Item 10. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Mr. Phelan noted that a caveat exists for third party-owned systems (PPA or lease), the 120% rule will remain due to the Power Supply Agreement with Platte River Power Authority. Board member Braslau noted there is no mention of the rate in the ordinance or in text of the administrative rules, which he believes is fundamental to increase in solar capacity beyond 120%. He said it is important to encourage self-consumption and not to encourage individuals to get into the business of selling energy. Mr. Phelan said there will be info in the Council Agenda Item Summary that will discuss the rate goals, but the action staff is requesting is not related to rates. Board member Braslau also asked if it is possible to add a cap on residential customers are paid annually beyond their self-consumption. Vice Chairperson Becker said if the rate is appropriate, then having private investment capital in our climate future is a good thing. Additionally, Mr. Braslau wondered if staff could compare subsidies to what the City is spending in the Income Qualified Assistance Plan. Mr. Phelan said staff calculated that the current rate structure represents about 0.5% residential revenue, or about 40 cents per month on non-solar customers (about $300,000). If we don’t make any of the rate structure adjustments, it could go up to approximately $1 per month, which is why staff is proposing the differentials. Vice Chairperson Becker moved the Energy Board recommends that Council adopt the Ordinance that replaces the current solar sizing requirements in code with revised language referencing Utility Executive Director’s administrative rules and that approves the October 2022 solar sizing rules, inclusive of the minor language clarifications suggested by the Energy Board. Board member Moore seconded the motion. Discussion: Board member Braslau noted that nothing in this recommendation goes against his previous comments, he thinks simplifying the code and will allow for flexibility. He clarified that he does support this motion. The motion passed unanimously, 9-0. Page 119 Item 10. Solar Sizing Code Changes and Administrative Rules 10-4-22 Fort Collins City Council John Phelan, P.E. Energy Services Manager and Policy Advisor Leland Keller Energy Services Engineer Page 120 Item 10. 2Ordinance Summary Ordinance •Amends Chapter 26 of the code regarding net metered renewable energy system sizing, and •Adopting administrative rules for net metered system sizing Page 121 Item 10. 3Our Climate Future Goals and the 120% Rule Why Replace the 120% Code Language with Administrative Policies •Encourage solar systems that serve increased use from electrification (e.g., electric vehicles, heat pumps) •Accelerate contribution to reaching community renewable electricity goals •Simplify application process for customers, solar trade allies and staff Targets •OCF 2030 target of 5% local solar •Platte River resource planning includes 100 to 150 megawatts of distributed solar by 2030. Local Solar in 2030 •60-75 megawatts of solar (2.5x) •5,000-7,000 solar systems (~20% of single-family homes) Page 122 Item 10. 4Proposed Solar Rules Ordinance •Replace 120% language in all electric rate sections with: •Reference to the Utilities Director Administrative Rules •Residential allowance for the applicant to choose a sizing up to 200% of either: •The applicant’s annual use, or •The residential class average annual use •Commercial allowance for sizing up to 200% of the applicant’s annual use •For third party owned systems •Sizing allowance is up to 120% of applicant’s annual use •Limited by Platte River power supply agreement •Rules include details on how percentages and customer class averages are calculated Page 123 Item 10. QUESTIONS? Page 124 Item 10. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2022-101 Granting A Revocable Permit to Current Holders of Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits Issued Pursuant to Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17A and Emergency Ordinance No. 124, 2020, to Temporarily Continue to Occupy Public Rights-of-Way. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to bring forth a resolution that addresses a timing gap between terminating emergency rules and regulations and consideration of code changes to allow expanded outdoor permitting on an on-going basis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On October 6, 2020, Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 124, 2020, to approve Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17A to allow local businesses to expand their patios/business operations onto City rights-of-way or private property to accommodate social distancing and occupancy restrictions imposed in response to the COVID emergency. These expansions were permitted provided certain conditions were met while recognizing and allowing that not all existing requirements would be met or enforced. These Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits (“Expansion Permits”) terminate when the local declared public health emergency is deemed over and the Emergency Rules are lifted. The City Manager, in consultation with the County Health Director, is ready to terminate the emergency orders. Code changes to clarify and allow expanded outdoor permits are scheduled before Council on first reading on October 18, 2022. The timing between the code changes, implementation, and terminating the emergency rules and the Expansion Permits leaves a gap during which existing outdoor patios could be at risk of being in violation of both local ordinances and liqu or licensing requirements. This resolution addresses the timing gap by granting a temporary revocable permit pursuant to City Charter Article XI, Section 10, to let current holders of Expansion Permits continue to expand their businesses into the right-of-ways provided the holders continue to comply with the terms of the issued Expansion Permits and Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17A. The rights granted by the temporary revocable permit are intended, among other things, to grant a temporary possessory interest in public rights-of-way specified in each Expansion Permit to satisfy liquor licensing requirements to allow the transport of alcoholic Page 125 Item 11. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 beverages across or within such rights-of-way. A total of ten temporary revocable permits would be granted with the list of grantee businesses contained in the Resolution. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS None. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Consideration. Page 126 Item 11. RESOLUTION 2022-101 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS GRANTING A REVOCABLE PERMIT TO CURRENT HOLDERS OF TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EXPANSION PERMITS ISSUED PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY RULE AND REGULATION NO. 2020-17A AND EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2020, TO TEMPORARILY CONTINUE TO OCCUPY PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHEREAS, on October 6, 2020, City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 124, 2020, to approve Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17A (“Regulation 2020-17A”) regarding Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits; and WHEREAS, Regulation 2020-17A, and its predecessor Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17 (“Regulation 2020-17”), were originally adopted in response to the COVID emergency to allow local businesses to temporarily expand their business footprint onto City or private property adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of their fixed location to accommodate greater social distancing at their establishments; and WHEREAS, Regulation 2020-17A and Regulation 2020-17 provided the City Engineer with the ability to issue Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits (“Expansion Permits”) to allow businesses to expand into specified public rights-of-way or private property provided certain conditions were met; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Emergency Ordinance No. 124, 2020, and Regulation 2020-17A, Expansion Permits terminate upon termination of the declared local COVID emergency; and WHEREAS, the ability of food and beverage service establishments to expand their dining area footprint into the public rights-of-way pursuant to the Expansion Permits has contributed to the financial viability of such businesses and the wellbeing of the City; and WHEREAS, based upon the benefits of allowing such businesses to temporarily expand into public rights-of-way, the City is considering the adoption of amendments to the Code of the City of Fort Collins (“Code Amendments”) to continue to allow food and beverage service establishments to expand their dining area footprint into public rights-of-way upon termination of the currently issued Expansion Permits when the local declared COVID emergency terminates; and WHEREAS, to provide sufficient time for the review and possible adoption of the Code Amendments and to allow holders of currently issued Expansion Permits to continue to operate within the public rights-of-way specified in the Expansion Permits should the local declared emergency terminate before such Code Amendments, if adopted, go into effect, City Council hereby wishes to grant current Expansion Permit holders the temporary right to continue to occupy the specified public rights-of-way pursuant to certain conditions set forth in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, such right to continue to occupy such public rights-of-way may be granted as a revocable permit (“Revocable Permit”) pursuant to City Charter Article XI, Section 10, revocable at City Council’s pleasure; and Page 127 Item 11. WHEREAS, the rights granted pursuant to the Revocable Permit are intended, among other things, to grant a temporary possessory interest in the public rights-of-way specified in each Expansion Permit to satisfy liquor licensing requirements for the purpose of transporting alcoholic beverages across or within such public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, other than granting a sufficient possessory interest intended to satisfy liquor licensing requirements, the Revocable Permit shall not be construed to alter in any way liquor licensing requirements, and it is the sole responsibility of each food and beverage service establishment granted a Revocable Permit to comply with all applicable state and local liquor laws, rules, and regulations; and WHEREAS, the issuance of Revocable Permits is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby grants to each holder, as specifically identified in Section 3, of a valid Expansion Permit authorizing expansion into specified public rights-of- way that was issued prior to the adoption date of this Resolution, and which holder is actually operating in such public rights-of-way as of the adoption date of this Resolution, a Revocable Permit granting the temporary right to continue to occupy such public rights -of-way pursuant to the following conditions: A. The grantee of a Revocable Permit must continue to comply with the terms of the issued Expansion Permit and the terms of Regulation 2020-17A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” regardless of whether the local declared COVID emergency has been terminated. B. The City Engineer shall continue to administer and review compliance with Regulation 2020-17A and should the City Engineer revoke an Expansion Permit pursuant to Regulation 2020-17A, the Revocable Permit granted under this Resolution to the holder of a revoked Expansion Permit shall automatically be revoked without further Council action necessary. C. A Revocable Permit shall be valid until the soonest of the following events have occurred: 1. The grantee’s Expansion Permit is revoked by the City Engineer. 2. Forty-five (45) days have elapsed since the effective date of the Code Amendments. 3. The grantee has obtained the necessary permit pursuant to the Code Amendments to continue to operate in the public rights-of-way. Page 128 Item 11. D. Revocable Permits are not transferable. Section 3. That Revocable Permits shall be granted to the following Expansion Permit holders for the following businesses: 1. Armstrong Hotel, 259 S. College Ave., Expansion Permit #20-20043 2. Bean Cycle Roasters, 144 N. College Ave., Expansion Permit #20-20052 3. Bistro Nautile, 150 W. Oak St., Expansion Permit #20-20005 4. Blind Pig Pub, 214 Linden St., Expansion Permit #20-20007 5. Ciao Vino, 255 Linden St., Expansion Permit #21-8003 6. Lucile’s Creole Café, 400 S. Meldrum St., Expansion Permit #20-20046 7. Pour Brothers, 817 Peterson St., Expansion Permit #20-20017 8. Surfside 7, 238 Linden St., Expansion Permit #20-20054 9. The Reserve by Old Elk Distillery, 253 Linden St., Expansion Permit #20-20003 10. The Welsh Rabbit, 200B Walnut St., Expansion Permit #20-20022 Section 4. That the City Council reserves the right to revoke any Revocable Permit at its pleasure notwithstanding any language in this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 129 Item 11. October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Manager, Historic Preservation Services Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Claire Havelda, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2022-102 Adopting Findings of Fact Supporting the Historic Preservation Commission’s Determination That 1802 North College Avenue was Eligible for Landmark Designation and Denying the Landowner’s Appeal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to make findings of fact regarding the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s Decision Finding the Property at 1802 North College Avenue a Historic Resource for the Purposes of Development Review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 and therefore eligible for Landmark Designation. The appeal was heard by Council on September 20, 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On July 20, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) held a hearing to consider an appeal of a staff finding for the property at 1802 North College Avenue that determined the property eligible under the City’s Landmark standards in City Code Section 14-22 and subject to the responsibilities in Land Use Code 3.4.7. A staff decision on this matter was issued on April 22, 2022, in response to a development application put forward by Raising Cane’s that would demolish the existing properties at 1800 and 1802 North College Avenue for a new restaurant. Following the July 20, 2022, HPC appeal hearing, on August 3, 2022, the property owner filed a Notice of Appeal, with the following allegations: 1. The Historic Preservation Commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. 2. The Historic Preservation Commission failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, specifically Municipal Code Section 14-22 for Standards of Eligibility and Section 14- 23 for the Process for Determining Eligibility. On September 20, Council conducted a hearing to consider the allegations in the appeal, the record on appeal, and presentations by City staff, the Appellant and their legal counsel, and proponents of finding the property Eligible. After discussion, Council voted (4-0, 3 absences) to deny the appeal, finding that Page 130 Item 12. the Historic Preservation Commission conducted a fair hearing and properly interpreted applicable sections of the Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Consideration Page 131 Item 12. RESOLUTION 2022-102 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION THAT 1802 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND DENYING THE LANDOWNER’S APPEAL WHEREAS, on July 20, 2022, the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission (the “HPC”) conducted a public hearing to review the Landmark Eligibility determination of 1802 North College Avenue (the “Property); and WHEREAS, during this appeal hearing, the HPC upheld the City Staff determination that the Property was eligible to be considered for landmark designation pursuant to City Code Section 14-22; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Sections 2-48 and 2-49, the Appeal was filed timely, and the Appellant-Landowner is a party-in-interest eligible to file an appeal; and WHEREAS, the Appeal alleged that the HPC failed to conduct a fair hearing because they considered evidence relevant to their findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading; and WHEREAS, the Appeal further alleged that the HPC failed to properly interpret and apply City Code Section 14-22 (and further cited to Section 14-23 which describes the procedure for submitting an appeal – and was not further discussed in the Appellant’s arguments on appeal); and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, the City Council, after notice was given in accordance with City Code Section 2-52, held a public hearing pursuant to City Code Section 2-54 to consider the allegations raised in the Appeal, at which hearing the City Council considered the record on appeal, statements concerning physical characteristics of the subject property obtained by Councilmembers during the site inspection, and testimony from City Staff, the Appellant’s representative, and parties-in-interest who opposed the Appeal; and WHEREAS, after discussion, the City Council found and concluded based on the evidence in the record and presented at the Council hearing on September 20, 2022, that the HPC did not fail to conduct a fair hearing as alleged by Appellant; and WHEREAS, the City Council further found and concluded based on the evidence in the record and presented at the City Council hearing on September 20, 2022, that the HPC properly interpreted and applied City Code Section 14-22(a) regarding the significance of the Property because it related to an “individual” (Mr. Frank Perez) and “significant events” in history, including: 1) Mexican immigration to Fort Collins following World War II; 2) establishment o f businesses reflecting Mexican foodways; and 3) a small immigrant business owner building a community space during a time in history rife with racial prejudice; and Page 132 Item 12. WHEREAS, the City Council further found and concluded based on the evidence in the record and presented at the City Council hearing on September 20, 2022, that the HPC properly interpreted and applied City Code Section 14-22(b) as it relates to the integrity of the Property because it retains historic integrity based on its appearance when compared with the 1976 Assessor’s Appraisal card photograph and accurately reflects the humble nature of a Mexican family-owned restaurant; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-56(c) provides that no later than the date of its next regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on such appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-56(c) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes and adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. 2. That, based on the evidence in the record and presented at the City Council Hearing on September 20, 2022, the HPC did not fail to conduct a fair hearing, because they did not consider evidence relevant to their findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading. 3. That, based on the evidence in the record and presented at the City Council hearing on September 20, 2022, the Council finds that the HPC properly interpreted and applied City Code Section 14-22 for the reasons set forth in the recitals above. 4. That, based on the evidence in the record and presented at the hearing on September 20, 2022, the Appeal is without merit and is denied in its entirety. 5. That adoption of this Resolution shall constitute the final action of the City Council in accordance with City Code Section 2-56(c). Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Page 133 Item 12. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Rachael Johnson, Sr. Equity Specialist Aaron Guin, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to the Designation of Indigenous Peoples’ Day. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Native American Community Update. B. Resolution 2022-103 Recognizing the Second Monday in October as “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Acknowledging and Supporting the Native and Indigenous Peoples Living in Fort Collins, and Affirming the City’s Commitment to Recognize and Include the Voices and Interests of Native and Indigenous Peoples in the City’s Commitment to Work Towards Equity. Members of the Fort Collins Native American and Indigenous community collectively have created a resolution recognizing the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Staff from the Equity and Inclusion Office also will share an update on the work that has been taking place with the Native American community this year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION A diverse group of Native American community members who drafted the Indigenous Peoples’ Day Resolution will be present to read it. The staff report will include: 1) context regarding why it is so important to engage the Native American community; 2) priorities identified by the Fort Collins Native American community; 3) updates on work currently in progress; and 4) recommendations for future work. Recommendations for future consideration include: 1) support for the creation of a Fort Collins Native American community center; 2) creation of a community consultant program to pay community members for their expertise based on lived experience; 3) creation of a City-County Native American Advisory Committee; 4) preparation for future tribal consultation; and 5) support of the Colorado Truth, Restoration, and Education Commission. Page 134 Item 13. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 Please see below for additional information on section 3-5 of the Resolution. Work is underway; however, the Resolution reaffirms and supports continuous engagement around these efforts. Section 3- That the City of Fort Collins will encourage businesses, organizations, and public institutions to recognize, cultivate strong relationships with, stand in solidarity with, and celebrate Native and Indigenous peoples. The Fort Collins Museum of Discovery has a long-standing relationship with both the urban Native community and Tribes with a connection to the area and has collaborated with the Equity Office on recent initiatives and conversations connected to the Native community to ensure alignment throughout the City organization. The Equity and Inclusion Office has also helped to fund events hosted by the Northern Colorado Intertribal Powwow Association (NCIPA). The senior equity specialist is a member of the Native American Advisory Council at Colorado State University, but this connection is dependent on the current staff member remaining in that role and more work needs to take place to establish a more formalized relationship with this group. The Multicultural Business Support Center was established in the Economic Health Office to support community members of color, including Indigenous community members, with startup and nonprofit business needs and capacity-building. This group will be encouraged to engage in intentional outreach to and support of the Native community. Section 4. That the City of Fort Collins will explore collaboration with Tribal Nations and the Native and Indigenous community to encourage educational institutions in the city to develop and implement historically accurate and culturally appropriate curricula related to the history, traditions, and current issues of Native and Indigenous Peoples. The Equity Office has initiated connections with Poudre School District (PSD) to discuss needs and ways forward to help educators accurately represent history, traditions, and current issues of Native and Indigenous Peoples. As these conversations move forward, it will be critical to involve representatives of the Native community in these discussions. Additionally, it is recommended that the City support and partner with the Indigenous Science, Technology, Arts and Resilience (ISTAR) program, led by Lindsey Schneider at CSU. Section 5. The Office of Equity and Inclusion will work on behalf of the City departments to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with Tribal Nations and the Native and Indigenous community through ongoing outreach, to include their interests and concerns in planning community-led initiatives, to evaluate the impact of City policies and practices on the community, to work to ensure equitable access to opportunities in the City of Fort Collins. The Equity Office is working very closely with Native American community members by listening and providing space for the community to organize around their needs and interests. Establishment of a Native American Advisory Circle is important to continued collaborations with the Native community. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The Indigenous Peoples’ Day Resolution does not commit the City to any financial action. Recommendations made in the presentation about the work that is happening with the Native American community could have financial impacts, if the City were to engage in future projects. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. Page 135 Item 13. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH There has been a high level of engagement with the Fort Collins Native American and Indigenous community regarding the resolution and on the items covered in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Consideration 2. Presentation Page 136 Item 13. 1 RESOLUTION 2022-103 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RECOGNIZING THE SECOND MONDAY IN OCTOBER AS “INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ DAY” IN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, ACKNOWLEDGING AND SUPPORTING THE NATIVE AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LIVING IN FORT COLLINS, AND AFFIRMING THE CITY’S COMMITMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND INCLUDE THE VOICES AND INTERESTS OF NATIVE AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE CITY’S COMMITMENT TO WORK TOWARDS EQUITY WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the continents now known as North and South America have been occupied since time immemorial by many diverse and established Native and Indigenous Peoples; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins is situated on the ancestral homelands of many tribes, in cluding the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute peoples, was an important site of trade, gathering, and healing for numerous other Tribes and Nations, is now home to a diverse urban Native community with individuals and families from many different Tribal Nations, and includes important cultural sites, landscapes and historic structures situated in northern Colorado, including, for example, Fossil Creek, Spring Creek, the Council Tree, and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins acknowledges that this City was established as a military base built upon the homelands of the Native and Indigenous peoples of this region, resulting in their forced displacement from their lands; and WHEREAS, Native and Indigenous peoples in Fort Collins, as in all parts of the Americas, suffer from the legacy of colonization and national policies designed to erase and marginalize their presence; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins benefitted, and continues to benefit, directly from Native American removal policies that violated human rights, broke federal treaties, and forced Native and Indigenous peoples from their homelands; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins recognizes the resilience of Native and Indigenous Peoples despite the harms these systems and policies have caused, and greatly values the social, economic and cultural contributions they make; and WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples’ Day was first proposed in 1977 by the United Nations International Conference on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations in the Americas and has been adopted by several Colorado municipalities, including the cities of Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs, and Durango; and WHEREAS, Native and Indigenous Peoples encourage the City of Fort Collins and its residents to be educated to respect and honor traditional practices regarding interdependence of all humanity and living things and celebrating a vast and rich living tradition through ancestral recognition and diversity of knowledge and perspectives, including sustainable practices; and Page 137 Item 13. 2 WHEREAS, Fort Collins promotes closing the equity gap for Native and Indigenous peoples through policies and practices that respect sovereignty and Indigenous self-determination aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peopl es, which establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous Peoples of the world and elaborates on the existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to the specific situation of Indigenous Peoples, in alignment with the City’s Neighborhood Livability and Social Health strategic objective 1.4 to advance equity for all. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That in the pursuit of shared responsibility in promoting knowledge about Native and Indigenous Peoples and combating prejudice and discrimination, the City of Fort Collins does hereby resolve that the second Monday in October of each year will be recognized as Indigenous Peoples’ Day, and may at that time support events that encourage awareness, understanding, and appreciation of Native and Indigenous Peoples, their traditions, culture, and our shared history in these ancestral lands. Section 2. That the City of Fort Collins recognizes that harm was done and acknowledges that we have a shared responsibility to support the Native and Indigenous Peoples residing in the City of Fort Collins and to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with Tribal Nations that have historic interests and presence in the area. Section 3. That the City of Fort Collins will encourage businesses, organizations, public institutions, and City departments to recognize, cultivate strong relationships with, stand in solidarity with, and celebrate Native and Indigenous peoples. Section 4. That the City of Fort Collins will explore collaboration with Tribal Nations and the Native and Indigenous community to encourage educational institutions in the City to develop and implement historically accurate and culturally appropriate curricula related to the history, traditions and current issues of Native and Indigenous Peoples. Section 5. That the Office of Equity and Inclusion will work on behalf of the City to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with Tribal Nations and the Native and Indigenous community through ongoing outreach, to include their interests and concerns in planning City initiatives, to evaluate the impact of City policies and practices on Tribal Nations and the Native and Indigenous community and to work to ensure equitable access to opportunities in the City of Fort Collins. Page 138 Item 13. 3 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 139 Item 13. Native American Community Engagement 10/4/2022 Rachael Johnson Equity & Inclusion Office Page 140 Item 13. Context 2 1.Urban Native community •Native Americans •Tribal citizens •Indigenous •Alaska Natives, First Nations, Native Hawaiians 2.Tribes with ties to Northern Colorado 3.Tribal Sovereignty 4.Government-to-Government Relationship 5.Work grounded in consensus, trust-building, and community. Context Members of the CSU Native community Page 141 Item 13. Community Priorities 3 1.Native American Community Center •Denver Indian Center and others as model •Creation of 501(c)3 •Many funding sources available •City Support Community Priorities Page 142 Item 13. Community Priorities 4 2. Land Acknowledgment and Land Back 3. Soapstone/Bison 4. Street Renaming 5. Plant Gathering in Natural Areas 6. Indigenous Peoples’ Day Resolution Community Priorities Bison release at Soapstone Page 143 Item 13. Updates 5 1.Indigenous Community Relations Specialist 2.Land Acknowledgment 3.Providing space/land for powwow, culture classes, and other events and gatherings 4.Hughes Land 5.Community Garden 6.Learning space for City leadership and staff 7.Coordination with CSU and Larimer County Updates & Work In Progress Miss Nizhoni Skye Norwood, 2022-23 NCIPA Princess Page 144 Item 13. Recommendations 6 1.Support for a Native American Community Center 2.Community Consultants Program 3.Establish Native American Advisory Committee 4.Prepare for Tribal Consultation 5.Support of the Colorado Truth, Restoration, and Education Commission Recommendations Page 145 Item 13. For Questions or Comments, Please Contact: THANK YOU! Rachael Johnson rajohnson@fcgov.com | (970) 416-8064 Page 146 Item 13. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 1 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Public Hearing #2 on the 2023-24 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the second public hearing on the City Manager’s 2023-24 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on the 2023 -24 budget. Both hearings were set by Council adoption of Resolution 2022-097 at its September 6, 2022, meeting. The City Manager’s 2023-24 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the City Clerk’s Office by appointment only and online at fcgov.com/budget. Public input will also be taken during the budget adoption meetings on Tuesday, November 1 and Tuesday, November 15, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Page 147 Item 14. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 7 October 4, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Manager, Historic Preservation Services Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT 1306 West Mountain Avenue Landmark Design Review Appeal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider an appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) Decision on July 20, 2022, regarding proposed alterations to the City landmark at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, also known as the Jackson-Bailey House & Garage. This appeal is regarding the final design review decision of the applicants’ project by the HPC. The HPC is tasked by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, with assessing whether a proposed exterior project on a City Landmark meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to issue, with or without conditions, or to deny, a Certificate of Appropriateness. In the application that was the subject of the July 20, 2022, decision being appealed, the applicant proposed an addition onto the rear elevation of the main historic building along with related rehabilitation including the modification of windows along the north end of the west elevation. The HPC approved the addition but denied the modification of windows and the Appellant is appealing the denial of the windows both on fair hearing and interpretation and application grounds. A previous application to make alterations to the same property was approved by the HPC on February 16, 2022, with the written decision issued on and dated February 17, 2022, and included demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, construction of a new garage building, and modification of basement windows for egress compliance under the International Existing Building Code. The previous application included an addition to the house that was denied but a modified addition was approved as part of the July 20, 2022, HPC decision. A Notice of Appeal was filed on August 2, 2022, under the following grounds: 1. The HPC failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code, and Charter, specifically City Code Sec. 14-53, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards 2 and 5), and the Secretary of the Interior’s “Interpreting Standards” Bulletin #14 regarding Modifications to Windows on Secondary Elevations. 2. The HPC was biased against the appellant by reason of conflict of interest or other close business, personal or social relationship that interfered with the HPC’s independence of judgement. Page 148 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 7 The HPC’s sole consideration was whether the project proposed at 1306 West Mountain Avenue met the City’s adopted standards for reviewing projects on historic buildings, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically those for adaptive reuse, or Rehabilitation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HEARING Subject: The subject of the July 20, 2022 HPC hearing was the evaluation of a proposal for an addition and window modification to the City Landmark known as the William & Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue. The property was designated as a City Landmark by Council on D ecember 2, 2014 under Standard 3, Design/Construction as an outstanding example of a Craftsman Cottage in Fort Collins. Projects on properties that have been designated City Landmarks are subject to the review process and requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. In this case, the project came to the attention of staff on January 12, 2021, when the applicant applied for demolition permits for both garages on the property, followed by an application for a building permit to construct an addition. Staff has provided an annotated review timeline for the project below to provide context on the HPC’s July 20, 2022, decision:  January 12, 2021 – Demolition permit application received for both garages at the property.  January 19, 2021 – Building permit application received for rehab with a large-scale addition onto the historic residence.  January 22 & February 2, 2021 - staff contacted the applicant to let them know that the demolition of the historic 1942 garage, and the addition design, were not compatible with the character-defining features of the property based on the 2014 Landmark nomination. A virtual meeting was offered to discuss alternatives.  February 4, 2021 – Zoom meeting with applicant to discuss Standards, review process, and alternatives; no resolution; scheduled for March 2021 HPC meeting for a conceptual review.  February 25, 2021 – Zoom meeting held with applicant and contractor to re-discuss Standards and options to move ahead.  March 17, 2021 – HPC Conceptual Review - Item was continued from March 17, 2021, at applicant’s request due to late hour on agenda. This included an offer to use the Design Assistance Program to help resolve project conflicts with the Standards. Seventeen (17) public comments in opposition to project received.  May 11, 2021 – In-person meeting with applicant and City staff to discuss options including offer of Design Assistance grant to help resolve project conflicts with the Standards; no resolution;  June 28, 2021 – Meeting with code officials, Preservation staff, and applicant to discuss project and options, including offer of Design Assistance grant to help resolve project conflicts with the Standards; no resolution.  October 27, 2021 – Process follow-up with applicants on revised plans and process  November 19, 2021 – HPC Conceptual Review (1st round); HPC generally found addition did not meet Standards, largely based on size, footprint, and degree of demolition of the historic house; 17 written comments received opposing project – 2 also appeared in person in opposition. Page 149 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 7  January 22, 2022 – HPC Conceptual Review (2nd round); HPC found the proposal improved but still inconsistent with the Standards, mostly due to size and east bump-out; 32 written comments received (31 against and 1 in favor); 1 also attended to speak against the proposal in-person.  February 16, 2022 – HPC Final Design Review; HPC approved non-historic garage demolition and basement window modifications. HPC denied addition. Motion passed 5-0 (1 recusal, 1 absent, 2 vacant); 55 written public comments received (54 opposed, 1 in favor); 10 individuals also appeared in person to express opposition. (The HPC written decision and minutes of the meeting are included in the appeal record)  April 27, 2022 – In-person meeting with HPS staff and applicant at property to walk through plans. At this meeting, staff noted the new addition plans were compliant but that the northwest window treatment may be a cause for concern.  May 18, 2022 – HPC Conceptual Design Review; HPC generally found addition met the Standards but treatment of northwest windows to be problematic; 1 public comment at meeting expressing concern on window treatment;  May 20, 2022 – Staff correspondence to applicant recommending no changes to the addition and recommending modification to the northwest window treatment to retain the existing window opening;  July 20, 2022 – HPC Final Design Review; HPC approved project with conditions (addition approved with no conditions; northwest window treatment denied); 1 public comment at meeting expressing concern on window treatment. Motion passed 4-2 (1 recusal, 2 vacant). The motion in question is as follows (from verbatim transcript): The Historic Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a 4-2 vote: that the Historic Preservation Commission approve all plans and specifications for the Jackson/Bailey property located at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, except the proposed changes to the northwest bedroom window, finding that all but the window proposal meet the Secretary of the Interior’s 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 two or five, nor follow the guidance in standards bulletin number 14. (Verbatim Transcript p. 15, starting at line 24) Staff would note that under this decision, and based on the HPC’s decision and discussion, modification to the northwest windows could include the replacement of the window unit within the existing opening to allow for modern egress compliance, without demolishing any of the brick wall. This alternat ive was discussed in depth during the HPC’s discussion period at both the conceptual review on May 18, 2022, and the final review on July 20, 2022. City Code Requirements: The City requires that most exterior projects on designated City Landmarks must be r eviewed by either City staff or the Historic Preservation Commission and approved or denied based on their compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation (Municipal Code 14, Article IV). The Standards themselves provide a basis for decision-making, while the National Park Service’s library of Guidelines help to interpret the Standards for specific situations, including the construction of additions onto historic houses, and the modification of historic window patterns on historic buildings. While the City retains some flexibility to interpret those Standards and Guidelines in a manner that is consistent with our local legal jurisdiction, environment, architectural history, and community priorities, the expectation of City Code is that the Standards will be met for a project to be approved. Historic Preservation staff or the Historic Preservation Commission are the decision-maker for exterior projects on designated City Landmarks. Under Article IV, projects sent to the Historic Preservation Commission complete a two -step process for approval: first, a conceptual review with the HPC to gather feedback related to a project concept; and second, a final design review where a decision is made about the project. This allows the owner to gather more informal feedback at the conceptual review and affords them the ability to modify project concepts before going through the time and expense of formal construction drawings for a building permit. This can Page 150 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 7 be waived at the discretion of the property owner if they would like to proceed to final review immediately, although this is rarely recommended for building additions due to the care needed in design to ensure the addition meets the Standards. If a project receives final approval, the City can issue permits and the project can proceed. The City does protect historic resources from non-compatible, unpermitted work under Secs. 14-6 and 14- 10 of the Municipal Code. Decision and Findings: To arrive at a decision for the project proposed at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, the HPC considered the property’s City Landmark nomination, which included the reasons why the property was designated (Standard 3, Design/Construction as an outstanding example of a Craftsman Cottage), as well as the material submitted by the applicant and the relevant guidelines related to the proposed work to assist in interpreting the Standards for Rehabilitation. The HPC voted on July 20, 2022, on a vote of 4-2 to approve the proposed project, with the following motion (Verbatim Transcript p. 15, starting at line 24): MOTION from verbatim transcript: The Historic Preservation Commission approve all plans and specifications for the Jackson/Bailey property located at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, except the proposed changes to the northwest bedroom window, finding that all but the window proposal meet 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 two or five, nor follow the guidance in standards bulletin number 14. The HPC found that the proposed addition met the Standards, with much of the discussion centering on the treatment of the west-facing windows on the historic building, which included removal and infill of an historic window, and the creation of two new windows. The HPC’s discussion noted that for egress compliance, although not required in this case, a replacement window in the historic opening could be allowed, such as a casement with a faux meeting rail to replicate the historic window pattern. Note: A verbatim transcript of the HPC’s hearing, along with a link to the FCTV recording on this item, is part of the record provided to Council for this appeal. APPEAL ALLEGATION The Notice of Appeal alleges the following: 1. The HPC failed to “properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code, and Charter, specifically Municipal Code 14-53 pertaining to approval of projects on City Landmarks, and failed to properly interpret Rehabilitation Standards 2 and 5, and the guidelines in the National Park Service’s Interpreting the Standards Bulletin Number 14 pertaining to the modification of windows on historic buildings. 2. The HPC was biased against the applicant by reason of a conflict of interest or other close business, personal or social relationship that interfered with the HPC’s independence of judgement. Despite the order in which arguments are made in the Notice of Appeal by the applicant, Council must consider argument #2 first as it deals with hearing fairness. If Council finds that an unfair hearing was held, it need not analyze the appellant’s argument regarding interpretation or application of Section 14-22 of the City Code. Staff analysis will deal with the allegations in the order Council should consider them. Page 151 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 7 Allegation #2: “Commission Member conflict of interest in a personal and social relationship that [sic - interfered?] with the Decision Maker's independence of judgement:  Commission member Meg Dunn stated that she knew and was acquaintances of the former property owner Mr. Bob Baily [sic]. o Staff note: this disclosure was not made at the July 20 meeting, but rather at both the November 17, 2021 and January 19, 2022 conceptual review hearings.  Commission member Meg Dunn was also a member of the board on September 10th of 2014 when Mr. Baily [sic] applied to have the property designated and was unanimously approved by the Board to recommend to City Council to designate the property at 1306.  Commission member Meg Dunn made statements in both the May 18th Design Review hearing as well as in the July 20th Final Design Review hearing "that if the new owners can not fit their furniture into a 1922 home maybe they should not have bought an old house and go buy something different". This is a bias statement and does not support the role of the commission to determine the facts of appropriateness.  After working with staff and the commission for 18 months, 13 meetings along with 6 plan modifications, questions are asked if some commission members have created a bias because we have made so many changes to the plans. Other Facts Alleged by Appellant:  After working with staff on the latest design for the May 18th Conceptual Review, at the h earing a couple of commission members stated they still do not like the current plan, and we should come back to them with something different. This is just to continue and delay the process along with costing more money for everyone involved including the city.  The comment was made in the May 18th hearing by Commissioner Meg Dunn that we could go up to 50% of the existing building size and square off the back, when in previous meetings we were clearly told the rule of thumb for expansions of historic properties is 33% of the existing building size is appropriate to add onto an existing home.  It was also stated in the May 18th Design Review hearing that we could remove a 12-foot section of the north existing brick wall if needed for a better design. When in previous meetings were told clearly that the existing exterior north brick wall cannot be removed. Which is why we are proposing to retain the existing 12-feet of brick wall to comply with the commissioners' comments during previous meetings.  The question of bias comes after each Historic Preservation Commission hearing or meeting, we were given inconstant direction or guidance as to changes that need to be made or modified for the commission to issues a certificate of appropriateness. All we heard from some commission members, is that "we just didn't like the plan and told we should go back to the drawing board to bring back a new design". Even the Chair Mr. Kurt Knierim stated in his closing remarks that "you must be more confused now than when you walked in the door for this hearing tonight".  We have made numerous changes and modifications to the plans along the 18 months to comply with staff and the commissions wishes, but after the May 18th hearing you wonder if some of the commission members did not want to see anything happen to this property at all.” Allegation #1: Page 152 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 7 “1306 West Mountain Historic Preservation Commission Appeal Justification Item One: City Code 14-53:  Staff did not interpret the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation number 2 or 5 regarding the west facing window or interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14. o (See verbatim transcript of 7-20 hearing, p2 [line 36] to p4 [line 23])  In the Secretary of the Interior's or National Park Service standards and guidelines, there is no documentation that does not allow you to remove one window and or add a new window opening into the existing Historic Wall Fabric. These standards and guidelines are just that, they are not codifiable or a requirement to comply with standards 2 or 5. o (See verbatim transcript of 7-20 hearing, p2 [line 36] to p4 [line 23])  In the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issues [sic] on February 17th for the property after the February 17th hearing. It clearly states in SOI #2 "The modification of the west bathroom window from one historic unit to two non-historic is not ideal, but by itself may be considered consistent with this Standard due to its location on the side elevation, the reduced visibility of this window, and considering the context of the proposed preservation and rehabilitation of most of the remaining windows on the historic building". It also clearly states in SOI #5, "While the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation is not recommended, it does not appear to conflict with the Standard". The only difference from the previous plan to the current proposed plan is to move that same window modification further to the rear of the west elevation wall and not modify the bathroom window in the middle of the west elevation.  In the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, they provide a Technical Bulletin 14 that describes how to add new window opening into a Secondary Elevation. The window that we are proposing to remove along with adding new windows is on the west elevation or secondary elevation and it is all the way to the north comer [sic] of the structure. This window elevation is not on the primary or street fronting elevation. If someone was looking you can see the window walking down the street, but you would have to be looking for it. Also, we are proposing with the new windows to match the look and charter of the existing window details. This way when you are walking down the street and look back you would not tell they are new windows.  We are also proposing to repurpose the existing brick and fill in the existing window so no one walking down the street would tell that there was a window in the current location. Again, in the Secretary of the Interior's or National Park Services standards and guidelines, there is no documentation that states you cannot fill in an existing opening in an existing Historic Wall Fabric. Other Facts Alleged by Appellant:  During the May 18th Conceptual Design Review meeting with the Commission. There were conversations about the windows not disrupting the existing brick bond line. The proposed windows at that hearing to meet egress showed them breaking the brick bond line. There was not a conversation that we should not or could not add two new windows or fill in the existing window. There was a question about if we could use a different window in the existing location to meet current egress code but nothing about adding a window. The current plans show we modified the window size to not break the existing brick bond line with a different size window that still complies with current egress building code for life, health, and safety.  During the July 20th Commission Hearing, Mr. Guenther who is the neighbor to the west or the most impacted with these modifications spoke highly in support of these window modifications. So, the person that is the most impacted spoke in support of the project in its entirety. Page 153 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 7 In conclusion, it is our option [sic] staff, and some members of the commission did not interrupt [sic] the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties correctly as it pertains to SOI # 2 and 5 and that staff has made a different interpretation from their review of Appropriateness from the February 17th hearing and findings of fact that was issued.” CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Designated City Landmarks qualify property owners to apply for certain financial incentives funded by the City, as well as allows private property owners to leverage State tax incentives for repairs and modifications that meet national preservation standards. These include a 0% interest revolving loan program and Design Assistance mini-grant program through the City, and the Colorado State Historic Tax Credits. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On a vote of 4-2 (1 recusal, 2 vacancies), the HPC voted to approve the addition as proposed with no conditions and voted to deny the northwest window treatment. The HPC held significant discussion over how important or visible the proposed modification of the northwest window treatment would be, and whether this modification would still meet the Standards and supporting Guidelines, or if it was required for future occupancy in the residence. Note: A verbatim transcript of the HPC’s hearing, along with a link to the FCTV recording on this item, is part of the record provided to Council for this appeal. PUBLIC OUTREACH The HPC’s recommendation was made at a properly noticed public hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Notice and Mailing List 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report to Historic Preservation Commission 4. Staff Presentation to Historic Preservation Commission 5. Verbatim Transcript of Historic Preservation Commission Meeting 6. Link to Video of Historic Preservation Commission Meeting 7. Historic Preservation Commission Decision Letter 8. Additional Documents Related to Historic Preservation Commission Meeting, February 16, 2022 9. Additional Documents Related to Historic Preservation Commission Meeting, May 18, 2022 10. Presentation Page 154 Item 15. City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice Mailing List Page 155 Item 15. Page 156Item 15. Names Street NuStreet Name City State Zip Code Email Address Phone Eric Guenther (commenting as citizen, not HPC)1308 W Mountain Ave Fort Collins CO 80521 eric.e.guenther@gmail.com 248.767.5023 Laura Bailey 4731 Crest Rd Fort Collins CO 80526 laurabailey21@gmail.com Page 157 Item 15. Notice of Appeal Filed by Jeffrey J. Schneider August 2, 2022 Page 158 Item 15. Page 159Item 15. Page 160Item 15. Page 161Item 15. Page 162Item 15. Page 163Item 15. Page 164Item 15. Staff Report (with attachments) Presented to the Historic Preservation Commission July 20, 2022 Page 165 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 20, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, FINAL DESIGN REVIEW, REHABILITATION & ADDITION STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT 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/OWNER: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) RECOMMENDATION: This is a final design review in which the applicant is seeking approval via a Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior project components based on the City’s requirements and standards for designated City Landmarks. Staff recommends conditional approval of the project as presented. Staff finds the current proposal generally meets the Standards for Rehabilitation very well, but the modification to the historic west-facing window in the northwest bedroom does not appear to meet the Standards. Staff is recommending a condition to approval that the plan be altered to retain the existing window opening, not approve the proposed demolition for two new window openings in this area, and approve a casement or other egress-compliant window in the existing historic window opening. Staff has provided an analysis below. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). The HPC should discuss and consider the presented materials and staff analysis. For City Landmarks and properties in City Landmark Districts, the Commission is a decision-maker and can choose to issue, or not issue, a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Issuing a CoA allows the proposed work to proceed and the City to issue other necessary permits to complete the project. In this case, the applicant is requesting a final decision on design review of proposed plans to under Municipal Code 14-54(a) at this meeting. Page 166 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The William and Violet Jackson Property was designated as a City Landmark on December 2, 2014. That designation included the full property, and specified that the main 1922 residence and 1942 garage constructed by the Jacksons are historic features, while the 1968 two-car garage is not. The property was designated under Standard 3 for Design/Construction, specifically as an “excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century.” The proposed project includes construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2, when the existing 75 ft2 mudroom is subtracted). Although not covered in this final design review, the overall project also includes demolition of the non-historic 1968 garage and construction of a new, 630 ft2 garage at the rear of the lot. The accessory structure treatment is not part of this review as that work was approved by the HPC at its February 17, 2022 meeting. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Character-defining features for this property discussed in the nomination form include: • A low pitched, open, front-gabled roof including exposed rafter tails. • Simple, rectangular massing under a single, front-gabled roof form, indicative of Craftsman Cottages of this style. • Outer brick walls set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward and two distinct bands of darker brick near the foundation. • Craftsman-style front porch including two, open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles and supported by brick pillars • Wood, one-over-one sash windows of varying sizes with matching wood storm windows. • Two distinctive brick chimneys • A c.1942 single-car garage at the northwest corner of the lot. [nomination form is Attachment 2 to this packet] ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1922 – construction of the original house • 1942 – construction of the single-car garage • 1947 – reshingling of the house • 1968 – addition of two-car garage at northeast corner of the lot • 2000s – minor restoration of exterior, including removal of aluminum storm windows with current wood • 2007 – reroof of buildings on the property HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: Since designation in 2014, this property does not appear to have undergone significant Design Review until the current project. Below is an administrative history of this application: • January 12, 2021 – demolition permits for both accessory structures (one historic, one not) received. • January 19, 2021 – building permit requested for main house with addition • February 4, 2021 – video conference with owner and contractor to discuss City Landmark requirements and where project did not meet Standards. • February 25, 2021 – video conference with owner and contractor about review process • March 17, 2021 – project scheduled for conceptual review but rescheduled due to late hour at request of owner • May 11, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant’s contractor to further explain how project did not meet Standards. Page 167 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 • June 28, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to explain how project did not meet Standards. • October 27, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to remind on project review process and Standards. • November 19, 2021 – Conceptual Review (Round 1) with Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) • January 22, 2022 – Conceptual Review (Round 2) with HPC • February 17, 2022 – Final Design Review; addition on main house denied; modifications to basement windows on main house, demolition of 1968 garage and new 630 square foot new garage approved. • May 18, 2022 – Conceptual Design Review; the HPC reviewed a revised proposal for the addition, generally conforming to the current proposal. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A - Unknown DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a final design review decision for the following items: 1. Construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2) onto the existing 1,097 ft2 home (Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 75 ft2 rear mud porch slated for demolition). 2. Modification of windows on west wall of northwest bedroom on historic house. Note: The following work has already been approved by the HPC but remains part of the project scope: 1. Replacement of all historic basement windows with egress-compliant window units. 2. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-ft2 garage at the rear of the lot. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Staff has been in consultation with the applicant since January, 2021 with a previous iteration of the project. Consultation has included six meetings with the applicant to explain the design review process, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and the requirements for design review for projects on City Landmarks. Five of those meetings were related to previous designs of the project shown in the attachments that did not meet the Standards. The most recent meeting between staff and the applicant was on April 27, 2022 to go over the current design. Staff indicated the design should meet the Standards, with the main concern to address in conceptual review being the treatment of the northwest bedroom windows. Staff has continued correspondence with the applicant to prepare for this July 20 final review hearing. To provide some context on project improvements, the February 2022 iteration of the project drawings is included as an attachment. Previous iterations of the project that have since been discarded are on file and available if they are of interest to the HPC. At a previous meeting, the HPC submitted requests for additional information regarding how projects such as this (additions on residential City Landmarks) had been reviewed in the past, with specific interest in feedback from the State of Colorado (via the State Historic Preservation Office). That information remains a part of the record for the February 17 HPC meeting but has not been included here. However, it can be re-added to the packet for this conceptual review, or a final design review, if that is of interest to the HPC. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comments have been received so far on this iteration of the project. Previous public comments that pertain to the iteration of the project denied by the Commission on February 17, 2022 are available but have not been included in this packet. Staff will report information about public comments received and update this staff report as necessary. Page 168 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: As provided for in City Code Section 14-53, qualified historic preservation staff meeting the professional standards contained in Title 36, Part 61 of the Code of Federal Regulations has reviewed the project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff finds that the most relevant review criteria under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. The City of Fort Collins adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties both as a requirement to maintain a federal certification for the City’s historic preservation program, and as a way to establish a consistent and predictable methodology for how exterior projects can be approved on City Landmarks. With adaptive reuse being the most common treatment of historic buildings in Fort Collins, almost all projects, including this one, are reviewed under the Standards for Rehabilitation. Those Standards, and their accompanying, recently updated guidelines (2017) from the National Park Service, provide a framework for decision-making that recommends certain types of actions, and recommends against certain types of actions, based on the historic significance of a property, and the needs arising from the modern use of that property. The Standards are intentionally not prescriptive in approach due to the diversity of historical significance, diversity of historic features, and broad range of potential project types that may come forward for review. The Standards instead create consistency and predictability through a standardized decision-making process that preserves the essential historic characteristics and features of a property while accommodating changes both minor and major on an historic property. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property will remain in residential use. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Designated as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage, the building is characterized by its small size and compact massing compared to larger Victorian and modern homes. Its simple rectangular form under the front-gabled roof, and other Craftsman-style features including exposed rafter tails, the styled brick exterior, wood sash windows, and prominent brick chimneys together characterize the property. The addition appears to meet this Standard. The overall compact massing of the property remains intact, and the addition retains the overall massing, scale, and spatial relationships of the primary residence. The treatment of the windows at the northwest bedroom’s west wall, which will result in the removal of a visible historic window and the creation of two new window openings, is the only item that staff considers as not meeting this Standard by unnecessarily altering the historic window pattern. While such modifications can be accepted in limited circumstances where no other egress alternative exists, alternatives do appear to exist in this case so staff is recommending a condition that this item not be approved. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. Y (w/ Condition) Page 169 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 With the condition that the existing window opening in the northwest corner of the property is retained and new window openings are not installed, staff finds this Standard met. SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The primary historic feature proposed for removal is the rear porch. While this feature appears to date from the property’s historic period and represents a common adaptation to historic residences in Fort Collins, staff does not believe the porch is a character-defining feature based on the significance of the property for Design/Construction as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage. While staff generally encourages retention of rear porches whenever possible, in this case retaining it is not required in order to meet this Standard. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The project as proposed in the current version, conditionally meets this Standard. The plan has been modified from previous iterations to avoid demolition of the primary exterior wall of the house at its northeast corner. In this case, with one exception, all distinctive, or character-defining, features are being preserved. The exception is the treatment of the west-facing window in the historic northwest bedroom. The upper floor windows of the property and the existing window pattern is a character-defining feature of the property. While some modification of windows on secondary elevations can be allowed in limited circumstances, alternatives appear to exist here to avoid demolition of historic masonry and the loss of the historic window opening. Staff recommends a condition to retain the existing window opening in the northwest bedroom, to delete the creation of two new window openings in this space from the project plan, and to install an egress-compliant new window unit in the existing historic opening. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. With that condition in place, staff would consider this Standard met. Y (w/ Condition) SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Staff has discussed with the applicant the requirements for rehabilitation of the existing windows. That is likely, and may include addition of piggy- back or other integrated storm windows that do not require seasonal removal/reinstallation. Y Page 170 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposal includes excavation for the foundation and finished basement under the addition. Based on the construction date of the property, the disturbed nature of the soil, and distance away from natural waterways (beyond 200 ft), it is unlikely that excavation would uncover significant archaeological materials from the pre-contact or Euro- American settlement periods. Y SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Generally, this Standard calls for additions to meet three main requirements: to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate. Staff’s analysis is that the project meets these requirements. The addition is comparatively small in footprint, adding approximately 264 ft2 of new space to the building, making it compatible and subordinate in size and scale. The massing of the addition will be retained behind the historic building, being flush on the east elevation, and setback slightly on the west elevation. The addition also incorporates the roof forms of the historic building into it, including the hipped roof of the mudroom addition that will be demolished over the new bathroom, and a gabled-end over the new kitchen. Exposed rafter tails, one-over-one windows, and a thin brick foundation for the addition also allude to the features of the historic building. The addition will be distinguishable, primarily by being clad in lapboard above the foundation, a common treatment for additions during the historic period as well, and having the foundation clad in, or constituted by, thin brick (less common for additions like this but compatible with the brick cladding of the main building, especially with the contrasting use on the foundation rather than the addition’s primary walls). The addition will be subordinate to the main property. It is flush with the east elevation side wall on the main house, and set in from the west elevation side wall. The roof of the addition will be below that of the historic. The addition is also only adding 264 new ft2 to the property (total square footage is 339 ft2, minus the 75 ft2 mud porch proposed for demolition). This is within the realm of normal additions added onto historic properties under this Standard. Y SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In these revised plans, this Standard appears to be met. The mud room addition is not considered a character-defining feature, and the main brick Y Page 171 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 7 wall that was formerly along this wall section has already been removed. The modification of the north-facing window at the northwest corner of the house into a passageway into the new bathroom is a common modification to provide passage in between existing and new additions and meets this Standard. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations and addition at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue was designated as a City Landmark by City Council ordinance on December 2, 2014 based on its architectural significance under Standard 3 (Design/Construction). • The project as proposed conditionally meets the Standards for Rehabilitation. To meet Standards 2 and 5, staff finds the modification of the west-facing window in the northwest bedroom does not appear to be necessary, with compliant alternatives to this degree of change readily available. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC conditionally approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, specifically approving the project as proposed, with the condition that the window treatment of the northwest bedroom in the historic building be modified to retain the existing window opening, delete one or both of the proposed two new window openings, and install an egress-compliant window in the existing opening. SAMPLE MOTIONS This is being presented to the Commission as a Final Design Review, so a decision is being requested. The Commission may adopt a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Project. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS AND DENIAL OF OTHERS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for proposed items [list items for approval with brief description of proposed work] at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval for items [list items for approval with brief description of proposed work] because they do not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why.] The Commission further finds that other than the stated standard(s) not met, the denied alteration(s) meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Page 172 Item 15. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 8 This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, provided the following conditions are met: [list condition(s) in detail and how satisfaction of each condition contributes towards meeting particular Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation] This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why for the basement windows, garage, and rear addition.] The Commission further finds that other than the stated standards not met, the denied alterations meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Landmark Nomination form 2. Current drawing set (June 24) plan set for project 3. Overall project set of photos from applicant 4. National Park Service Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions to Historic Houses (also available online, HERE) 5. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls (also available online, HERE). 6. February 2022 Drawing set (Denied by HPC on February 17, 2022 - for reference only) 7. Copy of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the adopted standards under which this project is being reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. 8. Applicant responses to HPC Work Session requests (drawings & photos) 9. Staff Presentation Page 173 Item 15. Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 2, Swett’s Addition, City of Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): William and Violet Jackson / Robert Bailey Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Robert Bailey Phone: 970-484-5411 Email: ecoregions@cs.com Address: 1306 West Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 or P.O. Box 512, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Mitchell Schaefer, Historic Preservation Intern; Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: Prepared 2 September 2014. Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.274 0 970.224.613 4-fax fcgov.com ATTACHMENT 2 - March 17, 2021 Page 174 Item 15. Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property includes two contributing resources, the Craftsman bungalow home built in 1922 and the one-car garage located on the northwest corner of the lot, which William G. Jackson constructed in 1942. The two-car garage, constructed in 1968 by Robert Waldron, located southeast of the one-car garage and northeast of the home, does not contribute to the significance of the property due to its age. SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess both significance and integrity. Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. Significance: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess es high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the prope rty's historic character. Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Page 175 Item 15. Revised 08-2014 Page 3 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period. This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home is an excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century. Its front-gabled roof, overhanging eaves with exposed roof rafters, false purlins, and iconic 19-by-7-foot porch are only some of the stylistic aspects that make up approximately one-third of all Craftsman homes in America.1 This home retains an abundance of its exterior and interior integrity. The home stands in the very location where it was originally built in 1922, and has excellent integrity of materials, workmanship and design. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made great efforts to restore the home to its 1920s character, and in doing so, provide a living snapshot into the past of the Fort Collins community. HISTORICAL INFORMATION This Craftsman bungalow home was constructed very likely in 1922. In September 1921, William Glenn Jackson, the vice president, advertising manager, and secretary for the Fort Collins Express-Courier (now the Fort Collins Coloradoan), purchased Lot 2, Block 2, of the Swett’s Addition to the city for $500.00.2 On June 3, 1922, Jackson obtained a ten-year loan for $3,000.00 for construction materials.3 Jackson hired Walter A. Knight, a building contractor living in Fort Collins, to build the house, and on June 21, 1922, Knight obtained a permit from the city to construct a “Five-room brick bungalow” for $4,000.00.4 William Glenn Jackson, the only son of William and Della McMillan Jackson, was born on June 5, 1884, in Ohio. By 1888 the family had moved to Colorado Springs. The younger William attended schools in the area, and, on July 18, 1907, at the age of 23, he married Grace Violet Sanders in that city. The 1910 federal census shows that Jackson had begun his newspaper career, working as a reporter in Colorado Springs. By 1918, when William registered for the draft, he and Violet had relocated to Fort Collins, and were living at 1133 Laporte Avenue. The 1920 census found them still at that address, along with their two young sons, William Frank and Glenn V. In 1922, the Jacksons moved into this Mountain Avenue residence, where they lived until at least until 1927. In 1930, the family was living in Eugene, Oregon, where William Jackson worked in newspaper advertising. Soon after, the family relocated to Estes Park. In May 1931, William G. Jackson and Dean Kirby became owners of the Estes Park Trail. Jackson bought Kirby out in August 1934. Former secretary of the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce William Dings became editor the same year. Jackson’s son, William F. Jackson, took over as the newspaper’s editor in 1938. After living in Estes Park for many years, William and Violet Jackson returned to Colorado Springs, where they remained until William’s death in 1966 and Violet’s in 1973. When the Jacksons left this Mountain Avenue home in the late 1920s, they chose to rent the property out rather than sell. Over the next nearly thirty years, at least seven different tenants lived here. The occupations of those residents ranged from lawyers and editors to gas inspectors and “sheep commissioners.” In 1942, Jackson acquired a building permit to construct a 12’ X 20’ 1 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture (New York: Knopf, 2013), 567. 2 Warranty Deed, September 16, 1921, Conveyance No. 41, Abstract of Title to Lot 2, Block 2, Swett’s Addition to Fort Collins, in possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3 Mortgage Deed, June 3, 1922, Conveyance No. 44, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1922 (Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1922), 85. 4 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 1027, June 21, 1922. Page 176 Item 15. Revised 08-2014 Page 4 “frame one car garage” on the northwest corner of the lot; the estimated cost of labor and materials was $200.00.5 In 1947, Jackson re-shingled the home.6 In October 1949, the Jacksons sold the Craftsman home to Gordon and Evelyn Heumesser. Gordon Heumesser was employed as a steward for the Elks Club, and Evelyn Heumesser worked as a bookkeeper.7 The Heumessers remained here until 1963.8 In November of that year, they sold their home to John H. Rust Jr., a machinist, and his wife Dorothy.9 The Rusts financed their new home through the Fort Collins Federal Savings and Loan Association for $12,800.00, and remained here for five years until selling it to Robert “Bob” and JoAnne Waldron in 1968.10 The same year that the Waldrons purchased the home, they also paid $1,000.00 to construct a 22’ x 26’ two-car detached garage on the property.11 Bob Waldron, a World War II veteran, met his future wife, Joanne Bancroft in 1947, while both were working in downtown Fort Collins. The couple was married on February 22, 1948, and raised two daughters, Suzanne (Henderson) and Gwen (Feit). Bob worked at Paramount Laundry and then at Colorado State University Food Services, retiring from this position in 1972. JoAnne retired from Steele’s market in 1991, where she worked for 34 years. Bob Waldron passed away on December 6, 1999,12 and JoAnne on September 11, 2002. The current owner, Robert Bailey, purchased the home in 2001. Bailey, an ecological geographer and writer, is employed by the U.S. Forest Service.13 Since purchasing his home, Mr. Bailey has made great pains to restore it to its original 1920s Craftsman style both inside and out. “Fortunately,” he stated in an American Bungalow article he published in 2011, “the exterior needed little work.” He did, however, replace old aluminum storm windows with wood frames to fit the period, and in 2007 he paid to tear off the existing roof and replaced it with asphalt shingles.14 In an effort to “bring back the spirit of the original construction” Bailey has done extensive interior work including re-installing the original bathroom sink and toilet (which he found in the basement), removing the carpet to refinish and improve the pine flooring, and repainting much of the interior. Even much of Robert Bailey’s furniture fits the beautiful 1920s style of this beautiful brick Craftsman home.15 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1922 Architect/Builder: Walter A. Knight, Builder Building Materials: Brick, Wood Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow Description: This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home retains much of its original integrity of design, workmanship and materials, and stands as a wonderful example of the west-coast Craftsman style. The low pitched, open and front-gabled roof includes overhanging exposed roof rafters and is topped by asphalt shingles. The outer brick walls are set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward. Two distinct bands of darker brick are set in a repeating pattern with only rowlocks exposed and pairs of specialty cut smaller bricks edge all corners of the main house. The lower band of rowlock bricks sits flush with the outer layer of brick as it wraps around the house, including the front porch, and forms the lintels for the basement windows. The 5 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 6968, May 6, 1942. 6 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 9851, May 12, 1947. 7 Warranty Deed, October 31, 1949, Entry No. 65, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins City Directory 1952 (Colorado Springs: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1952), 131. 8 See Fort Collins city directories, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963. 9 Deed, November 4, 1963, Entry No. 70, Abstract of Title. 10 See Fort Collins city directories, 1964–1968. 11 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 12395, June 10, 1968. 12 Obituary of Robert Waldron, Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. 13 Julie Estlick, “Back to Life,” Lydia’s Style Magazine, September 2008, 34. 14 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. B0703533, June 5, 2007. 15 Robert Bailey, “The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective,” American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72–83. Page 177 Item 15. Revised 08-2014 Page 5 higher-placed and corbelled band runs around the house forming the bottom sill o f the first-story windows and connects with the cement cap of the porch’s wall structure. An undated addition to the kitchen on the rear (north) elevation sits on the northeast corner of the home and opens to a rear porch. The foundation is unexposed, but the base of the front and rear porches are constructed of cement. The front (south) elevation includes two open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles, one as part of the larger roof and the other covering the porch. The open and covered porch runs only a partial length of the front elevation. Its brick walls are set in Flemish bond capped by cement and lead to the front entryway. The porch’s gabled roof is supported by two brick pillars set in stretcher bond that rise from the porch’s brick walls. These pillars may have been repaired or installed sometime after the original construction, but building permits reveal no information concerning their addition. The porch’s gable has a slightly lower pitch than, and is symmetrical with, the front gable of the home and includes the exposed and overhanding rafters typical to Craftsman homes. Two decorative purlins are found below the soffits on either side of the porch’s gable. The steps leading up to the porch, along with the main entryway, is slightly asymmetrical and located just to the east of the center of the south elevation. The front entryway is protected by a glass door with wood rails and opens inward while an accompanying screen door opens outward. On either side of the front entryway are double-hung sash windows in cream wood frames that the current owner replaced after purchasing the property in 2001. The steps leading up to the porch are made of poured cement and adorned with decorative metal hand rails. Both of the east and west elevations are simple with little elaboration and continue the Flemish brick bond with the two distinctive dark-brick bands. On the west elevation four single pane windows that are nearly flush with the ground are surrounded by cream wood frames and provide light to the basement. Three double-hung sash windows and one single-pane window for the bathroom make up the first-story windows on the west elevation. Each of these windows is surrounded by cream wood frames. The three larger double-hung windows use the upper band of rowlock-patterned bricks as their sills. The east elevation bears a brick chimney set in corbelled Flemish bond before it pierces the roof, but set in standard, or running, bond there above without any corbelling or decorative patters above the roof line. This elevation bears four separate windows, one located just to the south of the chimney and three to the north. The only window located to the south of the chimney is a double-hung sash window surrounded by cream wooden frames. Like almost all other first-story windows it uses the higher-set band of rowlock bricks as its sill. The first, and smaller, of the three windows located north of the chimney is a double-hung sash window. The second window is comprised of three double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and divided by two cream wooden mullions. The third and northern-most window has its own row of dark bricks for a sill that also bear only rowlocks in a uniform pattern, but is separate from the band that extends around the entire house. This window has four lights arranged in two double-hung windows separated by a single cream wooden mullion. Two, double- pane windows are flush with the ground and, like those on the east elevation, provide light for the basement rooms. The rear (north) elevation includes the same low-pitched gable as the front also finished with shingles, but also includes a wood-frame addition to the brick structure on the northeast corner of the home. The only window on the north elevation that is set in the brick structure is located west of the addition and is a double-hung sash window set in a cream wooden frame and it also uses the higher-set rowlock band of dark bricks as its sill. The partial hipped-roof addition protrudes from the northeast corner of the home and provides additional space within the kitchen. This addition very well may have been a later addition as the current owner informed Historic Preservation department staff that when he restored the wood flooring in the kitchen he found a portion of the wall that is now covered by the restored wood floor. Its outer walls are finished with vertical wood siding without a rake and the roof rafters are open and exposed on the west and east elevations of the addition itself. The northern exposed rafters are hidden by the rain gutter than runs the entire length of the addition’s northern roof. It also bears a door with light pane and a screen door on the outside that lead out to the back porch and backyard. West of the rear entryway on the addition are two double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and separated by a cream wood mullion. The back porch is entirely composed of cement and is Page 178 Item 15. Revised 08-2014 Page 6 surrounded by a simple metal pipe railing. The steps to the porch are found on both the west and east sides and have since cracked away from the rest of the porch structure due to ground settling. The one-car garage included within this landmark designation is located on the northwest corner of the property and was built by William G. Jackson, then the owner of the property, in 1942. The car door faces north and opens into the alley. It is a front-gable structure with overhanging, exposed roof rafters and asphalt shingles. The four elevations are covered with light brown drop siding and all edges are protected with cream wood corner boards. The car door is symmetrical with the gable and made up of eight green wood panels and surrounded by a cream wood framework. The entryway is located on the east elevation in the southeast corner and is painted to match the car door. It has two wood panels within rails and is surrounded by cream wood framework. The east elevation includes one four-pane window with cream wood frames and a wooden sill to match. A similar four-pane window is fond on the south elevation and is slightly offset to the west from the center of the gable. The two-car garage on the property built in 1968 by Robert Waldron is located to the northeast of the home and to the southeast of the one-car garage described above. This structure is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. Page 179 Item 15. Revised 08-2014 Page 7 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Abstract of Title of Lot two (2) in Block two (2), of Swett’s Addition to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado; in Larimer County, Colorado, compiled by The Fort Collins Abstract Company. In the possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. Bailey, Robert. “The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective.” American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72-83. Ching, Francis D. K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995. City of Fort Collins building permits, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. City Directories of Fort Collins, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. Estlick, Julie. “Back to Life.” Lydia’s Style Magazine (September 2008): 32–34. Family Search: William Glenn Jackson. https://familysearch.org Federal Census of the United States: 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1940. Accessed through www.heritagequestonline.com. “JoAnne Waldron.” (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, September 13, 2002. McAlester, Viriginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. “Robert Waldron.” (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. Page 180 Item 15. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 181 Item 15. Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 10, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 1306 West Mountain Avenue CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Robert Bailey, Owner REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado BACKGROUND: The William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, located at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, is being nominated for Landmark recognition for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C, for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The Jackson/Bailey house is a classic example of the Craftsman style, popular in Fort Collins during the early-twentieth century, with many noteworthy architectural details. Constructed in 1922, the building’s distinctive features include varying colors of brick set in a beautiful Flemish bond, exposed roof elements, a prominent front entry, and a substantial front porch. The first of two automobile garages was constructed in 1942; as a simply designed single-car garage, it illustrates a time when many Americans were purchasing personal vehicles for the first time, and contributes to the significance of the property. The second garage, constructed in 1968, is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made extensive efforts since his purchase of the property in 2001 to restore the exterior and interior of the home, and is pursuing this Landmark designation. The property’s context is that of an early twentieth century residential neighborhood. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling, and the Jackson/Bailey property relates to and contributes to the neighborhood’s context. COMMISSION ACTION: The Landmark Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the request for Landmark designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, 1306 West Mountain Avenue. REVIEW CRITERIA: Municipal Code Section 14-5, Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, provides the criteria for determining the eligibility of a property for Landmark designation. It states, “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered.” Standards for determining significance: ATTACHMENT 4 Page 182 Item 15. - 2 - A. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. B. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. C. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. D. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, associatio n requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Context: The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the Page 183 Item 15. - 3 - context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may requi re a different contextual area…. Page 184 Item 15. Oakwood School City Park W Oak St Pearl StC i t y P a r k D rLyons StSylvan CtJackson AveN Roosevelt AveLeland Ave N Mckinley AveSheldon DrS Mckinley AveS Roosevelt AveN Mckinley AveW Mountain Ave Laporte Ave ©1306 W Mountain Ave 1 inch = 200 feet Site ATTACHMENT 1 Page 185 Item 15. THE ROBERT BAILEY PROPERTY, 1306 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE Front (South) and Side (West) Elevations, July 2014 Side (East) and Rear (North) Elevations, July 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 186 Item 15. Rear (North) Elevation, July 2014 Garages facing North, July 2014 Page 187 Item 15. North and East Elevations, One-car Garage built 1942, July 2014 South and West Elevations, Two-car Garage built 1968, July 2014 Page 188 Item 15. ATTACHMENT 6 Page 189 Item 15. Page 190 Item 15. Page 191 Item 15. Page 192 Item 15. Page 193 Item 15. Page 194 Item 15. Page 195 Item 15. Page 196 Item 15. Page 197 Item 15. Page 198 Item 15. Page 199 Item 15. Page 200 Item 15. Page 201 Item 15. Page 202 Item 15. Page 203 Item 15. Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Re ha bil i ta tion REAR ADDITIONS ITS NUMBER 37 Issue: Whenever possible, new additions should be con- structed on rear elevations where they will have less of an impact on the building’s historic integrity. Rear additions—like all new additions—should be subordinate to the original build- ing in size, scale, and massing, as well as design. Additions that feature a higher roofl ine, that extend beyond the side of the building, or that have a signifi cantly greater footprint than the original building are usually not compatible. The expansion of modest scale houses or those in prominent locations (such as a corner lot) can be particularly challenging. Standard 1 states that “A property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defi ning characteristics of the building and its site and envi- ronment.” In cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate the owner’s programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identifi ed. Rear additions that meet the Standards are compatible in de- sign, yet diff erentiated from the old building, often through a process of simplifi cation. For example, if the original house features narrow clapboard siding, multi-light double-hung sash windows and an elaborate decorative cornice, the new ad- dition could be sided with diff erent clapboards, one-over-one double-hung sash, and a less detailed cornice. New materials need not match exactly the historic materials but should be appropriate to the building type, compatible with existing materials, and unobtrusive in appearance. Rear additions that do not require signifi cant removal of exist- ing materials may help retain the house’s historic appearance and character. Connecting the new addition to the historic building with a modest hyphen can limit removal of historic materials, drastic structural changes, and irreversible changes to the original building. A hyphen can also more clearly dif- ferentiate new from old construction. Rear additions can also provide the opportunity to make a building accessible, rather than constructing ramps on a more prominent elevation. Top and Above: This historic house had been altered numerous times in the past--including multiple additions to the rear of the building. Application 1 (Incompatible treatment): This modest resi- dence began as a two-story log house. Later, the main portion of the house was converted into a distinctive Bungalow-style residence. Over time, multiple additions were also made along the natural grade at the rear of the house. Prior to rehabilita- tion, these later additions were quite deteriorated. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services Subject: Rear Additions to Historic Houses Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible New Additions / Alterations 10. Reversibility of New Additions / Alterations Page 204 Item 15. These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting de ter mi na tions, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not nec es sar i ly ap pli ca ble beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Chad Randl, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service June 2006, ITS Number 37 When the project began, the existing rear additions were determined to be beyond repair and were demolished. A re- placement addition of a similar size to those removed would likely have met the Standards. However, the new addition constructed on the rear doubled the size of the structure as it existed before the rehabilitation. As built, the cladding, open- ings, and roofl ines of the new addition were appropriate to the building’s historic character. Yet this was not suffi cient to overcome the eff ect of an addition substantially more massive than the additions that were demolished. With two full fl oors, a footprint that was much deeper than the previous additions, a new deck extending from the rear and side elevations, and signifi cant grade changes at the rear, this work competes for attention with the historic structure to which it is attached and has seriously impacted the property’s historic character. The size of this new rear addition—incorporating two fl oors and an ex- tended depth--combined with substantial changes to the site overwhelm the modest historic house. Right: The house prior to rehabilitation. Below right: Drawing of proposed rear addition and hyphen, show- ing how the new construction was subordinate in size to the historic house. Below left: New addition and connecting hyphen. The new materials and fenestration complement, yet are distinct from, the historic house. Application 2 (Compatible treatment): This large brick house was converted for use as offi ces. As part of the rehabilitation a new addition was constructed at the rear of the house. With a brick ground fl oor and a clapboard upper level set beneath a roofl ine that was lower in height than the original structure, the rear addition’s design was both distinct from, and compat- ible with, the size, scale, massing and architectural features of the historic house. The use of varied materials on the addition (brick below, clapboard above) was handled with restraint in a manner that did not compete visually with the main house. The addition provided space to locate new systems for the entire structure as well as accessibility to the historic house at grade, making exterior ramps unnecessary. A hyphen (with a lower roofl ine and narrower footprint) separated the new addition from the old, further distinguishing the various periods of construction and reducing the addition’s massing. The hyphen required only a minimal amount of distur- bance to the rear wall of the historic house and left the plan of the main house intact. If the addition were ever removed, the house’s historic integrity would remain undiminished. Page 205 Item 15.  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services National Center for Cultural Resources ITS Interpreting NUMBER The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations Issue: Rehabilitating historic buildings for new uses occasionally requires cutting in new window openings in secondary elevations to increase light and ventilation. Secondary building elevations, while usually not as important as the fa9ade, are often articulated and quite visible, even though they may have few, if any, openings. Since secondary elevations can contribute to the historic character of a building, the integration of new openings requires careful consideration to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This can be accomplished through attention to the number, location, and design of proposed new openings during the design process. Application 1 (Incompatible new openings): This freestanding brick warehouse was constructed in 1859 to store grain and dry goods. Although the largely solid end wall elevations were second- ary, they were highly visible and contributed to the historic charac- ter of this building. During a conversion to offices, a series of new openings were inserted in the end walls to admit more light and take advantage of desirable views. The number and design of the new windows, which mimic the historic windows in size, propor- tion, detail and light configuration, fundamentally altered this building's historic character giving the building a significantly dif- ferent look. The treatment did not meet the Standards. New windows could have been installed while maintaining the his- toric massiveness of the end wall. This would have required the introduction of only a few smaller windows. Top: The historically important 1859 brick warehouse with largely solid end wall. Bottom: The number and design of the windows added to the end wall make this an inappropriate treatment. ADDING NEW OPENINGS Page 206 Item 15. o Left: 1882 corner commercial building. Right: The number and location of the new openings do not alter the historic character nor cause this elevation to compete with the facade . Application 2 (Compatible new openings): This 1882 structure exemplifies the transition in commercial architecture after the Civil War from simple, domestically scaled buildings to structures distinguished as symbols of commercial prestige by their size and height, decoration, quality of architecture and prominence. When rehabilitating this building into bank offices, the owner proposed inserting new openings on the third floors of the secondary side elevation for added light and ventilation. The number and location of these new openings did not impact the character-defining features nor direct too much focus to the secondary elevation. Application 3 (Incompatible treatment modi- fied to meet the Standards): A nineteenth cen- tury commercial building with an exposed party wall, where the adjacent buildings have been razed, presents a greater opportunity for com- patible new openings. Nonetheless, the design must not make such a strong architectural state- ment as to radically change the appearance of the building or overwhelm the composition of the historic fa ade. This 1897 commercial building with exposed party wall on the west was constructed to house a significant early twentieth century retail es- tablishment. Four entry doorways were cut into the party wall when the building was al- a BBB B B ~ffflclfil:1 B m m [J 8 B B B B lffllfilfi m m B j ~ Left: 19th century commercial building with exposed partywall. Above: Inappropriate treatment. Below: Appropriate solution. B888B83 BBaaaEE B B B B B B tered in 1937 and 1992 . When rehabilitating this building for mixed-use in 1999, with a restaurant and specialty shops on the first floor and residential apartments on the upper three stories, twenty-five new openings were proposed on the west eleva- tion. These new openings with varying header heights included four different window sizes and pane configurations, and two projecting balconies. The number, placement, rhythm created by the variations in header heights and window sizes and pro- posed balconies make a strong architectural statement that is incompatible with the historic character of this large solid ma- sonry wall. The revised elevation design eliminated the balconies and some of the new window openings, standardized the header heights, sash size and pane configuration. This compatible treatment meets the standards . Kaaren R. Staveteig, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case . September 2000, ITS Number 14 Page 207 Item 15. P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970) 472-1113 • Fax (970) 472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com 12-23-21 RE: Design Changes for 1306 W. Mountain Revised Plan set dated 12-8-2021 and consisting of 7 pages Demolition of existing brick wall: - Revised plans show there will not be any existing historic brick being removed and all brick walls can be reversable. Exterior Windows: - Revised Plans show retaining the existing windows in the home except for the removal of and fill-in in the existing bathroom. Floor plan square footage: - Revised plans show adding onto the existing home of 1097 square feet a new addition of 887 square feet reflecting a reduction of 24% from previous plans. Roof Details: - Removal of dormer on the east roof elevation based on the commission’s recommendations. Page 208 Item 15. Page 209 Item 15. Page 210 Item 15. Page 211 Item 15. Page 212 Item 15. Page 213 Item 15. Page 214 Item 15. Page 215 Item 15. Page 216 Item 15. Page 217 Item 15. Page 218 Item 15. Page 219 Item 15. Northeast corner of historic house, looking northeast Northeast corner of historic house, looking north toward rear of house Page 220 Item 15. Left: photo of west elevation w details, looking north; Right: Photo of rear/northwest window Rear bathroom & NW window on west elevation Page 221 Item 15. Staff Presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission July 20, 2022 Page 222 Item 15. 1 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission –July 20, 2022 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Landmark Design Review –Final Review Page 223 Item 15. Page 224 Item 15. Role of the HPC •Consider proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation •Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3 Page 225 Item 15. Property Background •City Landmark •Jackson-Bailey Property •Designated December 2, 2014 •Standards 3/C •No period of significance defined •1922 •1942 •House constructed in c.1922 •Garage in 1942 4 Page 226 Item 15. Current Review Timeline •January 12, 2021: Demolition permits received for both accessory structures (holds placed, contractor contacted) •January 19, 2021: Building permit requested for main house addition/rehab •February 4, 2021: Video conference with owner and contractor to discuss required Landmark design review process and key conflicts. •February 25, 2021: Follow-up video conference to discuss review process •March, 2021: Scheduled HPC Conceptual Review (rescheduled at owner’s request due to late hour) •May 11, 2021: Follow-up w applicant •June 28, 2021: Follow-up w/ applicant •October 27, 2021: Process follow-up w/ revised plans •November 19, 2021: HPC Conceptual Review Rd 1 •January 22, 2022: HPC Conceptual Review Rd 2 •February 17, 2022: HPC Final Design Review •Garage & basement window treatments approved •Addition denied •May 18, 2022: HPC Conceptual Design Review 5 Page 227 Item 15. Proposed Project 6 1.Construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2) onto the existing 1,097 ft2 home •(Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 75 ft2 rear mud porch slated for demolition). 2.Modification of windows on west wall of northwest bedroom on historic house. Page 228 Item 15. Proposed Alterations –Site 7 Page 229 Item 15. Proposed Alterations –Existing Conditions 8 Page 230 Item 15. Proposed Alterations –Existing Conditions 9 Page 231 Item 15. Proposed Alterations –West Elevation 10 Page 232 Item 15. Proposed Alterations –East Elevation 11 Page 233 Item 15. Proposed Alterations –Rear/North Elevation 12 Page 234 Item 15. Staff Analysis -Overall •Project meets all applicable Rehab Standards (with 1 exception) •Standards respond to proposed work in relation to building’s “character-defining features.” •Key Standards for this project are: •2 –Preserve historic character •5 –Preserve character-defining features •9 –Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate •10 –Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible •ITS Bulletin 37 –Rear Additions to Historic Houses •ITS Bulletin 14 –Modifications to Windows on Secondary Elevations 13 Page 235 Item 15. Staff Analysis –Standards 2 & 5 •2 –Preserve historic character –generally met •Addition appears to meet •Modifications to northwest bedroom windows not recommended •Standard 5 –Preserve specific character-defining features and materials – met: •Addition begins at rear/north brick wall and is not removing specific historic materials. •Again, northwest window treatment not recommended 14 Page 236 Item 15. Staff Analysis –Standards 9 & 10 •9 –Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate –met •Addition is appears to meet all three factors •10 –Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible –met: •Addition is utilizing existing openings to create connections 15 Page 237 Item 15. Context for Modifying Side Windows •Typically historic openings are retained and new window openings added •Typically done when a wall is blank •If an existing opening is present but not IEBC-compliant, changing the existing is preferred rather than removing/infilling and adding new •See ITS Bulletin 21 –Adding new Openings on Secondary Elevations •Typically completed on larger buildings with blank walls 16 Page 238 Item 15. Staff Recommendation •Approve w/ Conditions •Condition: to retain the existing west-facing wall in the northwest bedroom, delete one or both of the two proposed new window openings, and install an egress-compliant window in the existing opening. 17 Page 239 Item 15. Role of the HPC •Consider proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation •Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. 18 Page 240 Item 15. Verbatim Transcript Historic Preservation Commission July 20, 2022 Page 241 Item 15. 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held JULY 20, 2022 Hybrid Meeting – 300 Laporte Avenue and via Zoom Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: 1306 West Mountain – Addition – Final Design Review Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, July 20, 2022 Commissioners Present: Staff Members Present: Kurt Knierim, Chair Brad Yatabe Jim Rose, Vice Chair Jim Bertolini Margo Carlock Melissa Matsunaka Meg Dunn Maren Bzdek Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Page 242 Item 15. 2 CHAIR KURT KNIERIM: That takes us to discussion agenda item five, 1306 West Mountain, 1 the final design review. And, I think we have a quick staff presentation for this. Excuse me, are there any 2 recusals for this? 3 COMMISSIONER ERIC GUENTHER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I recuse myself from this, but I 4 would like to make a public comment at the appropriate time. 5 CHAIR KNIERIM: Duly noted, thank you. 6 MR. JIM BERTOLINI: Alright, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Jim Bertolini here, I’ll be 7 giving the staff presentation for this item. This is the…a final design review for the City landmark at 8 1306 West Mountain Avenue. Are folks seeing the slides okay? 9 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yes. 10 MR. BERTOLINI: Perfect. Alright…so I think most of the Commissioners will be familiar with 11 this property since you’ve seen this a couple of times. Just to reorient on location, this is at 1306 West 12 Mountain Avenue. This map just showing the historic house, it’s the primary focus of the landmark 13 designation, along with the historic garage at the northwest corner of the site; both of those are considered 14 historic according to the landmark nomination. There is a non-historic garage here proposed for 15 demolition that’s already been approved by the Commission, and then a small proposed addition onto the 16 rear of the property. 17 In this case, since this is a City landmark, the Commission is the decision maker on the project. 18 Your role this evening is to consider the proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of Interior 19 standards for rehabilitation, then pass a motion to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny a 20 certificate of appropriateness. 21 Just a little bit of a reminder on the property background. This is named the Jackson-Bailey 22 Property; it was designated on December 2nd, 2014, under the City standard three, which is for 23 architecture, design and construction specifically. The main house that you’re seeing in the photographs 24 here was built in 1922, and the historic garage of the alley was built in 1942. 25 Just a refresh on the review timeline. This initially came to the attention of Historic Preservation 26 Services January of 2021; that’s when demolition permits for the accessory structures came in. Since that 27 time, we’ve been working with the property owner and their contractor to modify plans to conform with 28 the City’s adopted preservation standards. So, most immediately, do want to raise…earlier this year, 29 February 17th, 2022, you had a previous final design review. In that design review, you approved the 30 demolition of the non-historic garage and the construction of the new garage, and the treatment of 31 basement windows to provide egress at the basement level; however, the addition that was proposed at 32 that time was denied primarily based on its size. Now, in May, two months ago, the Commission did 33 conduct a conceptual design review of the current plans; it’s generally what you’re seeing this 34 evening…are fairly similar to what you reviewed at the conceptual review in May. 35 Just a summary of the proposed project…it’s a comparatively small addition onto the back of this 36 City landmark. The addition in total is about 340 square feet, only about 260 of those are new because 37 the rear mud porch is being demolished as part of that…again, that’s not considered a character-defining 38 feature. There is some modification of windows on the west wall of the northwest bedroom as well, and 39 that’s an attempt to make that northwest bedroom egress-compliant under existing building code. 40 Page 243 Item 15. 3 Just taking a quick look at the site. On the left here, this is just existing conditions…so this is the 1 existing footprint of the house, 1968 non-historic garage that will be demolished as part of this, and then 2 the 1942 historic garage. And then just zooming in a little bit closer, this is the footprint of the proposed 3 addition in proportion to the preserved historic house here on the right. Just rolling through a couple of 4 existing condition photos overall…we’ll go through elevation by elevation to take a look at the effects the 5 project will have. Here, this is just a floorplan showing the interior of that proposed additio n; this red line 6 here marks the divide between the back of the historic house, which you can see right here, the end of the 7 brick historic house there, and then the proposed new addition behind that. This is a close-up…since this 8 was a point of questioning from the Commission…just a close-up of that junction in between the brick 9 that will remain, and then the addition…will be relatively flush between the two. And this is along the 10 east elevation. Just a couple of other existing conditions, showing the front of the property, and then the 11 rear…again, this mud porch addition proposed for demolition along with this large concrete rear deck. 12 The west elevation…this is just showing the addition as its attached…and then a gable roof element here. 13 Also showing likely some shale brick as the foundation. There was some question during the conceptual 14 review to specify beyond just thin brick what the foundation might be. And then, the intent is to use 15 wood lap siding on the…to clad the addition and differentiate it from the historic brick house. And then, 16 just highlighting this, this is really the only major note that staff has on the project, is the proposal to infill 17 one of the windows towards the northwest corner of the historic house, and then puncture two new 18 window openings into that elevation. This is showing the east elevation, and if you recall, this is where 19 the junction between the historic building and the addition will be here, just showing that differentiation 20 with the lap siding. The roof will be flush, but the siding will be differentiated between the Hardie board 21 product, or similar, and then existing brick. This just showing the addition from the north, or the 22 backyard, incorporating the gable roof structure from the historic building, then the hipped roof element 23 just kind of alluding to the mud porch that’s being demolished as part of that, and there will be a new 24 deck that extends north this gable section as well. 25 So, staff’s overall analysis is that the rehabilitation standards are met, especially in regard to the 26 addition itself. It’s a fairly textbook addition; this is the kind of project that we really steer most City 27 landmark owners toward when they are constructing additions on historic houses. Key standards when 28 we’re assessing additions are standard two, which generally regards the preservation of overall historic 29 character, standard five, which regards preservation of specific character-defining features, and then 30 standards nine and ten that call for standards [sic] to be compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and 31 reversable. We also added to your packet a couple of National Parks Service guidance documents 32 regarding rear additions on houses and modifications to windows on secondary elevations for your 33 information. 34 So, again, running through the standards, staff’s analysis is that, regarding the addition, both 35 standards two and five are met concerning overall historic character, the addition is on the rear, it’s 36 generally compatible with the historic design elements present in the brick house. Do have some 37 concerns with the modification of the northwest bedroom’s…but overall consider standard two met. 38 Standard five we’re also considering met…the addition begins at that north brick wall, it’s not removing 39 any specific historic materials, but the only removal of historic material is the opening of a window on the 40 rear, on the north elevation, that’s being widened out into a passageway in between that bedroom and 41 bathroom addition. So, that’s generally in keeping with how these standards apply when you are 42 attaching additions onto a historic landmark. Again, the northwest window treatment doesn’t really meet 43 the standards based on staff’s interpretation…again, a comparatively minor issue in the overall scope of 44 the project. 45 Page 244 Item 15. 4 Regarding standards nine and ten that do…that frequently apply to additions like this…standard 1 nine calls for projects to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate. In terms of compatibility, using 2 similar roof forms and overall small footprint in comparison to the historic building, staff considers that 3 compatibility requirement met. The use of the thin brick product and a lap board, or Hardie board product 4 as the wall cladding on the exterior makes it distinguishable, and in terms of subordination, it’s relatively 5 small compared to the historic building, it’s on the rear, and with minimal visibility from Mountain 6 Avenue. So, all three factors appear to be met there, from staff’s analysis. And then, also with 7 reversibility under standard ten, again, utilizing existing openings is really what the guidelines call for 8 when constructing additions, and so since that’s being done here, staff considers standard ten met as well. 9 I did just want to draw attention to the context for modifying side windows. There is precedent 10 for doing so with historic buildings, especially where meeting existing building code is of concern. 11 Typically, that’s done where the historic openings are retained and we’re adding new openings to that. 12 It’s often done especially in a commercial context where you might have a blank wall on a commercial 13 building, and based on the occupancy inside that building, new egress or daylighting is needed, and so 14 new openings are punctured into that blank wall; that’s the most common use of modifications to side 15 windows or new openings. If an existing opening is present, but it’s not meeting current code 16 requirements, usually the preferred alternative there is to change that existing opening to make it building 17 code compliant rather than removing it and adding new features. So, that’s the reason we added that 18 bulletin twenty-one to your packet just to provide some context on all that. 19 Staff’s recommendation is to approve this project. We are recommending a condition there to 20 modify that treatment of the northwest window and retain the existing opening, delete one or both of the 21 proposed new openings from the project, and then install an egress-compliant window in the existing 22 historic opening. And if there’s questions about that, I can certainly answer those. 23 Again, just a reminder on the Commission’s role; you are a decision-maker on this project, and if 24 you find that the rehabilitation standards are met, your task is to pass a motion to approve, approve with 25 conditions, or deny a certificate for the property. That concludes the staff presentation. I believe we 26 should have an applicant, either Brian Berkhausen or Jeff Schneider here to represent that 27 application…I’m not sure if they have… 28 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yes, thank you, Jim. And welcome, Jeff. 29 MR. JEFF SCHNEIDER: Good evening. I’m not sure if Brian is online or not, so Brian was 30 going to try to make it online; he’s actually out of the country this week, but he was going to try to attend 31 virtually, so I’m not sure if he’s on or not. 32 CHAIR KNIERIM: Melissa, would you check and see for us? 33 MS. MATSUNAKA: Yes, he just needs to be promoted…or accept the promotion, Mr. Chair. I 34 believe he is online. 35 CHAIR KNIERIM: Okay. Alright, well…welcome back, and tell us about this stuff. 36 MR. SCHNEIDER: First of all, good evening, and thank you Commission members for hearing 37 our item again this evening. It’s been a year and a half of a long process, and made significant changes 38 along the way, and I think made to a better project. A couple things I just want to mention is, since our 39 February 17th hearing that we had, we’ve reduced the size of the addition by seventy percent. So, I think 40 Jim has done a great job of presenting the materials and what have you…so, we really considered, 41 listened to, your concerns back in February and have brought back forward something that our clients are 42 Page 245 Item 15. 5 needing and wanting, and something that the Commission and the Historic Preservation, in respect to the 1 existing structure, can handle at this time. 2 So, a couple things I do want to mention is, when we came here in May to talk about the new 3 proposed plan, footprint, and design, the big concern we heard was the impact of that bond line with the 4 brick, and not going below that with the proposed windows. So, in the current plan, you can see that 5 we’ve changed the window size to not impact that bond line. And so, we respect and understand that 6 concern, and so we’ve modified and changed that in order to accommodate the concerns of the 7 Commission. One thing I do want to say is, I never heard a concern about adding two windows; there 8 was never a conversation about the concern of adding the two windows, it was purely the size and 9 interrupting that brick bond line, so, you know, if that concern was raised back in May, I wish we could 10 have talked a little bit more about it than bringing it up in the staff report a couple weeks ago. As you 11 know, the existing window does not meet egress; it is 33 inches wide and 19 inches tall, or 4.35 square 12 feet, so that does not meet our 5.7, so that’s the intent is twofold…one is to add windows to the west side, 13 or the secondary elevation in order to comply with egress for life, health, safety concerns, obviously, and 14 then obviously the other issue is to accommodate the interior floorplan of layout, for how to place a bed in 15 there and everything else, and not just keep the one window. So, keeping the one window and changing 16 that, or converting that, to an egress window, is an opportunity or possibility…no questions asked, there’s 17 no conversation about that, but it doesn't help with the flow of the space. We’ve had a lot of 18 conversations about retaining the integrity of that north wall and not losing that brick, and just using the 19 existing window opening, so that kind of plays with…and creates a challenge of, how do you use that 20 space and that room to where you still have the egress capability for the windows, and modifying the 21 windows. The other thing I want to note, too, is the prior plan that we had back in February that you guys 22 had concerns with the mass and scale and size of the addition, we also proposed changing and adding two 23 windows into the bathroom; we were going to remove one window in the bathroom and add two smaller 24 windows for the bathroom, and there was never a concern or a discussion about that, so…those proposed 25 windows were closer to Mountain Avenue than what we’re proposing on the rear portion of the building. 26 So, never heard the concern of adding windows. And when you look at the requirements of I.T.S. number 27 14, it talks about, how do you do it? And so, there’s nothing in the guidelines and standards that says you 28 cannot do it, it just has suggestions and recommendations of how to do it. So, that’s what we’re trying to 29 do is respect the west elevation by infilling the one window, because it would look awkward and weird to 30 have three…have two different window sizes, or three windows put together on one elevation back there. 31 So, we’re trying to respect, again, the fabric of the historic home, we’re trying to make it more code 32 compliant with today’s needs for egress, and accommodate that. 33 So, we’re happy, and we’ve noted on the plans…we’re more than happy to do wood windows to 34 match. The only window that we’d prefer to do a fiberglass window is the one that’s on the north 35 elevation in the shower, just from a moisture standpoint and issue. The brick that we’re looking at using 36 on the lower level for the exposed foundation…our intent is to match the same size and style and color as 37 the existing to compliment everything. And the plans do note a four-inch maximum exposure of wood 38 siding for the new addition to differentiate the new versus the existing. So, my clients would like to stay 39 here, age in place, and modify the home to meet today’s standards versus standards that were 1922; we’ve 40 had these conversations, and I think you guys all respect that. 41 And then the last thing I do want to say is, you know, one of the challenges with designing on 42 historic properties is, there’s no…nothing is codifiable…everything is arbitrary and the mood of the 43 Commission…for how they want to interpret and define and look at the project. So, everything we have 44 are standards and guidelines, nothing set in stone. So, it’s hard for us to design, say here’s what we’re 45 Page 246 Item 15. 6 designing to because its going to meet X, Y, and Z. Everything that we’re designing to is trying to meet 1 the intent of the ten standards and guidelines that are set forward. And so, with this, I’m here to 2 answer…happy to answer any questions that you have, and I do ask that you please approve the project 3 with no conditions based on the plans that we have submitted at this time. 4 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Jeff. And I want to give time for public comment on this, so if 5 you…let’s being with our live studio audience. If you would like to comment on this, please come 6 forward now, state your name. 7 ERIC GUENTHER: Very good, thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Eric Guenther. As noted, 8 I have recused myself from this application due to the fact that I own the property immediately to the west 9 of 1306 West Mountain Avenue, so my comments this evening are as a private citizen and a member of 10 the neighborhood versus as a Commissioner on the Historic Preservation Commission. 11 So, that said, there are a few thoughts I would like to share, many of those are very much aligned 12 with what Mr. Schneider just shared. First, and probably most importantly, I also strongly encourage the 13 Historic Preservation Commission to approve this application without conditions, and that includes the 14 approval of the window treatments on the northwest side of the building. I’ll talk a bit more about that 15 shortly. As noted by Jim Bertolini and the staff report, I believe the application meets virtually all the 16 requirements that are set forth by the Secretary of State [sic] for scale, for mass, for materials, for general 17 appearance. I also believe the applicants have been very diligent in their efforts to understand and 18 respond to not only the Secretary of the Interior requirements, but also to listen to the input from this 19 Commission over the last eighteen months, and also to members of the community. So, Secretary of the 20 Interior, the Historic Preservation Commission, and members of the community have all had a very…a 21 very important role in terms of bringing this design application to where it is today. I think it’s been an 22 arduous process for many people involved, including current and previous members of the HPC because 23 of the care and concern that has been expressed relative to this particular property. I feel like the result of 24 all that effort is…it’s an architectural plan that enhances and does not distract from the historic character 25 and the integrity of the home. 26 I believe the plan meets both the guidelines and, as Mr. Schneider pointed out, the intent of the 27 Historic Preservation Commission, and the Secretary of Interior guidelines. I also believe that it would be 28 consistent with what would be approved in other historic communities. And while I have a limited 29 amount of experience with that, I have seen information relative to similar projects, or much more 30 substantial projects, in communities like Telluride, and Aspen, and Boulder, and Denver. So, what I think 31 we’re trying to do here is to recognize both the Secretary of Interior guidelines and how we apply those, 32 how those are applied in the city of Fort Collins, but also take into context the broader scope and scale of 33 those projects as they might apply in other communities both in Colorado and around the nation. 34 The other thing that I want to point out, and Mr. Schneider touched on this as well, is the fact that 35 these interior changes, although not necessarily part of the purview of the Historic Preservation 36 Commission, but the interior changes will allow these applicants to age in place, and that’s been a 37 common theme, at least since I’ve been involved in this project over the last six months or so, the ability 38 to age in place in this particular property. 39 Speaking specifically to the modifications on the northwest windows, I don’t believe that those 40 modifications will have any substantive impact on the historic attributes, integrity, context, or 41 characteristics of the home. The brick bond line issue that was, again, the primary topic of the May 42 meeting, has fully been resolved. That was based largely, again, on feedback provided directly to the 43 applicants and to the contractor from this particular group. So, that belt line, that bond line, was the 44 Page 247 Item 15. 7 primary issue that was discussed at great length at the May meeting, and as Mr. Schneider points out, I’m 1 not aware of any concerns that have been expressed previously relative to adding the two windows. 2 Again, I haven’t been involved in this for the full eighteen months, but the issue most recently was that 3 bond line, and there had been no concerns relative to the addition of those two windows toward the back 4 of the property. And again, while those northwest windows will be repositioned, I don’t think the 5 changes will be visible to anyone viewing the property, won’t be visible to motorists approaching from 6 either the westbound or the eastbound side, and as far as pedestrians are concerned, westbound 7 pedestrians would not have a view of the window modifications, eastbound pedestrians also would have 8 very limited view of these window modifications. In fact, they’d arguably have to walk about halfway 9 down my driveway in order to see those modifications, and even if they did do a close-up inspection, the 10 fact that the existing brick is being repurposed to fill the open spaces, and the fact that the new windows 11 will be very closely aligned to imitate the current windows, would suggest that there will be, essentially, 12 an invisible treatment here that anybody walking by or driving by would have no idea that these changes 13 had been made. And, again, the idea is that it does help make the interior space more functional for these 14 applicants. I will point out, as a side note…these windows are the first thing I see when I get up every 15 morning. Basically, I open my blinds, I make my coffee, and I see out to exactly where these windows 16 are, and I frankly have no concern with the replacement of the materials given the treatment and the way 17 they will be handled as we’ve seen in the previous plans. I believe this represents a very reasonable 18 solution that will make the home more functional, not only for the current owners, but for future owners 19 over the next fifty to one hundred years. And, again, just want to reinforce that these changes, I believe, 20 would be essentially invisible to anyone viewing the home from the street or t he sidewalk. So, that 21 addresses the plan itself. 22 Just on a personal note, I just want to, you know, make a couple comments relative to the 23 applicants. The Berkhausen’s…there are three generations of Berkhausen’s that live here in Fort Collins. 24 The applicants, Barbara and Brian Berkhausen, they did not buy this property as an investment; they 25 didn’t buy it to renovate it and flip it, I don’t believe they bought it to make money, they didn’t buy it to 26 be a revolving door rental property…and we’ve seen that happen with a number of other historically-27 designated homes in Fort Collins…they bought this house in order to participate in the day-to-day lives of 28 their family, including their four granddaughters. And that’s what we can help facilitate by seeing the 29 Historic Preservation Commission approve this recommendation. The Berkhausen’s want to be members 30 of this community, and I frankly feel like they will be very, very good and contributing members to the 31 community. I believe the application they have submitted, including the minor modifications to the 32 northwest windows, will simply make the home a bit more livable and allow the Berkhausen’s to live 33 there comfortably. So, once again, I appreciate your time, and I strongly encourage the Historic 34 Preservation Commission to approve this application without conditions. Thank you. 35 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Melissa, are there any members of the public online that would 36 like to comment on this issue? 37 MS. MATSUNAKA: Yes, Mr. Chair. Let me promote them right now. 38 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 39 MS. LAURA BAILEY: Good evening. 40 CHAIR KNIERIM: Hello, go ahead please. 41 MS. BAILEY: Hi, thank you. Some of you may know me, I’m Laura Bailey, I’m the daughter of 42 Robert Bailey who worked with this Commission to have the home designated, and who was a member of 43 Page 248 Item 15. 8 the community since 1979. And his intent was very much to give a gift to our community of our history. 1 And so, I am here today because this was very important to my father. He made considerable sacrifices to 2 ensure that the home was preserved, including being able to make alterations himself. And so, I do 3 appreciate that the plan for the addition and the changes to the home have been downsized considerably. 4 I do still have concerns about those windows. I do think that they break with the character of the home, 5 and are a distraction. And I do…being very familiar with the home myself, know that they are quite 6 visible from…to eastbound traffic, and if you just look at the photo in the packet for your materials, of 7 the…I think it’s like the lead photo…that will show you that…that’s taken from the street, my father took 8 that image, and you can see from the street, from the sidewalk there, where the windows would be. 9 So…and I don’t at all mean to diminish, or to, you know, be negative about the plans that the 10 Berkhausen’s want to execute, but it’s my understanding that it is this Commission’s job to follow the 11 standards, and not to just say, well, it kind of meets the standards, and that the interior design is 12 really…that’s the responsibility, the flow of it all of that…that’s really the responsibility and the freedom 13 of the homeowner. So, what they want to accomplish, to my mind, really needs to be addressed inside, 14 not by changing the historic character with the window. 15 And then I’ll just…a couple other things I wanted to point out from things that were said 16 previously. One of them is that I’m pretty certain the windows were addressed multiple times at the May 17 hearing. I know I brought them up and encouraged the Commission to really look at those carefully. I 18 know it was brought up in the conversation; I’m sure it’s in the minutes. I also, with all do respect, want 19 to say that I believe the reason the Commission never addressed those bathroom windows that Jeff was 20 mentioning, is because previous proposals were so excessive, so monstrous, that that’s really where the 21 attention of all the discussion really had to be. I don’t even think the Commission ever had the time to get 22 to the small windows in the bathroom because it was, you know, all about the size that would have 23 practically doubled the house. So, I just, for the record, want to support the Commission and say that I 24 think these windows have been brought up sufficiently at the last hearing. 25 And then I also want to point out that Fort Collins is…my understanding is that Fort Collins is 26 very well known as a model for doing historic preservation right, whereas some of these mountain towns 27 that Eric Guenther pointed out as, you know, looking toward what they’ve done…my understanding is 28 some of those are not very well thought of in terms of how they’ve executed historic preservation in the 29 past. I do know it’s very important for our town, it’s important for the economics of our town. I know 30 we receive millions in grants because we’re known to do preservation right. And so, I think it’s important 31 to continue to do that and not to sort of just fudge on the details because a particular applicant wants one 32 thing or another. 33 And then, just as a final little housekeeping note, I do want to register one more time, I know I 34 said this before, and I just need to say it…this has nothing to do with my father’s house, but as a member 35 of the public, I do find it very concerning that a sitting member of the Commission is allowed to stand up 36 and make public comment as a public citizen. I think there is a conflict of interest, and I think that…I 37 understand that all of you are also public citizens; I certainly don’t want to take that away from 38 you…wouldn’t ever want to take your vote away from you as a public citizen, but to be able to stand up 39 and make a public comment, when clearly Eric Guenther is on the Commission and has the ability to 40 influence in a way different than the public, I just think it is concerning and something that I would urge 41 you to reconsider for future hearings. So, I’ll leave it at that, and I really appreciate all of your 42 consideration of my comments and throughout this process, and your patience, and all of the hard work 43 all of you do to preserve our town’s history. Thank you. 44 Page 249 Item 15. 9 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Laura. Alright, at this point, I want to see if the Commission has 1 questions for either the staff or Jeff in all of this. Yes? 2 MR. BRAD YATABE: Mr. Chair, I’d suggest giving the applicant and staff a chance to respond 3 to any of the comments made, and then maybe go into Commission questions. 4 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Yes, would either the staff or Jeff like to address any of the 5 public comment? 6 MR. BERTOLINI: No concerns from staff. 7 MR. SCHNEIDER: I was going to say, not at this time. I think you understand our position on 8 the windows, and respectfully disagree with some of the comments that Ms. Bailey made, because I never 9 heard at the May hearing from any one of you guys that there was a concern about adding the windows. 10 There was definitely a concern and conversation about the bond line, but not about the additional 11 windows or replacement of the one window. So, I do respectfully disagree with that statement based on 12 the May hearing. So, other than that, thank you. 13 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Alright, Commissioners, questions for the applicant or Jim 14 before we get into discussion? 15 COMMISSIONER JIM ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question for Jeff and that has to do 16 with the proposal you have for casement windows that actually meet the egress requirements, but they 17 have what are…from your explanation…a sort of false meeting-rail. 18 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. 19 COMMISSIONER ROSE: Is that something that we would see visibly or is it concealed 20 somehow behind…my concern is, you know, when you put the false, sort of, grid in between the panes of 21 a double-insulated glass, it doesn’t give you the same effect as divided lines, but if there is a meeting-rail, 22 kind of, that is a physical feature, albeit that it’s not functional, that gives a much different appearance as 23 a sort of faux double-hung window than something that is just kind of pasted on. 24 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct, and yes, sir. So, what we have done in the past, and we’ve done this 25 a couple times on casement windows, is it’s about a two and an eighth simulated divided bar that’s 26 applied to the outside. So the grids are applied to the glass and not in between the glass, in order to 27 simulate that…appearance of a double-hung window, even though it’s not. I’ll be the first to admit, it 28 doesn’t look great…you just can’t get that same design detail. But, it does give you an impression that it 29 is a double-hung versus a casement window, or single pane. 30 COMMISSIONER ANNE NELSEN: Is the product that you’re thinking about just applied to the 31 outside, or is there actually…sometimes with a simulated divided light, you have an interior portion, a 32 portion on the inside of the glass, and then a portion on the outside. 33 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct, it’s applied to both sides of the glass. 34 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And the interior? 35 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. 36 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Like between the panes of glass… 37 MR. SCHNEIDER: Not between the panes, but applied… 38 Page 250 Item 15. 10 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Not between the panes? 1 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, so, you end up with individual lights, or individual panes, between the 2 applied, simulated divided light. So, it’s a challenge to clean; it’s more of a nuisance to clean, but it gives 3 a better representation of the intent of what we’re trying to accomplish. 4 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Are you familiar with window lines that have both the exterior 5 applied and then there’s sort of…it’s like a piece of foam, something dark in between…so, it’s still two 6 continuous panes of glass, however, it gives a shadow line. 7 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, there is a spacer bar between the glass that is installed when we do these 8 applied, simulated divided lights. So, there will be the applied on the interior and exterior, and then there 9 will be a spacer bar that is applied between the glass so you don’t see up and in between the unfinished 10 product on the inside. 11 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: That’s…I think without getting too much into discussion, that’s the 12 closest you can get. 13 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Other questions before we get into discussion? 14 COMMISSIONER MARGO CARLOCK: I have a question Mr. Chair, for the staff. Are there 15 other examples of buildings that are approved, historic landmark buildings that are approved with the 16 similar window configuration that Jeff and the homeowner are proposing? Are there…is that something 17 that has been approved in the past? 18 MR. BERTOLINI: Just as a point of clarification… 19 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: The infill of the existing window and adding two windows? I 20 mean has that been done…something similar been done before where one window has been infilled and 21 another window has been substituted? 22 MR. BERTOLINI: Not in projects I’ve reviewed; I can only speak to my experience the last three 23 years. It hasn’t been a request that’s come up. I’m not sure if Maren Bzdek has any examples that 24 predate my tenure with the office. 25 MS. MAREN BZDEK: I would say in my experience in the last seven years, I haven’t seen any 26 projects that would meet that particular description that have been approved. Prior to that, I really 27 couldn’t say without doing some research. 28 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Okay, thank you. 29 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: So, Jeff…it’s up, down, up, down…thank you for your time and 30 for your presentation. Do you remember us asking you about the sill height of the window in the 31 bedroom? 32 MR. SCHNEIDER: It’s approximately 30 inches, so it complies with all of current codes as far as 33 minimum height. 34 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And do you recall us asking about the overall dimensions of the 35 window in the bathroom…or, excuse me, in the bedroom? 36 MR. SCHNEIDER: For the existing window? 37 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Existing window. 38 Page 251 Item 15. 11 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, the existing window is 33 inches wide and 40 inches tall. 1 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: So, we did ask you about that at the May hearing, and I think at 2 that point in time, you weren’t confident about the sill height. 3 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct, and the sill height…the opening, I should say, because that’s what 4 we measure for code is the actual opening, is approximately 30…it’s about a quarter inch under 30 inches 5 tall off of the floor. 6 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And, what is the requirement for egress? 7 MR. SCHNEIDER: Minimum sill height is 44 inches. 8 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And the minimum clear width? 9 MR. SCHNEIDER: 24 inches. 10 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And minimum clear height? 11 MR. SCHNEIDER: I believe 36 inches to meet that 5.7 square feet of clear open. 12 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Exactly, and that’s always a balance, right, it can’t just be the 13 minimum in width and height, it also has to meet the 5.7 square feet. Does the existing window in the 14 bedroom, the opening itself, not the fact that it’s double-hung, but were it a casement window, for 15 example, would it meet egress? 16 MR. SCHNEIDER: My quick answer is probably, if that were to be… 17 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Sorry to make you do math on the spot…the new windows that 18 you’re proposing are larger or smaller than the existing window? They’re slightly narrower, correct? 19 MR. SCHNEIDER: They are 30 inches wide, so they are three inches narrower, and they are 54 20 inches tall, so…go right down to that bottom line. 21 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Okay. 22 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, a casement…assuming for that 33 by 40…assuming a clear opening, it 23 would accommodate an egress window, correct, if it was a casement style. 24 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And would that satisfy health, safety, and welfare? 25 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, technically speaking, it’s an existing window, so we don’t have to 26 modify or replace it. So, if you deny adding the two windows, we don’t have to do anything with that per 27 the existing building code because it’s grandfathered in. 28 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: But there is the opportunity to provide a window that meets egress 29 within that existing opening? 30 MR. SCHNEIDER: There would be if desired by the applicant, but technically speaking, under 31 the building code, it would not have to be replaced and it could be a legal, non-conforming. 32 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Okay. 33 CHAIR KNIERIM: Alright, other questions before we get into discussion? 34 Page 252 Item 15. 12 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Mr. Chairman, I have another question, and Jeff, I hate to do this 1 to you…okay, so getting down to brass tacks on these windows in the bedroom. If I recall correctly from 2 the…and I’m not going to pull it up, but if I recall correctly, the door to the bathroom that’s going to be 3 exiting off of that would be toward the right, is that correct? 4 MR. SCHNEIDER: On the north elevation, correct. 5 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Like if you’re walking in the door into the bedroom and the 6 bathroom is behind…it’s to…kind of on the right? 7 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, so the windows that we’re proposing modifying are on the west 8 elevation, and the entrance to the bathroom is the north elevation, which would be to the right. 9 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Right, so, my understanding is the placement of the bed…I 10 mean, it’s easy to say, we’ll just rearrange the furniture and it will be fine, but speaking as an older 11 individual myself, that would mean that if you put the bed up against the wall, as opposed to against the 12 wall with the windows, then you would be going like this to get to the bathroom. 13 MR. SCHNEIDER: In order to accommodate…if we don’t do the two windows on the west side, 14 and you propose to put the bed on the east wall, you would essentially have to walk around the whole bed 15 in order to get into the bathroom/closet area. 16 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Which is an issue. 17 MR. SCHNEIDER: Which is less efficient, obviously, for space travel and everything else, and 18 just from, you know, having the functionality of that room and space. 19 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: And the aging in place desire is somewhat contradicted by that. 20 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. Having to maneuver around the bed in order to get to the 21 bathroom… 22 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Particularly if you have mobility issues, or… 23 MR. SCHNEDIER: If there becomes a time that there’s a walker or anything like that that is 24 needed, you’re just adding extra distance which is going to add, you know, a stumbling block. 25 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Right, and in emergency situations, and if you need to get to that 26 bathroom in a quick fashion, that would be a hindrance. 27 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. 28 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Okay, thank you. 29 CHAIR KNIERIM: Alright, as other questions come up, let’s continue that discussion, but let’s 30 get to our discussion on this, and I want to focus to the Secretary of Interior standards, and also…I 31 appreciate, Jim, that you have put in the I.T.S. bulletins, that was very helpful as well. I’ll kick off the 32 discussion. I thought that application two on the I.T.S 14 was very helpful in this regard, and I’m kind of 33 on the side of allowing for the windows given that guidance from the I.T.S. document. 34 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: What page is this on? 35 CHAIR KNIERIM: That is on page 218. 36 Page 253 Item 15. 13 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Packet page 218? I’ve got pictures. 1 CHAIR KNIERIM: Let me see; I just had that in my notes. Oh, it’s right here, 219…or…yeah. 2 Oh, that’s number 37…I don’t have the…I just have it in my notes; I don’t have the packet page. 3 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: So, it’s the one that talks about adding a hyphen addition onto the 4 back of a house? 5 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yeah, and…the one that talks specifically about windows is number 14, and I 6 didn’t write down the page number where that…where I read that. 7 MR. YATABE: I see that on page 221 of the packet. 8 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: So, you’re saying that the argument where there were no windows 10 on an entire floor of a building and they punched a few in is the one that…? 11 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yeah, yeah. Because I’ve been looking for guidance with this, and that gave 12 some guidance anyway. 13 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: After reading it, I would agree with you. It would appear to be 14 compatible new openings. 15 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I would completely disagree with that, with both of you, I’m 16 sorry. 17 CHAIR KNIERIM: And that’s fine, you don’t need to apologize. That’s what we do here. 18 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: This is an example of a building that had zero windows; it had 19 absolutely nothing on that third story, or the first story. And they said that, in order to reuse the building, 20 they needed to add some windows. And you’ll note that where the windows were on the second story, 21 they left them intact as they were. So, the historic windows remained, and then where there was nothing 22 and they needed some light because they had no light, because there were no windows, that’s where they 23 added some…punched holes and put in windows. 24 CHAIR KNIERIM: So your concern, Meg, is that there were no windows infilled for this, in this 25 example? 26 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Right, no windows were infilled, and we do have a current 27 window providing light, so, to replace that with two brand new windows is not at all what this number 28 two is describing. They’re not…the third floor didn’t have windows that were in the wrong place because 29 there was a piece of furniture in the way, so they filled those windows in and moved them…punched new 30 holes for new windows so that the furniture fit. That’s not the example that’s given here. The example is 31 zero windows, zero sunlight, and in order to continue using the building, probably under a new 32 use…yeah, transition in commercial architecture after the Civil War to…it looks like they were going to 33 make it residential…they needed some light in the rooms. It seems like a very different scenario to me. 34 CHAIR KNIERIM: That’s fair. 35 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: If I could throw in…I see what you’re saying, Meg, but I still 36 think that those new windows…the last paragraph on that…or the last sentence: the number and location 37 of these new openings did not impact the character-defining features nor direct too much focus to the 38 Page 254 Item 15. 14 secondary elevation. Well, we don’t have a secondary elevation here, but I don’t think that the addition 1 of those windows, taking one out, putting the other two in, which will make the livability of the space 2 critical…I don’t think…I believe that it does not impact the character-defining features. 3 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: So, I take issue with the making it livable, because that’s all 4 dependent on the floorplan that we’re looking at. It’s not…first of all, it’s not really our purview, but this 5 design is not the only option for the interior. So, we’ve come to terms with the massing and the general 6 approach, but there are so many other things that they could do on the interior that would allow someone 7 to age in place without impacting the windows. So, the plan that we’re looking at now, I don’t think it’s 8 appropriate for us to say, well, it doesn’t work unless we take out these windows that would otherwise be 9 unnecessary because the person who’s designing it couldn’t think of another place to put the bed, or 10 couldn’t think of another way to configure the space to meet their clients’ needs. 11 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Well, just as a rebuttal… 12 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Sure. 13 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: I have an Old Town house, and I know those dimensions, and it 14 is very difficult to try to figure out where furniture is going to go, and in a lot of times with those kinds of 15 dimensions, you only have one option. So, if I recall when I looked at it, because I was looking at it with 16 that lens, you…it looked to me, because of where the doorways were, the only place to put the bed was on 17 the one wall or the other wall, so you’re either going to have a clear shot to the bathroom, or you’re going 18 to have to go around. There’s not really a lot of other options. 19 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Margo, in that scenario, I would say, if you really have trouble 20 inserting your furniture into an Old Town house, then perhaps and Old Town house isn’t the appropriate 21 house for you, especially one that’s designated. I would like to, if it’s okay, I mean, along the same 22 discussion, but I had kind of hoped to say this earlier, is, first of all, I want to apologize for my look of 23 surprise earlier when Jeff was speaking. But I am absolutely flummoxed that my A, number one, greatest 24 concern that I brought up in our May meeting which is included in the minutes on page four of the 25 minutes, is these windows. And Jeff and Eric don’t seem to remember that that was a huge concern. And 26 I have searched the standards, and Jeff says that these are subjective. If anything is subjective, it’s saying, 27 let’s fill in a historic window and put in two new ones because we want to put a bed headboard in, that is 28 subjective. There is nothing in the standards that says, if your furniture doesn’t fit, then perhaps you need 29 to rearrange the windows. Instead, it says that the defining characteristics of the exterior of this property 30 are key in how we’re going to make alterations, make additions, do anything to the exterior of this house. 31 And this window, it’s original. We don’t put in faux windows, we don’t put in conjectural windows, we 32 have…Jeff himself said, this does not legally have to be replaced; there is nothing driving the change of 33 this except for the headboard of a bed. And as Anne pointed out, I made a pretty big point at our May 34 meeting that a redesign of the proposed addition could solve this problem such that the windows would 35 not need to be changed at all. So, I’m just…I’m sorry about the emotion, but this was a huge issue to me 36 in May, I brought it up in May, it’s in the minutes from the May minutes, and I’m just absolutely 37 flummoxed that it wasn’t taken into consideration. 38 CHAIR KNIERIM: Other discussion? Other Commissioners? 39 COMMISSIONER ROSE: Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that if we look at this process, and 40 I’m not disregarding what Meg said about the importance that she places with this one aspect . We’ve 41 come an incredible distance from where we began. This project was not even close to what it is now. 42 And, to me, we have made one window a character-defining feature, and I don’t think it is. I think what’s 43 Page 255 Item 15. 15 happened in modifying, albeit admittedly, you could fumble and fuss with the interior arrangement for as 1 long as you want, I think there’s got to be a practical conclusion to anything like this, and I think what 2 Jeff has finally proposed is A, to respect what I think was the predominant concern we all had, and that 3 was the scale of the addition. This has been dramatically downsized. 4 And I think now, we are literally into a Byzantine argument as to whether two windows that look 5 like they’re double-hung windows, but they aren’t, that still conform to the same kind of fenestration, are 6 a character-defining feature. I don’t think they are, and I’m not in a position to say, go back and redesign, 7 rearrange the floorplan…sure you can do that, and I don’t know to what end we ultimately say, okay, we 8 give up. I just think an honest attempt has been made to conform to the wishes and concerns this 9 Commission expressed months ago, and I commend them for their attention and their sensitivity to what 10 we were really…my concern always has been, if I’m going down Mountain Avenue, and I look at this 11 house, and I saw it the way it was proposed originally, it doesn’t even resemble a bungalow that was 12 placed there in 1924. It sure does now. And I think that’s enough. I think we can’t continue to split hairs 13 here and make them continue to come back and say, okay, well, try something else. I’m not in a position 14 to tell you how to arrange an interior when we have absolutely no purview over that interior. So, my 15 sense is, let’s get this thing started, let the owners and the contractor move forward and get this project 16 done. 17 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Jim, I would just say that having an egregiously large addition 18 proposed before should not be a reason why we accept these windows now. And, the contractor himself 19 has admitted that there’s no reason to change the windows; they’re not being for any legal reason…by 20 any code reason required to change them. So, by asking them to not change the windows, we’re basically 21 saying, go with what the code asks, which is nothing. Mr. Chair, I’m ready to make a motion. 22 CHAIR KNIERIM: Certainly. 23 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve all 24 plans and specifications for the Jackson/Bailey property located at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, except 25 the proposed changes to the northwest bedroom window, finding that all but the window proposal meet 26 the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval of the 27 proposed treatment of the windows on the northwest bedroom’s west wall, which would inappropriately 28 result in the removal of a historic window and the creation of two new window openings, which does not 29 meet Secretary of Interior standards two or five, nor follow the guidance in standards bulletin number 14. 30 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Meg. Is there a second? 31 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: I’ll second that. 32 CHAIR KNIERIM: And Anne seconds. Discussion? 33 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: So, I agree, we’ve come a long way, but I also see Meg’s point that 34 this started out as something, almost a red herring of a project. So, we’re looking at something now…it’s 35 a City landmark, it is an extraordinarily small home, each one of these windows occupies a larger 36 percentage of the façade, I think it’s visible from the street, I think the windows and their proportions are 37 character-defining features, and I think it’s historic material that isn’t necessary to remove. So, overall, 38 yes, I think the masing, fine, the approach to the project as a whole is okay, but I don’t see the need, and I 39 don’t think a need has really been established to deviate from the Secretary of the Interior standards for 40 those…for that existing window. I don’t feel a strong case has been made. 41 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Walter, you want to weigh in? 42 Page 256 Item 15. 16 COMMISSIONER W. DUNN: So, while I agree with, you know, some of the things that Jim had 1 brought up, I do have to say that I’m more caught up in agreeing with Meg and Anne on this position. I 2 don’t think we should base our decision on how far a project has come, or an honest attempt has been 3 made. I feel like if we base it off of that, then you could have like an egregiously large project, parse it 4 down, and then everyone would get a pass instead of really trying to judge it for what it is. I do feel the 5 window is a rather important part so…and they could keep it…so, yeah, I agree definitely with what Meg 6 has been saying. 7 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Yeah, it comes down to where is the balance, right? The balance 8 between modern livability and historic character-defining features, and that sort of thing. And I think 9 that’s the question that I’m wrestling with. I wasn’t aware that the current window doesn’t have to be 10 changed in all this, that’s new information to me. 11 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: But without changing the window, you have no egress. 12 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: They could put egress into the current window, and that might 13 require expanding it a little, but it would still be largely the same hole in the wall that you’re working on. 14 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: So, after talking with Jeff about this, the existing opening does 15 meet egress if the window were replaced with something that allowed the full use of the width and the 16 height. So from my understanding, the actual opening would not have to be altered; a different type of 17 window would have to be put in, but that would allow, in the future, and I apologize, I don’t have the 18 standard in front of me, but it would be easier to replace with a double-hung window if the interior did 19 change in the future, or if the previous owner…it would be easier to take it back to… 20 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yeah, in terms of reversibility. 21 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Yes, thank you. 22 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yeah, thank you. 23 COMMISSSIONER M. DUNN: Yeah, I think if we look at allowing this change in the windows, 24 and then when it comes to reversibility, we’re kind of looking at a similar scenario to what we just saw 25 with that barn, where in the ‘70’s, they punched so many holes in it, you couldn’t even tell what was 26 original and what wasn’t after a while. The more we can keep an intact house intact, the better. And 27 that’s basically what the standards drive at is, you know, make it functional, if there’s a code requirement 28 then find a way to do it sensitively, but for the most part, we want to preserve these materials, we want to 29 preserve the layout, the sense of the character of what this building was. And punching two new holes 30 doesn’t do that. 31 MR. YATABE: Mr. Chair, if I can…and this is…don’t take this as an attempt to put any pressure 32 on you in terms of your decision, but I just procedurally want to outline kind of where you’re at. So, this 33 is…typically the situation when you have an even number of members, and I’m not saying that anyone is 34 completely decided on this, but in the event of a tie vote, that motion would fail. And, typically speaking, 35 the result of that is that motion cannot come forward again, so you start to lose options if thes e motions 36 fail and then they’re taken off of the table. So, if down the road, as you debate and consider further, if 37 you have a change of mind, it’s much harder to bring that back. I think you can reconsider a motion, but 38 you’re going to have to go through this process where you really have to renew that motion, and I can talk 39 you through that if that’s what that comes to. I guess what I’m saying is, each of these motions as they 40 come forward, I think you want to give them a very thorough consideration because if you start to knock 41 down motions, if they start to sort of be taken off the table, it makes it harder to kind of go back to any of 42 Page 257 Item 15. 17 those prior things. I understand that some of these things, as they come forward as motions, that’s when 1 you really start to…it sparks in your head, kind of, some real consideration of what that means. So, I just 2 want to put that out there…with an even number of Commissioners, a split vote essentially means that 3 motion fails. 4 I think the other thing to think about as well, there’s been some conversation tonight what I think 5 is essentially the role of the Commission. The role of the Commission is this, and that is to apply the 6 standards that you’ve been given. And I also want to recognize that those standards are not necessarily 7 clear cut in all cases, there’s some ambiguity in places. But I think some of the issues as to …that have 8 been brought up about, well, this is a much-improved version over the last version. I think the answer to 9 that is, look at the standards, that’s the role you’ve been asked to play. Or, can you fit your furniture in a 10 certain place, or what is the living arrangement on the inside, well, I think that also the answer to that is, 11 what are the standards. But, I also want you to recognize, and I do recognize, that there is some gray in 12 those standards, there is some room for interpretation, and I think you have had some of that, and I know 13 you all know that, but I just want to put that out there for consideration. 14 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, thank you. Alright, with that in mind, other discussion? 15 Otherwise, we can vote. Alright, so the motion on the table is to…this is…just, I’m not rereading the 16 motion, but to accept everything except the windows, is that a fair estimation? 17 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Yes. 18 CHAIR KNIERIM: Okay. Alright, Melissa, would you do a roll call please? 19 MS. MATSUNAKA: Yes, Mr. Chair. Margo Carlock? 20 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: No. 21 MS. MATSUNAKA: Walter Dunn? 22 COMMISSIONER W. DUNN: Yes. 23 MS. MATSUNAKA: Anne Nelsen? 24 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Yes. 25 MS. MATSUNAKA: Jim Rose? 26 COMMISSIONER ROSE: No. 27 MS. MATSUNAKA: Meg Dunn? 28 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Yes. 29 MS. MATSUNAKA: Kurt Knierim? 30 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yes. 31 MS. MATSUNAKA: Mr. Chair, that is four yes’ and two no’s. 32 Page 258 Item 15. 18 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. So, the motion as stated passes. 1 Page 259 Item 15. Link to Meeting Video Historic Preservation Commission July 20, 2022 https://youtu.be/2lPspcp2RHo Page 260 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Decision Letter Issued: July 20, 2022 Page 261 Item 15. Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUED: July 20, 2022 EXPIRATION: July 20, 2023 Brian and Barbara Berkhausen 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Property Owners: As you are aware, on Wednesday evening the Historic Preservation Commission gave a Final Design Review decision for the work you are proposing for the Jackson-Bailey House & Garage at 1306 W Mountain Ave, approved by motion on a vote of 4 in favor, 2 against, and 1 recusal. More specifically, the Commission approved: 1. Construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2) onto the existing 1,097 ft2 home The Commission approved with conditions: 2. Modification of windows on west wall of northwest bedroom on historic house. o Condition: That the window treatment of the northwest bedroom in the historic building be modified to retain the existing window opening, delete one or both of the proposed two new window openings, and install an egress-compliant window in the existing historic opening. Note: The following work has already been approved by the HPC at its February meeting, but remains part of the project scope: 1.Replacement of all historic basement windows with egress-compliant window units. 2.Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-ft2 garage at the rear of the lot. An analysis is included below. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property will remain in residential use. Y Page 262 Item 15. -2 - SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Designated as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage, the building is characterized by its small size and compact massing compared to larger Victorian and modern homes. Its simple rectangular form under the front-gabled roof, and other Craftsman-style features including exposed rafter tails, the styled brick exterior, wood sash windows, and prominent brick chimneys together characterize the property. The addition appears to meet this Standard. The overall compact massing of the property remains intact, and the addition retains the overall massing, scale, and spatial relationships of the primary residence. The treatment of the windows at the northwest bedroom’s west wall, which will result in the removal of a visible historic window and the creation of two new window openings, is the only item that staff considers as not meeting this Standard by unnecessarily altering the historic window pattern. While such modifications can be accepted in limited circumstances where no other egress alternative exists, alternatives do appear to exist in this case so staff is recommending a condition that this item not be approved. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. With the condition that the existing window opening in the northwest corner of the property is retained and new window openings are not installed, staff finds this Standard met. Y (w/ Condition) SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The primary historic feature proposed for removal is the rear porch. While this feature appears to date from the property’s historic period and represents a common adaptation to historic residences in Fort Collins, staff does not believe the porch is a character-defining feature based on the significance of the property for Design/Construction as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage. While staff generally encourages retention of rear porches whenever possible, in this case retaining it is not required in order to meet this Standard. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The project as proposed in the current version, conditionally meets this Standard. The plan has been modified from previous iterations to avoid demolition of the primary exterior Y (w/ Condition) Page 263 Item 15. -3 - wall of the house at its northeast corner. In this case, with one exception, all distinctive, or character-defining, features are being preserved. The exception is the treatment of the west-facing window in the historic northwest bedroom. The upper floor windows of the property and the existing window pattern is a character- defining feature of the property. While some modification of windows on secondary elevations can be allowed in limited circumstances, alternatives appear to exist here to avoid demolition of historic masonry and the loss of the historic window opening. Staff recommends a condition to retain the existing window opening in the northwest bedroom, to delete the creation of two new window openings in this space from the project plan, and to install an egress-compliant new window unit in the existing historic opening. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. With that condition in place, staff would consider this Standard met. SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Staff has discussed with the applicant the requirements for rehabilitation of the existing windows. That is likely, and may include addition of piggy-back or other integrated storm windows that do not require seasonal removal/reinstallation. Y SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposal includes excavation for the foundation and finished basement under the addition. Based on the construction date of the property, the disturbed nature of the soil, and distance away from natural waterways (beyond 200 ft), it is unlikely that excavation would uncover significant archaeological materials from the pre-contact or Euro- American settlement periods. Y Page 264 Item 15. -4 - SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Generally, this Standard calls for additions to meet three main requirements: to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate. Staff’s analysis is that the project meets these requirements. The addition is comparatively small in footprint, adding approximately 264 ft2 of new space to the building, making it compatible and subordinate in size and scale. The massing of the addition will be retained behind the historic building, being flush on the east elevation, and setback slightly on the west elevation. The addition also incorporates the roof forms of the historic building into it, including the hipped roof of the mudroom addition that will be demolished over the new bathroom, and a gabled-end over the new kitchen. Exposed rafter tails, one-over-one windows, and a thin brick foundation for the addition also allude to the features of the historic building. The addition will be distinguishable, primarily by being clad in lapboard above the foundation, a common treatment for additions during the historic period as well, and having the foundation clad in, or constituted by, thin brick (less common for additions like this but compatible with the brick cladding of the main building, especially with the contrasting use on the foundation rather than the addition’s primary walls). The addition will be subordinate to the main property. It is flush with the east elevation side wall on the main house, and set in from the west elevation side wall. The roof of the addition will be below that of the historic. The addition is also only adding 264 new ft2 to the property (total square footage is 339 ft2, minus the 75 ft2 mud porch proposed for demolition). This is within the realm of normal additions added onto historic properties under this Standard. Y SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In these revised plans, this Standard appears to be met. The mud room addition is not considered a character-defining feature, and Y Page 265 Item 15. I ----- the main brick wall that was formerly along this wall section has already been removed. The modification of the north-facing window at the northwest comer of the house Into a passageway Into the i new bathroom is a common modification to provide passage In i between existin and new additions and meets this Standard. The Commission found that Item 1, the proposed addition to the historic house met all criteria and standards in Chapter 14 , Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and was approved without condition. The Commission found that the proposed Item 2, the modification of windows on the west wall of the northwest bedroom on the historic house could meet the criteria and standards in Chapter 14. Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, provided certain conditions were met, namely retaining the historic window opening and reducing the amount of demolition and infill. Notice of the decision regarding this application has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. Please note that all approved work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming alterations are subject to stop-work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration requirements and penalties. If the approved work is not completed prior to the expiration date noted above, you may apply for an extension by contacting staff at least 30 days prior to expiration. Extensions may be granted for up to 12 additional months, based on a satisfactory staff review of the extension request. You may appeal this decision within two weeks by submitting a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days of this decision . Grounds and process for appeals are enumerated in Chapter 2, Division 3 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. If you have any questions regarding this approval, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not h e sitate to contact staff at preservation@ fcgov.com or at (970) 416-4250. Sincerely, ie rim, Chair Historic Preservation Commission - 5 - Page 266 Item 15. Page 267Item 15. Page 268Item 15. Page 269Item 15. Page 270 Item 15. Page 271 Item 15. Page 272 Item 15. Page 273 Item 15. :/ -�-- -- ' • ' -" -•• Page 274 Item 15. , I \ I \ • - • •• • '• -' --' • , • - � -•• -/ '-'---- • -., r I • , �·•-J.,,� ;,/ i, ,. -' ,4}�� .. ,... '--".?'.-,' ' . � ' -'- • • • ' ,/ -.••I • -• I ' • I l. - Page 275 Item 15. r,r 1, ' -• ' ' _r/,�t\• I •�I 'v ' ---• / ... • -. • • --- • • -----"' ' - • tr'-- . � .__,.-•..., •►-.---• • -./. -.,• • ----• --ilO" ----- ' ... [... Page 276 Item 15. Page 277 Item 15. Additional Documents Provided per City Attorney’s Office Historic Preservation Commission Meeting February 16, 2022 • Minutes • Decision Letter Page 278 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 [February 16, 2022] Kurt Knierim, Chair This meeting was Margo Carlock held remotely Meg Dunn Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Meg Dunn 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 she will be providing a staff report on the Linden Street project improvements prior to consideration of the Consent Agenda. There were no other changes to the posted agenda.  CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW Historic Preservation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Page 279 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 [February 16, 2022] Member Rose withdrew Item No. 2, 741 Lindenmeier Road – Single Family Demolition Notification, from the Consent Agenda.  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek stated the phase two improvements on Linden Street have recently begun and she provided a brief history of the project noting the Commission reviewed the full project and provided a certificate of appropriateness in December of 2019. She discussed the project to reconfigure Linden Street into a convertible street with parallel parking. She stated the project should be complete by July of 2022 and pedestrian access is being maintained during construction.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 19, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the January 19, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member Carlock seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:43 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 741 LINDENMEIER RD – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION The purpose of this item is to notify and inform residents of the possible demolition of a single family property over 50 years of age and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. Member Rose questioned whether there are alternatives to the immediate approval and subsequent demolition. He stated the materials provided indicate the home has a significant place in early Fort Collins history; however, he acknowledged the property is in derelict condition without much chance for rehabilitation. He stated he would like the record to more accurately reflect the status of the property as an historical artifact. Mr. Bertolini stated there is no Code structure for mitigation and nothing that would require that of the property owner. He stated demolition permits have yet to be requested and the owner could be asked for additional site access for documentation purposes. He stated securing funding for additional documentation could be an issue. Member Rose stated he would like to see interior photo documentation if possible, but stated he is not attempting to create undue hardship for the owner. Mr. Bertolini replied interior photos are available. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Page 280 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 [February 16, 2022] 3. 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. 4. 1306 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - 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, demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Alexandra Haggarty (legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) (**Secretary’s Note: Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest as he lives in the home adjacent to the subject property and has submitted comments as a private citizen.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He discussed the proposed project and noted the homeowner opted not to make alterations to the proposed plan following the conceptual review meeting in January. Mr. Bertolini outlined the role of the Commission as a decision maker for this item and detailed the historic designation of the property. Mr. Bertolini showed photos of the property, renderings of the proposed project, and discussed the proposal. He outlined the staff analysis which indicates the project does not meet all applicable rehabilitation standards, which he detailed. He noted the City is required to utilize the Secretary of Interior standards as its basis for review because they are adopted in the Municipal Code and having the design review based in those standards is a condition of a federal certification for the City’s Historic Preservation program. Mr. Bertolini outlined the public input received on the project and stated staff is recommending the Commission approve two of the proposals, for the egress windows and for the demolition of the non-historic garage and construction of the new two-car garage. He stated staff is recommending denial of the proposed addition. Applicant Presentation Alexandra Haggarty, counsel for the applicant, stated the proposal provides a good balance between historic preservation and promoting and encouraging the continued private ownership and use of historic sites. Brian Berkhausen, owner, discussed the history of his ownership of the property and detailed the proposed project which would retain the front-facing elements of the home while providing a rear addition to accommodate his needs moving forward. He stated the proposal retains 100% of the historic fabric of the house while making appropriate improvements that will sustain and maintain the viability and livability of the home for the next century. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Page 281 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 [February 16, 2022] Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction, provided additional details on the proposal and commented on the importance of preserving the open space on the lot between the home and the accessory structures. He also noted aspects of the plan promote City climate-related goals. He outlined the ways in which the proposal meets the applicable Secretary of Interior standards, including noting the reversibility of the addition. He noted the project has received signatures of support from several neighbors in the area. Ms. Haggarty noted the Code does not clarify how many standards must be met, or to what degree, in order to justify approval. She stated staff has found that eight of the ten standards are fully met or not applicable, and the other two are partially met. Regarding standard two, Ms. Haggarty stated the historic character of the property is retained and preserved with the addition and the proposal fully complies with zoning and Land Use Code requirements. Regarding standard nine, Ms. Haggarty stated the new addition is compatible with, distinguishable from, and subordinate to the existing building. She also noted the applicant will agree to a condition of approval that all landscaping remain in place and be replaced in kind if damaged. Ms. Haggarty discussed the ways in which the proposal meets other City goals while still retaining the historic significance of the home. Public Input Michelle Haefele requested the Commission deny the proposed addition as historic resources are irreplaceable. She suggested setback variances could be requested to ensure an addition is not visible from the front of the property. Laura Bailey, daughter of the previous homeowner, requested the Commission deny the proposed addition as its designation should mean the City will protect the home from significant changes in perpetuity. She also suggested the large front tree that will block the proposed addition could not be adequately replaced if it dies and stated the house would not have been designated if such an addition existed at the time. She commented on the number of comments received in opposition to the proposal. Gina Janett requested the Commission deny the addition and stated the house would not have been designated if the addition existed at the time. She stated the proposed addition would dramatically change the character of the home. Kevin Cook discussed Mr. Bailey’s desire to have the house designated so as to ensure the historic value of the structure would be preserved indefinitely. He questioned why the buyers purchased the home with the knowledge of the designation and questioned what credibility the Commission has if landmark status for a property is granted and then it becomes reversible or modifiable with the next owner. Loretta Bailey stated issues for the current owners could be easily solved without needing to make an addition. She also expressed concern the large tree in the front could not be adequately replaced if it dies. Karen McWilliams, former Historic Preservation Manager, stated she worked with Mr. Bailey to get this property designated and requested the Commission deny the proposed alterations to the home as they do a disservice to the memory of Mr. Bailey and to all other owners who have chosen to protect their homes through landmark designation. She commented on historic preservation being a city-wide value recognized by Codes and Council policies. She also disagreed with Ms. Haggarty stating all applicable standards must be met in order for this type of alteration to be approved. William Whitley requested the Commission deny the request for the addition stating the current plan significantly weakens the City’s designation standards, calls into question the City’s commitment to historic preservation, and sets a dangerous precedent. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Page 282 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 [February 16, 2022] Shelly Terry requested the Commission deny the request for the addition stating it should remain as it was when it was landmarked in order to represent history for future generations. She commented on her experience landmarking her home and stated allowing this would set a precedent. Asma Henry opposed the proposed project and disagreed with comments by the applicant team that the project promotes equitability and sustainability. Frederick Snyder discussed his experience in landmarking his home and stated landmarking properties is valuable for history. He questioned why buyers would purchase a landmarked home if they wanted to change it. Staff Rebuttal Mr. Bertolini clarified the Code requirement in Chapter 14, Article 4 of the Municipal Code, adopts the full set of standards, all of which need to be met or determined by staff to not be applicable. Regarding precedent, Mr. Bertolini noted the Code clearly states decisions on one property do not affect decisions on other properties. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Haggarty reiterated the property is not on a state registry and the Code only calls for the Commissioners to analyze the standards, not to analyze anything related to the City’s status as a certified local government. She also reiterated the Code does not explicitly state how many or how fully the standards must be met to approve an alteration and the applicant team believes all are met. She also noted any decision would not set a precedent per Code and stated this process exists to ensure that landmarked properties make changes in a reasonable way, not so that they do not change at all. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and all five members were present upon returning.) Commission Questions and Discussion Member Nelsen requested clarification regarding the Secretary of Interior standards and City Code provisions. Mr. Yatabe replied the Code states a proposal must meet the standards in order to be approved and, if a proposal does not meet the standards, it is denied. Member Nelsen asked if both chimneys are being retained in the proposal. Mr. Schneider replied in the affirmative and stated both are brick down to the basement level, which will remain. Member Nelsen asked about the bump out to the east and if it was added to emphasize standard nine. Mr. Schneider replied the design aimed to keep the simplistic rectangular design while meeting the setbacks on the west side and meeting Land Use Code standards related to differentiation. Additionally, the design aims to ensure the addition is differentiated. He noted it is not uncommon for additions to occur on the side of a property to meet Code requirements. Member Nelsen asked about the possibility of hyphening. Mr. Schneider replied that was considered; however, the design seemed to be a detriment to the existing structure. Member Nelsen asked if retaining the open space on the lot is more important than the massing as viewed from the front of the property. Mr. Schneider replied the design does not disrespect the existing structure and the preservation of the open space on the lot is more valuable than having the entire addition behind the home. He stated a narrow row house design would not be aesthetically pleasing and would require a number of Land Use Code variances. Mr. Berkhausen noted they are attempting to create a livable floor plan. Commission Deliberation DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Page 283 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 [February 16, 2022] Chair Knierim suggested limiting the discussion to the standards in question, particularly two and nine. Member Nelsen questioned whether the treatment of the addition is substantial enough that standard three would not apply. Member Carlock suggested that standard may not apply as the proposal does not attempt to add anything that one would perceive as historic. She stated the addition is clearly differentiated and is clearly not part of the original structure. Member Rose stated adding anything to this home takes away from the nature of the home being a bungalow and the applicant team has done as much as possible to try to accommodate a larger program of use into a space that is not appropriate. Chair Knierim stated character-defining features of the property include its small size and rectangular shape, and the proposal changes those features. Member Nelsen noted standard two states that the historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. Member Carlock stated the size of the addition is outside of the standards. Member Nelsen concurred and stated the simplicity of form and symmetry of the structure will be altered with the proposed addition. Member Dunn concurred and stated the proposed addition detracts from the original structure. Member Carlock stated she is supportive of the garage replacement proposal and would also support the staff recommendation regarding the egress windows. Member Rose concurred and stated those changes do not modify the character to an extent that the standard is not met. Member Nelsen also concurred and noted the garage that is proposed to be demolished was not part of the historic designation. She also concurred the windows that are planned to be replaced are not character-defining features and their replacement would not negatively affect the historic integrity of the structure. Chair Knierim also concurred. Member Nelsen suggested the Commission may want to further discuss standard nine. She stated massing, size, and scale have been determined to not be met and also stated the roof lines do not seem compatible. She noted the roof plate height is the same height all around which does not feel subordinate to the existing landmarked home. Member Carlock stated she believes the size of the addition is the main concern and that violates standard nine. Members discussed the proper way to make a motion or multiple motions. Member Carlock made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for proposed item two, installation of an egress window and modification of bathroom windows, and for proposed item three, demolition of the non-historic garage and construction of a new garage, at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval for item number one, the addition to the home, because it does not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: two and nine. The Commission further finds that other than the stated standard(s) not met, the denied alteration(s) meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. Member Rose seconded. DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Page 284 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 [February 16, 2022] Member Rose asked if the items stated by Member Carlock were sufficiently clear. Member Carlock replied the items are numbered per the Staff Report. Member Rose requested the motion include a reference to the items as being in the Staff Report. Member Carlock suggested listing the items by descriptions rather than with numbers. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated the motion was fine either way, as part of the motion involves the discussion on it. Member Nelsen reiterated that part of the Land Use Code and City Code involves the Commission assessing whether or not an alteration meets all of the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. She stated the property was landmarked for design and construction and the Commission agrees the distinctive aspect of the home is the integrity of its form and its small size, and that the proposed alteration so significantly alters that key defining characteristic, that it cannot be supported and therefore the Code is not met. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 8:38 p.m.] OTHER BUSINESS o ELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Member Rose nominated Chair Knierim for Chair. The nomination was accepted unanimously. Chair Knierim commended Meg Dunn’s work as Chair. Member Nelsen nominated Member Rose for Vice Chair. The nomination was accepted unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair March 16, 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: E185B0B6-4916-4E17-87EF-296D20E8D3FE Page 285 Item 15. Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUED: February 17, 2022 EXPIRATION: February 17, 2023 Brian and Barbara Berkhausen 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Property Owners: As you are aware, last evening the Historic Preservation Commission gave a Final Design Review decision for the work you are proposing for the Jackson-Bailey House & Garage at 1306 W Mountain Ave. More specifically, the Commission denied: 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home (Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 76 square-foot rear mud porch slated for demolition). a. The Commission found this project component did not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically Standards 2 and 9. The Commission approved: 2. Replacement of all historic basement windows with egress-compliant window units and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot. An analysis is included below. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property will remain in residential use. However, staff notes that the size and scale of the addition inclines toward inconsistency with this Standard. National Park Service “Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions Y DocuSign Envelope ID: 60FBAB7D-00F7-4A77-8C7C-02676DFD4D17 Page 286 Item 15. - 2 - to Historic Houses,” notes that “in cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate an owner’s programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identified.” SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Designated as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage, the building is characterized by its small size and compact massing compared to larger Victorian and modern homes. Its simple rectangular form under the front- gabled roof, and other Craftsman-style features including exposed rafter tails, the styled brick exterior, wood sash windows, and prominent brick chimneys together characterize the property. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home – As Bulletin 37 notes, the expansion of modest scale houses can be particularly challenging in order to create an addition that is compatible with the historic building’s size, scale, massing, and design. The addition, as proposed, would alter the massing of the building as viewed from Mountain Avenue. While the addition is on the rear, and is at a lower height than the historic roof line, the visible east bump-out at the rear and significant additional space makes it difficult for the project to meet this Standard, as it would change a small cottage with a larger open yard into a larger house with significantly less surrounding open space on the lot, and would alter the building’s characteristic simple, rectangular massing into an irregularly-massed building more typical of Modern-style Ranch homes or earlier Victorian-era homes. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window, and replacement with two small one-over-one windows – Some of the exterior doors and most of the windows appear historic, although the storm windows were new (restored in the early 2000s by the previous owner). Treatment of the basement windows is common in this context and appears to meet this Standard (the basement windows are not a character defining feature). The modification of the west bathroom window from one historic unit to two non-historic is not ideal, but by itself may be considered consistent with this Standard due to its location on a side elevation, the reduced visibility of this window, and considering the context of the proposed preservation and rehabilitation of most of the remaining windows on the historic building. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot – The 1968 two-car garage is not a contributing historic resource for this City Landmark and could be demolished without compromising the property’s significance. The design of the proposed new garage seems generally compatible with the property’s historic character. The roof orientation along a north-south axis is in keeping with the overall character and spatial organization of the site. N DocuSign Envelope ID: 60FBAB7D-00F7-4A77-8C7C-02676DFD4D17 Page 287 Item 15. - 3 - SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. While the Commission agreed with the Staff analysis that this Standard did not apply to this particular project, members did express concern that the design of the addition could create a false sense of history, but that this concern was best articulated under Standard 9 relating to the property being adequately compatible but distinguishable from the historic building section. N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The primary historic feature proposed for removal is the rear porch. While this feature appears to date from the property’s historic period and represents a common adaptation to historic residences in Fort Collins, staff does not believe the porch is a character-defining feature based on the significance of the property for Design/Construction as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage. While staff generally encourages retention of rear porches whenever possible, in this case retaining it is not required in order to meet this Standard. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The project as proposed in the current (February 2022) version, meets this Standard. The plan has been modified from previous iterations to avoid demolition of the primary exterior wall of the house at its northeast corner. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home – While the size, location, and design of the addition remains problematic because it alters the character-defining rectangular design of the cottage, its installation does not appear to require the removal of any character-defining elements of the property. Therefore, this project component meets this Standard. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows – While the historic status of doors on the property is mixed, the windows appear to be historic with new (c.2000s) matching wood storm windows and appear to be in sound shape for repair. Replacement of basement windows in bedroom areas for egress compliance is a regular part of building rehabilitation and meets the Standard. While the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation is not recommended, it does not appear to conflict with this Standard. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot – While the 1968 two-car garage does not characterize the property, the 1942 one-car garage does as noted in the Landmark nomination. As noted previously, the overall design and massing of this garage is generally compatible with the overall property. Y DocuSign Envelope ID: 60FBAB7D-00F7-4A77-8C7C-02676DFD4D17 Page 288 Item 15. - 4 - SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home – N/A 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows – While some of the doors on the residence are original and some are later alterations, the windows appear to be original with new (c.2000s) matching wood storm windows and appear to be in sound shape for repair, which is proposed. Replacement of basement windows in bedroom areas for egress compliance is a typical component of building rehabilitation and meets the Standard. While the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation and loss of the rear-most east window is not recommended, the overall plan for windows on the residence appears to meet this Standard. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot – N/A Y SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposal includes excavation for the foundation and crawlspace under sections of the addition. Based on the construction date of the property, the disturbed nature of the soil, and distance away from natural waterways (beyond 200 ft), it is unlikely that excavation would uncover significant archaeological materials from the pre-contact or Euro-American settlement periods. Y SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Generally, this Standard calls for additions to meet three main requirements: to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate. While components of the addition’s design meet these requirements, some conflicts remain under this Standard. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home – The addition as proposed has elements that meet some of the requirements noted above. The roof height of the addition is below the historic roofline, helping to subordinate the massing of the addition to the historic building. The siding of the addition is proposed as lapboard which helps differentiate the addition from the historic building without disrupting the compatibility. The window selection for the addition are simplified versions of the historic windows. N DocuSign Envelope ID: 60FBAB7D-00F7-4A77-8C7C-02676DFD4D17 Page 289 Item 15. - 5 - However, the new addition adds significant square footage to the existing house, making meeting the “subordinate” requirement difficult without the use of offsetting design features such as a hyphen that are typically used to allow for larger additions that retain the original building’s characteristic form, massing, and scale. The size of the addition disrupts the defining, symmetrical massing of the property, and is large for a property of this type (a small residential cottage). The bump-out of the addition by 7.75 ft on the east is significant for a home and lot of this size and disrupts the historic massing and orientation of the main house, creating further compatibility conflicts. Additions, especially onto small historic homes, should be at, or inset from, the historic sidewalls of the historic building. Where this is not possible, using a hyphen, courtyard, or other interrupting feature is recommended to connect the new construction to the original building and clearly differentiate the new construction. While the current design is close to meeting this Standard, necessary modifications remain to offset the new construction from the old in order to meet this Standard and retain the character-defining features of the building. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows – The removal/replacement of the basement windows should not conflict with this Standard. The removal of the window near the northeast corner as part of the addition, and the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation is not recommended, but the minimal impact on the property’s overall historic character and character-defining features, does not appear to conflict with this Standard. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot – The proposed new garage is generally compatible with, distinguishable from, and subordinate to, the existing property and appears to meet this Standard. SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In these revised plans, this Standard appears to be met. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home – While the addition conflicts with Standard 9 in significant ways, it appears compliant with Standard 10 as no demolition of character-defining exterior walls is proposed in the revised plans. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows – Replacement of basement windows in bedroom areas for egress compliance is a regular part of building rehabilitation and while not strictly reversible, is not altering the essential form and integrity of the property and meets the Standard. While the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation is not recommended, it does appear to meet this Standard for the same reasons as the basement window modifications. Y DocuSign Envelope ID: 60FBAB7D-00F7-4A77-8C7C-02676DFD4D17 Page 290 Item 15. - 6 - 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot – No historic resources appear to be affected by this aspect of the project. The Commission found that Item 1, the proposed addition to the historic house, the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and was not approved. The Commission found that the proposed Item 2, to modify basement windows and the west bathroom window, and Item 3, to demolish the 1968 two-car garage and construct a new garage based on provided plans, meets the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notice of the decision regarding this application has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. Please note that all approved work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming alterations are subject to stop-work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration requirements and penalties. If the approved work is not completed prior to the expiration date noted above, you may apply for an extension by contacting staff at least 30 days prior to expiration. Extensions may be granted for up to 12 additional months, based on a satisfactory staff review of the extension request. You may appeal this decision within two weeks by submitting a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days of this decision. Grounds and process for appeals are enumerated in Chapter 2, Division 3 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. If you have any questions regarding this approval, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact staff at preservation@fcgov.com or at (970) 416-4250. Sincerely, Kurt Knierim, Vice-Chair Historic Preservation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 60FBAB7D-00F7-4A77-8C7C-02676DFD4D17 Page 291 Item 15. Additional Documents Provided per City Attorney’s Office Historic Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 • Staff Report • Conceptual Sketches • Minutes • Verbatim Page 292 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 18, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW, REHABILITATION & ADDITION STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is a conceptual design review of the applicants’ project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide feedback to the owner/applicant so they can apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness at a future date. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building, with other modifications to the building to allow for adaptive reuse. 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 conceptual review. APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) RECOMMENDATION: This is a conceptual design review in which the applicant is seeking feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). No decision is being requested, but feedback should direct the applicant regarding the Standards for Rehabilitation sufficiently so that the applicant can address any non- compliant work prior to requesting approval from the HPC via a Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior project components. Approval is based on the City’s requirements and standards for designated City Landmarks. Staff finds the current proposal generally meets the Standards. Staff would direct the HPC to the treatment of the northwest corner of the historic building and modification of the windows in that area. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). The HPC should discuss and consider the presented materials and staff analysis. For City Landmarks and properties in City Landmark Districts, the Commission is a decision-maker and can choose to issue, or not issue, a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Issuing a CoA allows the proposed work to proceed and the City to issue other necessary permits to complete the project. In this case, the applicant is requesting a conceptual design review of proposed plans to under Municipal Code 14-54(a) at this meeting. A decision is not requested, but feedback is needed on any corrections or modifications to the concept prior to submitting for final approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The William and Violet Jackson Property was designated as a City Landmark on December 2, 2014. That designation included the full property, and specified that the main 1922 residence and 1942 garage constructed by the Jacksons are historic features, while the 1968 two-car garage is not. The property was COPYPage 293 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 designated under Standard 3 for Design/Construction, specifically as an “excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century.” The proposed project includes construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2, when the existing 75 ft2 mudroom is subtracted). Although not covered in this conceptual review, the project also includes demolition of the non-historic 1968 garage and construction of a new, 630 ft2 garage at the rear of the lot. The accessory structure treatment is not part of the conceptual review as that work was approved by the HPC at its February 17, 2022 meeting. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Character-defining features for this property discussed in the nomination form include: • A low pitched, open, front-gabled roof including exposed rafter tails. • Simple, rectangular massing under a single, front-gabled roof form, indicative of Craftsman Cottages of this style. • Outer brick walls set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward and two distinct bands of darker brick near the foundation. • Craftsman-style front porch including two, open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles and supported by brick pillars • Wood, one-over-one sash windows of varying sizes with matching wood storm windows. • Two distinctive brick chimneys • A c.1942 single-car garage at the northwest corner of the lot. [nomination form is Attachment 2 to this packet] ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1922 – construction of the original house • 1942 – construction of the single-car garage • 1947 – reshingling of the house • 1968 – addition of two-car garage at northeast corner of the lot • 2000s – minor restoration of exterior, including removal of aluminum storm windows with current wood • 2007 – reroof of buildings on the property HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: Since designation in 2014, this property does not appear to have undergone significant Design Review until the current project. Below is an administrative history of this application: • January 12, 2021 – demolition permits for both accessory structures (one historic, one not) received. • January 19, 2021 – building permit requested for main house with addition • February 4, 2021 – video conference with owner and contractor to discuss City Landmark requirements and where project did not meet Standards. • February 25, 2021 – video conference with owner and contractor about review process • March 17, 2021 – project scheduled for conceptual review but rescheduled due to late hour at request of owner • May 11, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant’s contractor to further explain how project did not meet Standards. • June 28, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to explain how project did not meet Standards. • October 27, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to remind on project review process and Standards. • November 19, 2021 – Conceptual Review (Round 1) with Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) COPYPage 294 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 • January 22, 2022 – Conceptual Review (Round 2) with HPC • February 17, 2022 – Final Design Review; addition on main house denied; modifications to basement windows on main house, demolition of 1968 garage and new 630 square foot new garage approved. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A - Unknown DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a final design review decision for the following items: 1. Construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2) onto the existing 1,097 ft2 home (Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 75 ft2 rear mud porch slated for demolition). 2. Modification of windows on west wall of northwest bedroom on historic house. Note: The following work has already been approved by the HPC but remains part of the project scope: 1. Replacement of all historic basement windows with egress-compliant window units. 2. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-ft2 garage at the rear of the lot. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Staff has been in consultation with the applicant since January, 2021 with a previous iteration of the project. Consultation has included six meetings with the applicant to explain the design review process, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and the requirements for design review for projects on City Landmarks. Five of those meetings were related to previous designs of the project shown in the attachments that did not meet the Standards. The most recent meeting between staff and the applicant was on April 27, 2022 to go over the current design. Staff indicated the design should meet the Standards, with the main concern to address in conceptual review being the treatment of the northwest bedroom windows. To provide some context on project improvements, the February 2022 iteration of the project drawings is included as an attachment. Previous iterations of the project that have since been discarded are on file and available if they are of interest to the HPC. At a previous meeting, the HPC submitted requests for additional information regarding how projects such as this (additions on residential City Landmarks) had been reviewed in the past, with specific interest in feedback from the State of Colorado (via the State Historic Preservation Office). That information remains a part of the record for the February 17 HPC meeting but has not been included here. However, it can be re-added to the packet for this conceptual review, or a final design review, if that is of interest to the HPC. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comments have been received so far on this iteration of the project. Previous public comments that pertain to the iteration of the project denied by the Commission on February 17, 2022 are available but have not been included in this packet. Staff will report information about public comments received and update this staff report as necessary. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: As provided for in City Code Section 14-53, qualified historic preservation staff meeting the professional standards contained in Title 36, Part 61 of the Code of Federal Regulations has reviewed the project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff finds that the most relevant review criteria under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. The City of Fort Collins adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties both as a requirement to maintain a federal certification for the City’s historic preservation program, and as a way to establish a consistent and predictable methodology for how exterior projects can be approved on City Landmarks. With adaptive reuse being the most common treatment of historic buildings in COPYPage 295 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 Fort Collins, almost all projects, including this one, are reviewed under the Standards for Rehabilitation. Those Standards, and their accompanying, recently updated guidelines (2017) from the National Park Service, provide a framework for decision-making that recommends certain types of actions, and recommends against certain types of actions, based on the historic significance of a property, and the needs arising from the modern use of that property. The Standards are intentionally not prescriptive in approach due to the diversity of historical significance, diversity of historic features, and broad range of potential project types that may come forward for review. The Standards instead create consistency and predictability through a standardized decision-making process that preserves the essential historic characteristics and features of a property while accommodating changes both minor and major on an historic property. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property will remain in residential use. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Designated as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage, the building is characterized by its small size and compact massing compared to larger Victorian and modern homes. Its simple rectangular form under the front-gabled roof, and other Craftsman-style features including exposed rafter tails, the styled brick exterior, wood sash windows, and prominent brick chimneys together characterize the property. Overall, the addition appears to meet this Standard. The overall compact massing of the property remains intact, and the addition retains the overall massing, scale, and spatial relationships of the primary residence. The main question of concern staff would highlight is the treatment of the windows at the northwest bedroom’s west wall, which will result in the removal of a visible historic window, and the creation of two new window openings. To meet current egress requirements, the two new windows will likely be casements with a faux meeting rail to replicate the historic design. Questions for the HPC to consider include: - Does the modification of the window pattern on this secondary elevation significantly disrupt the historic window pattern of the historic building? - If this is an acceptable treatment, are there any conditions that should be placed on the design of the new windows in order to meet this Standard and Standard 9? TBD SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. N/A COPYPage 296 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The primary historic feature proposed for removal is the rear porch. While this feature appears to date from the property’s historic period and represents a common adaptation to historic residences in Fort Collins, staff does not believe the porch is a character-defining feature based on the significance of the property for Design/Construction as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage. While staff generally encourages retention of rear porches whenever possible, in this case retaining it is not required in order to meet this Standard. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The project as proposed in the current (May 2022) version, meets this Standard. The plan has been modified from previous iterations to avoid demolition of the primary exterior wall of the house at its northeast corner. Staff encourages the HPC to consider whether the window treatment for the northwest bedroom, involving the removal of one window opening, and addition of two new window openings, meets this Standard. TBD SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Staff has discussed with the applicant the requirements for rehabilitation of the existing windows. That is likely, and may include addition of piggy-back or other integrated storm windows that do not require seasonal removal/reinstallation. Y SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposal includes excavation for the foundation and finished basement under the addition. Based on the construction date of the property, the disturbed nature of the soil, and distance away from natural waterways (beyond 200 ft), it is unlikely that excavation would uncover significant archaeological materials from the pre-contact or Euro-American settlement periods. Y COPYPage 297 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Generally, this Standard calls for additions to meet three main requirements: to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate. The project appears to meet these requirements. The addition is comparatively small in footprint, adding approximately 264 ft2 of new space to the building, making it compatible in size and scale. The massing of the addition will be retained behind the historic building, being flush on the east elevation, and setback slightly on the west elevation. The addition also incorporates the roof forms of the historic building into it, including the hipped roof of the mudroom addition that will be demolished over the new bathroom, and a gabled-end over the new kitchen. Exposed rafter tails, one-over-one windows, and a thin brick foundation for the addition also allude to the features of the historic building. The primary question for the HPC to consider related to this factor is whether the window treatment at the northwest bedroom’s west wall is “destroying historic materials that characterize the property” or if this is an acceptable modification to a secondary elevation. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. The addition will be distinguishable, primarily by being clad in lapboard above the foundation, a common treatment for additions during the historic period as well, and having the foundation clad in, or constituted by, thin brick (less common for additions like this but compatible with the brick cladding of the main building). The addition will be subordinate to the main property. It is flush with the east elevation side wall on the main house, and set in from the west elevation side wall. The roof of the addition will be below that of the historic. The addition is also only adding 264 new ft2 to the property (total square footage is 339 ft2, minus the 75 ft2 mud porch proposed for demolition). This is within the realm of normal additions added onto historic properties under this Standard. TBD COPYPage 298 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 7 SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In these revised plans, this Standard appears to be generally met. The mud room addition is not considered a character-defining feature, and the main brick wall that was formerly along this wall section has already been removed. The modification of the north-facing window at the northwest corner of the house into a passageway into the new bathroom is a common modification to provide passage in between existing and new additions and meets this Standard. The main question to consider under this Standard is whether the modification of the windows on the west elevation of the northwest bedroom meets this Standard, or constitutes a disruption of “the essential form and integrity of the historic property” that would impair the overall historic character of the property. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. TBD INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations, addition, and new construction at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue was designated as a City Landmark by City Council ordinance on December 2, 2014 based on its architectural significance under Standard 3 (Design/Construction). RECOMMENDATION: N/A – Staff typically does not make recommendations for conceptual reviews. The project appears to generally meet the Standards for Rehabilitation but the treatment of the northwest bedroom’s west windows should be discussed under Standards 2, 5, and 9. SAMPLE MOTIONS This is being presented to the Commission as a Conceptual Design Review, so no decision is required. The Commission may adopt a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS AND DENIAL OF OTHERS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for proposed items [list items for COPYPage 299 Item 15. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 8 approval with brief description of proposed work] at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval for items [list items for approval with brief description of proposed work] because they do not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why.] The Commission further finds that other than the stated standard(s) not met, the denied alteration(s) meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, provided the following conditions are met: [list condition(s) in detail and how satisfaction of each condition contributes towards meeting particular Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation] This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why for the basement windows, garage, and rear addition.] The Commission further finds that other than the stated standards not met, the denied alterations meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Landmark Nomination form 2. Current conceptual plan set for project 3. Overall project set of photos from applicant 4. National Park Service Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions to Historic Houses (also available online, HERE) 5. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls (also available online, HERE). 6. February 2022 Drawing set (Denied by HPC on February 17, 2022 - for reference only) 7. Copy of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the adopted standards under which this project is being reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. 8. Applicant responses to HPC Work Session requests (drawings & photos) 9. Staff Presentation COPYPage 300 Item 15. COPYPage 301Item 15. COPYPage 302Item 15. COPYPage 303Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 May 18, 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 Remotely via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting May 18, 2022 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Walter Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Melissa Matsunaka, Aubrie Brennan, Brad Yatabe • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek requested the Commission change the order of items two and three. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek stated Council will issue a proclamation for “A Day of Racial Healing” in honor of Hattie McDaniel on June 7th and it will be accepted by a relative of Hattie McDaniel. Additionally, she provided an update on the Civil Rights Historic Context Project. She also stated staff has issued a second round deadline of July 1st for applications for zero interest rehab loans. Historic Preservation Commission Page 304 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 May 18, 2022 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 20, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member M Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the April 20, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. CONGRESO DEBRIEF (LATINOS IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION, NATIONAL MEETING, DENVER 2022) DESCRIPTION: This will be a short debrief about the 2022 Congreso, the national meeting of the Latinos in Heritage Conservation non-profit that held its 2022 annual meeting in Denver on April 28-30. City staff attended along with Jerry Gavaldon of the Museo de las Tres Colonias. After the debrief, there will be an open discussion among Historic Preservation Commission members and any attending community partners or members of the public about how the content and lessons of Congreso can be leveraged by the Historic Preservation program to better serve Fort Collins’ Hispanic residents and ensure their heritage and historic places are recognized, preserved, and shared with the broader community. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. Bzdek reported on the history of the 2-day Congreso conference held in Denver and discussed some of the topics covered during the meeting, noting the meeting always has an integrated focus on historical, cultural, and natural resources. Mr. Bertolini provided additional information on the topics discussed at the meeting, including the Denver Latinx community, the documentation of Hispanic heritage, and field visits. He discussed key takeaways from the meeting, including the area of ownership versus rental, particularly when addressing the equity challenges of preserving Hispanic history and associated places. Ms. Bzdek commented on the case studies discussed at the conference, including a digital pilot project in Texas. Mr. Bertolini commented on the importance of both historic and contemporary murals in cultural connections. Museo de las Tres Colonias Board Chair Jerry Gavaldon reported on his experiences at the Congreso conference. He discussed gentrification in Fort Collins. Member M. Dunn asked if there are any historic murals in Fort Collins. Mr. Gavaldon replied the Coca- Cola sign in Old Town has been around for decades and suggested an inventory of murals could be a good project. Page 305 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 May 18, 2022 Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim asked if Commissioners could attend this conference in the future. Ms. Bzdek replied in the affirmative and noted the conference is bi-annual and occurs throughout the country. She also noted Councilmember Gutowsky has been to the conference in the past and she will be sent a recording of this discussion. Member M. Dunn requested additional information on a historic district in Denver that was discussed at the conference. Ms. Bzdek provided details regarding the public outreach and the district, which was recognized under criteria related to cultural significance. Chair Knierim asked how the Commission can help elevate this type of work within Fort Collins. Ms. Bzdek replied there are budget offers in that would support two additional staff positions, and if they move forward, Commissioners could comment before Council. [Timestamp: 6:09 p.m.] 3. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES – switched with Item 3 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. Mr. Bertolini provided information on the historic surveys that were completed over the past month and discussed Ms. Bzdek’s participation in the “Living Her Legacy” portrait unveiling. 4. 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW, REHABILITATION & ADDITION DESCRIPTION: This item is a conceptual design review of the applicants’ project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide feedback to the owner/applicant so they can apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness at a future date. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building, with other modifications to the building to allow for adaptive reuse. 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 conceptual review. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) (**Secretary’s Note: Claire Havelda recused herself from this item and Brad Yatabe took her place as the representative from the City Attorney’s Office. Additionally, Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting this is a Conceptual Review of a new proposed addition design. He discussed the Commission’s previous approval of items related to demolition of the non- historic garage and constructing a new garage off the alley. He discussed the role of the Commission and noted it does have the option to move to a Final Design Review as the property has been posted. 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 question from staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the window modification at the northwest corner of the addition. Page 306 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 May 18, 2022 Applicant Presentation Brian Berkhausen, property owner, stated he believes this new plan will meet the applicable goals, standards and guidelines while still providing he and his wife the necessary space they will need to age in place at the home. He discussed the reversal of the staircase and provided additional detail regarding the new proposed plan. Jeff Schneider, representative of the property owners, provided answers to Commission questions from the work session, including the reason the roof pitch was not changed, noting the proposed window pattern is likely not exact, addressing the west elevation, ensuring the addition is different than the existing building, and addressing the removal of the northwest window for life, health, and safety issues, among others. Public Input Laura Bailey commented she was pleased to see the changed design was closer to meeting the applicable Secretary of the Interior standards; however, she had questions about the lower window. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Schneider commented the current window does not meet Code egress requirements, which is why it needs to be replaced. Member Rose asked about the maximum distance above the floor for the window Code requirement. Mr. Schneider replied it is 44 inches. Member Nelsen clarified the head weight and size of the window. Mr. Schneider noted he would need to provide exact measurements at a later date. Member M. Dunn asked if an addition that went straight across was considered as opposed to the proposed L-shaped addition. Mr. Schneider replied the proposal decreases the footprint to not exceed 30% and minimizes the mass. Member M. Dunn commended the new roof design as being subordinate; however, she stated the Commission’s concerns were more related to the design than the size. Mr. Schneider stated the applicants feel this design is subordinate to the existing home while still meeting the needs of the property owner. Member M. Dunn stated she would like to keep the windows if possible. Mr. Schneider commented on window changes from a previous plan and noted these changes are similar but are less visible from the street side and still meet egress Code requirements. Mr. Schneider commented on the likelihood the window would be covered by a bed headboard. Member M. Dunn asked if it would be possible to get the necessary egress with the current window, though a different type of window. She stated the interior layout is not part of the Commission’s concern. Mr. Schneider replied the longevity of the property and use of the space also needs to be considered in terms of life, health, and safety. Mr. Berkhausen commented on the desire to be able to access the space with a walker and stated moving the bed would make aging in place more difficult. Mr. Schneider noted having the ability to age in place is one of the City’s strategic housing goals. Member Rose commended the new plan but questioned the east elevation whereupon there will be the same roof pitch, part with new roofing material and part with the existing roofing material. He commented on the porch having a different roof pitch and questioned whether the same roof pitch could be employed on the addition to create a more definitive break between the existing and the new addition. Mr. Schneider replied that has been considered; however, the Commission has deemed the existing mud porch as non-historic; therefore, it is not being considered as a design element. Member Rose clarified he was referring to the street-facing front of the building and that porch. Mr. Schneider replied there is an offset of the main roof on the front of the home and architecturally, it would seem to be a disservice to the existing bungalow style. He also noted the entire roof will ultimately be replaced at some point. Member Rose suggested considering the roof pitch change. Member Nelsen asked if the entire window or just the glazing will be replaced in the bathroom. Mr. Schneider replied it would just be the glazing as the glass needs to be tempered per Code. He stated it is undecided if the glass would be obscured. Page 307 Item 15. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 May 18, 2022 Member M. Dunn asked Mr. Bertolini about his statement that there is precedent for window changes such as this and requested an example of the Commission allowing such a change for a locally landmarked property. Mr. Bertolini replied his use of the term ‘precedent’ was based on the Parks Service guidance for not disrupting the overall character. He stated it depends on the context, visibility, and the location of the windows and noted he is not aware of a City landmark example where a window change has been approved. Member M. Dunn stated differentiation is important for the addition, not for the existing windows at the rear of the historic house, and proportions are important there. She stated if the Commission can find a rationale with which it feels comfortable, that also fits within the Secretary of the Interior standards, that would enable the filling of the window and building the two new windows, the next concerns are related to the fill-in and whether the windows are in a similar proportion and are simple. Member Rose stated the flexibility provided in the City’s adopted Building Code could make for getting close to the maximum height above the floor and arranging proportions so they more closely conform to what is differentiated and yet compatible. He suggested there may be a way to create the necessary egress windows while still accommodating the preservation needs. Mr. Schneider replied changing out the window to be an egress window, that may or may not accommodate egress, would still require a variance from the Building Department. Mr. Bertolini noted those variances would be at the discretion of the Chief Building Official and they are typically applied when a character-defining feature is being threatened. Member Carlock commended the changes to the plan and noted the windows on the east side are not similar and do not line up with the band; therefore, there is already variation in the windows and the proposed change would be a reasonable adaptation to achieve the aging in place goal. Member Nelsen stated the actual window measurements are important. Mr. Schneider noted this plan is an overall concept to allow the Commission to weigh in on whether this will philosophically work. Mr. Schneider requested input on the brick grounding of the exposed foundation wall for the addition. Member M. Dunn supported the thin brick proposal. Member Rose commended the continuation of the band, though he suggested a colored stucco could be just as effective a treatment as the thin brick. Mr. Schneider replied that had been considered; however, he questioned whether having three different materials stacked on top of each other would be appropriate from a design perspective. Member M. Dunn commended the size of the new addition plan and noted design matters more than square footage. She stated it is worth exploring a more rectangular, simple form addition, inset perhaps on both sides with the bedroom behind the existing brick wall so the new windows can be exactly as desired and to allow the existing window to be maintained. Mr. Schneider stated the applicant team is attempting to be respectful of past conversations related to square footage. He stated a rectangular addition would be much larger than what is proposed and suggested the functionality of this proposal is greater than what would be provided by a rectangular addition. Mr. Berkhausen asked if it would be possible for Mr. Bertolini to do some research on the precedent of window modifications that have occurred at the federal level. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Mr. Berkhausen commented on the benefits of the proposed plan and asked if the north wall could be removed. Mr. Schneider noted removing that wall would allow for additional floor space flexibility and a smaller addition. Member Rose stated he does not believe the existing brick wall is a character-defining feature and it could be worth investigating its removal to provide changes to the addition that may be beneficial. Chair Knierim concurred and noted the brick wall would no longer be an exterior feature. Member Carlock stated the Commissioners commented in January that the retention of the brick wall was important to the reversibility aspect. Mr. Schneider stated that was his concern as well. Member M. Dunn stated she would rather lose the bricks in the back than the bricks that would be lost to the new windows. Mr. Schneider noted the back wall removal would be 96 square feet whereas the windows would be 8 to 10 square feet. Member M. Dunn reiterated her thoughts on a rectangular addition. Mr. Schneider replied he is concerned from an aesthetic and architectural nature that that would not be an appropriate feel and would not be complementary to the existing home. Page 308 Item 15. Page 309Item 15. 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held MAY 18, 2022 Hybrid Meeting – 300 Laporte Avenue and via Zoom Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: 1306 West Mountain – Addition – Concept Design Review, Rehabilitation and Addition Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, May 18, 2022 Commissioners Present: Staff Members Present: Kurt Knierim, Chair Brad Yatabe Jim Rose, Vice Chair Jim Bertolini Margo Carlock Maren Bzdek Meg Dunn Aubrie Brennan Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Page 310 Item 15. 2 CHAIR KURT KNIERIM: We’ll move on to agenda item number four, the 1306 West Mountain 1 Avenue Concept Design Review, Rehabilitation and Addition, and we’ll begin with a staff report. 2 MR. JIM BERTOLINI: One moment; I’ll get the slides up. 3 MS. CLAIRE HAVELDA: And, just for the record Commission members, I am recused on this 4 item so I’m going to leave, and Brad Yatabe will be here to advise you. 5 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, and while Jim is getting that up, are there any other recusals for 6 this item? 7 COMMISSIONER ERIC GUENTHER: Yes, I’m recused from this issue, however, again, retain 8 the right to make a comment either this evening or at a future meeting as a private citizen. 9 CHAIR KNIERIM: Very good, thank you. Yeah, go ahead and take yourself out…okay, and 10 we’ll call you back when we’re finished. Alright, Jim, I think we’re set with our recusals. 11 MR. BERTOLINI: Thank you. Again, this is a conceptual design review for the City landmark at 12 1306 West Mountain Avenue. This is a new design for a property that’s been before the Commission a 13 couple times before. So, just to set the stage, this is just a site map showing the current property with a 14 rough outline of the proposed rear addition; that’s the topic for this conceptual design review. If you’ll 15 recall, in February, the Commission approved some project elements, specifically related to demolishing 16 this non-historic 1968 garage and constructing a new garage off the alley, but the addition as designed in 17 February was denied. So, this is a conceptual review to scope out a new design for that before the owner 18 commissions construction drawings and comes back for final review. Just as a reminder, on conceptual 19 reviews, you’re not being asked to make a decision this evening. The property, however, has been posted, 20 so you do have the option to move to a final design review if you feel you have sufficient information to 21 do so. Your primary task this evening is to just identify and discuss with the applicant particularly any 22 conflicts with the standards for rehabilitation that we see, or any problems that you see with the current 23 concept. I will stress that most of the information that you’re seeing tonight is conceptual only; it’s 24 designed to give you an idea of where the project is headed so that you can kind of steer in an appropriate 25 direction before they commit to full construction drawings. 26 Just a little bit of a reminder on City landmarks, on this particular landmark, it’s named the 27 Jackson-Bailey property, landmarked in 2014. It was designated under standard three, or criterion C, for 28 architectural significance as an outstanding example of a Craftsman cottage. It was constructed in 1922. 29 The designation also includes the smaller 1942 garage at the northwest corner of the property. 30 Just a little bit of a review timeline to jog folks’ memory. This initially started back in January of 31 2021; that was ultimately the project that was partially approved related to some of the window treatments 32 on the main house, and then the garage, but the addition in that iteration was denied. This is a new 33 conceptual review that’s before you this evening…you’re being asked to provide feedback on that. 34 So, the proposal here is for a relatively small addition onto the back of the building. The total 35 square footage is about 340 feet, about 260 of that is new. The small mud porch addition that’s on the 36 back there is being demolished as part of that…that’s where that math comes in. It also includes a 37 modification of one window and installation of two new windows at the northwest bedroom of the 38 house…of the historic house. This is just an outline, a site plan here showing existing conditions. So, 39 these are all existing buildings here, the historic house, historic garage at the northwest corner, and then 40 the non-historic garage. I do want to just clarify on the scope, we are not discussing the northern part 41 Page 311 Item 15. 3 only because the Commission’s already approved that work in February. Over on the right side, this is 1 the footprint of the proposed addition to the building. 2 Just to provide a little bit of context on existing conditions. Just the front of the property 3 presenting to Mountain Avenue. This in the center is the northeast corner of the building, and here at 4 center, this is that mud porch addition along with a concrete deck; this would all be demolished. There is 5 not a brick wall; this is fully open behind the mud room addition. And so the new addition would be 6 attached here, similarly to what is there now…just extend out roughly over the current footprint of this 7 addition plus the deck. And, here on the right side of this slide, there was a question from a 8 Commissioner last week about the junctions…this is just a zoomed in reflection of the brick wall here, 9 and then the lap board siding proposed here on the east addition. So, it is effectively flush in the proposed 10 design. A couple of other photographs of existing conditions. And in terms of proposed alterations, we 11 did direct…or recommend I should say…that focus be on the west elevation since that’s where the 12 majority of alterations are being proposed. So, this is a concept sketch…updated concept sketch; you 13 should have received this in your email earlier today. Just showing a more accurate reflection of the 14 soldier course that’s along this west elevation in relationship to the windows, both those that are proposed 15 to remain, and then this modification here towards the northwest corner. These are some additional 16 photographs a little bit closer showing that treatment area. So, again, here in that bottom center 17 photograph, that’s where that window modification would take place. Also showing the rear elevation 18 with combination of a gable roof and hip roof format to the addition, as well as a deck extending off the 19 rear. Just repeating a couple of rear photographs just for context here to show existing conditions. 20 Staff’s analysis of these concept sketches is that the applicable rehabilitation standards are 21 generally met. The key standards for this project and most additions on historic buildings are going to be 22 two, five, nine, and ten. That generally deals with preserving the overall historic character, preserving 23 specific character-defining features, and then ensuring exterior alterations are compatible, distinguishable, 24 and subordinate to the historic building, and can reversed without significant reconstruction. 25 You have a couple of guidance documents in your packet just related to specific work items that 26 staff is recommending the discussion focus on. This is a little bit of a step-by-step standards analysis. 27 For standards two and five related to overall character and specific character-defining features, this 28 appears generally met overall with the project. The main question is just about the northwest bedroom 29 windows…not ideal, but there is precedent with other projects on historic buildings of modifying window 30 patterns, especially if they’re not as visible and they’re towards the rear of side elevations or are on rear 31 elevations. Related to standard nine about being compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate to the 32 historic building, that does appear to be met for the most part. And in terms of reversibility, especially 33 because behind the existing mud porch addition on the back of the building, there is not a brick wall there; 34 that’s already been punched out in a previous rehab project…there’s really no concerns with the addition 35 about reversibility either. Again, the main question from staff for the Commission is about the 36 appropriateness of the window modification at the northwest corner. 37 There were several questions posed at the work session last week. Some of those I’ll refer you to 38 the applicant; both the property owner and their contractor, Jeff Schneider, are here this evening for that. 39 We covered the detail of the joint on the east side of the building, which will be flush between 40 the…essentially flush between the brick and the new lap board. There are some photographs that were 41 included in your packet, and that extra attachment discussing why the roofline at the rear is being 42 matched, or why it’s being tied into the existing roofline, and a lot of that is just because of the existing 43 interior conditions. 44 Page 312 Item 15. 4 There was also a question about…kind of…any guidance from staff about, on the north, or rear 1 elevation with the addition, if there’s any guidance about doors and windows. Very generally, staff tends 2 to recommend that…and the standards and guidelines recommend…that those just be simplified versions 3 of what’s on the historic building. So, typically, one over one sash windows, if there’s sash windows on 4 the front…that sort of thing to just carry through a simpler version of design. You have the updated 5 sketch of the west elevation. On the questions about the relationship between bathroom and bedroom and 6 what’s motivating that northwest window, I’ll refer you to the applicant once they’re at the podium to 7 present their portion of the project. 8 There was a question about…on the bathroom window…there is a code compliance issue with 9 bathroom windows, especially if there is going to be a shower or something right next to the window, 10 there needs to be tempered glass…either tempered glass or a film is appropriate. That was something we 11 workshopped with the Chief Building Official. So, either one is appropriate. I think from a preservation 12 standpoint, the main thing would be just trying to preserve the wood frame. Typically with these kinds of 13 simpler windows, you can take out the glass, kind of disassemble the window, take out the glass, and 14 reinstall code compliant glass, or energy efficient glass, depending on what you’re going for. 15 And then the other questions about the casement windows and adding kind of a faux meeting rail 16 across the middle, and products, and also the thin brick product proposed for the addition foundation, I’ll 17 refer you to the applicant on those questions. 18 Again, staff, since staff’s assessment is that most of the standards, most of the project, meets the 19 standards, that the main topic of conversation we’re hoping for some guidance and clarity for the 20 applicant on is that treatment of the northwest windows, but of course, if there’s other items that the 21 Commission would like to discuss, that is your prerogative. And again, just a reminder of the role for the 22 Commission here. This is a conceptual review, so you’re not being asked to vote, just provide some clear 23 feedback for the applicant so they’ve got a good direction forward to get a successful final approval. You 24 do have the option, since the property has been posted, to move forward to final design review if you feel 25 you have sufficient information. So, I’ll be available if there’s questions for staff. I believe both the 26 property owner, Mr. Brian Berkhausen, and the contractor, Mr. Jeff Schneider, are here and will have a 27 short applicant presentation as well. 28 CHAIR KNIERIM: Very good, thank you, Jim. And welcome, Jeff. And I think that…are the 29 applicants coming in online? Okay…and Aubrie, you can help us with that. Welcome. And, do sign in 30 if you haven’t already, Jeff, thank you. 31 MR. BRIAN BERKHAUSEN: Good evening, everyone; my name is Brian Berkhausen. Thank 32 you so much for the opportunity to meet with you tonight and answer your questions. We love the house 33 and we believe we’ve put together a plan that will meet the goals, standards, and guidelines of the HPC. 34 And this addition is less than thirty percent of the square footage, and I understand there’s a guideline that 35 says thirty percent is sort of the rule. We’re at about twenty plus percent. It has been our goal all along to 36 make some modifications so that my wife and I can age in place. Working with our design team, we went 37 back into the core of the building, changed the direction of the staircase…at prior meetings we talked 38 about the fact that they’re pretty steep. On April 27th, we had Jim over to the house, and we walked 39 through it, had a firsthand look at the conditions. And by reversing the staircase, we are now, as you saw 40 in the proposed plan, expanding out to the north with a bathroom addition and a small addition to the 41 kitchen over that raised patio area. What we are doing now with the construction is we are going to, 42 underneath that structure, we will expand the basement in that area, and the staircase now, as I said, will 43 go the opposite direction…it will be a much longer staircase going to the north underneath those areas 44 Page 313 Item 15. 5 that we are proposing to add. Jeff is there this evening. I think that we look forward to the opportunity to 1 talk with you and answer any questions. 2 And with that, I’ll turn it over…oh, first of all, Jim, thanks again for coming out to meet with us, I 3 think it helped all of us to get calibrated. On the prior plan that we had, we were going to modify the 4 existing upstairs bathroom, and we were going to remove the existing bathroom window on that west wall 5 and put two new small windows on each side of that bathroom window, existing bathroom window. With 6 this plan, we are still interested in trying to maintain as much of the living space on the first level to allow 7 us to age in place. With that, we came up with the idea to push the bathroom addition to the master 8 bedroom to the north, and we walked through that space with Jim, and that bedroom is pretty tight. We 9 are going to turn the bed so that the bed wall will be where that existing northwest bedroom wall window 10 is, and we will then use the existing door…existing window in the north elevation, and we will make that 11 into a doorway into the new bathroom and closet to the north. This way we’re preserving the exterior 12 brick. We are…there’s the opening now going to the closet and bathroom. That door will be in the 13 position where the existing window is, so there will be minimal disruption to the existing brick on the 14 north wall. And, on the west wall, you can see from Jim’s illustration there, the window that is 15 there…and Jeff can go into the details, but we’re trying to come up with egress windows that will be code 16 compliant for safety reasons. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Jeff to go through it. And thank you again 17 for the opportunity to be with you this evening. 18 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Brian, and welcome, Jeff. 19 MR. JEFF SCHNEIDER: Thank you guys. Good evening, Jeff Schneider, helping represent 20 Brian and Barbara Berkhausen, owners of 1306 West Mountain. I’m happy to go through your questions 21 that you provided during the work session, or if you want to wait on that…it’s up to you. So, you guys 22 decide how you want to present, so… 23 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yeah, why don’t you start with the questions. 24 MR. SCHNEIDER: Sure. So, starting with question number one. So, the question number one 25 was about the east elevation. So, the existing brick wall is about ten and a half inches thick; we are 26 proposing a new six-inch wall to comply with the energy code with lap siding materials. We’re obviously 27 trying to maintain the interior plane of the existing wall, so that’s why there’s that three to three and a half 28 discrepancy from the existing exterior of the brick wall to the new exterior east portion of the lap siding. 29 So, I don’t know if that helps clarify that…and the one we did blow up…or I did provide a diagram that 30 showed that existing elevation. We show it at three inch, because right now it’s about three and a half to 31 three and a quarter depending on where you measure the width. So, hopefully that answers the question 32 for you guys on that. Would you like me to move on through the questions, or…do you need to 33 address…? 34 CHAIR KNIERIM: Address the questions, and then we’ll have plenty of time to ask questions… 35 MR. SCHNEIDER: Absolutely. So, number two was tying into the existing roof line versus 36 matching the back porch. Well, the biggest reason for that is, we’re trying to maintain a flat ceiling in 37 that kitchen area. So, the pictures that we provided to Jim, which I don’t know if Jim can pull up…the 38 existing back porch actually is dropped about ten inches. So, we’re trying to maintain a flat ceiling 39 through that whole kitchen area, and so we’re trying to maintain a plate line that matches the existing 40 elements, so we don’t have a funky elevation change in the cabinets along that east portion of the wall. 41 So, that’s why we’re trying to match the same wall plane in order to match the same cabinets on the 42 interior. The other thing, too, is we’re trying to…you know, what we’ve heard through the last year plus 43 Page 314 Item 15. 6 of discussion is that simple bungalow design, right? We’re trying to maintain simple roof lines. And so 1 the concern that we had, or I had, was trying to change that roof pitch again on that eastern plane, because 2 the eastern plane seemed to be the most concerning for most Commission members because that’s the 3 most visible from Mountain Avenue. So, trying to keep that very simple, very basic roof line, wall line 4 along the eastern plane, and then tying it back in so the western portion, where we have to step back in 5 because of the setback for existing code conditions, because we don’t comply with the northwest corner 6 currently today, so we thought we could lower that roof line and not have it overcome and be 7 minimalized. So, it’s just trying to tie the two together to make it be simplistic, clean, and be less 8 obtrusive than the existing roof conditions. 9 Number three, at this point, we haven’t finalized the interior floorplans, so what we’re doing is 10 proposing kind of what we think might be a proposed layout for windows and everything else. I think it’s 11 probably halfway close, but I can guarantee that it is not exact. Our goal with you guys is to try and get 12 the outside skeleton philosophy, to make sure that you’re happy with it, that you’re satisfied with the 13 proposed outside plan, and then we’ll work on the interior and say, okay, here’s where everything is going 14 to be, here’s where the windows are going to be, and everything else. So, I’ll be honest, we threw out 15 kind of a suggested idea of what it might look like, but I can guarantee that that’s probably not the final 16 proposed idea. 17 The number four, the west elevation. So, the west elevation…you guys have seen the proposed 18 sketch, and at this point, we have provided some updated photos and an updated sketch of what it may 19 look like. And so…which goes into question number five. So, yes, this is driving a code provision. So, 20 the existing windows, when fully opened, only provide us with 4.35 square feet of open space, or clear 21 space, for egress. By code standards, we have to have 5.7 square feet. So, we’re looking at this as a life, 22 health, safety issue in saying, okay, how do we provide life, health, safety? We’re more than happy to try 23 to maintain, or keep, or modify that window, but then we’re going to have to get a variance from the 24 Chief Building Official and everything else, too, so, it’s a balance of what we’re trying to do. The second 25 comment I want to make is that, on previous iterations, we were going to modify the existing bathroom 26 window and…remove that one bathroom window and provide two windows on the sides. So, we’re 27 taking the same philosophy, but moving it further to the north, or further to the back corner of the 28 property. So, it’s something that the Commission didn’t have a concern with prior, so granted, there may 29 not…prior may not have been a concern of going into that bond line, which I respect and understand. So, 30 we can go wider with the windows and make them shallower, but then if the headboard is on that wall, 31 we’re still going to block the windows with the headboard, so then we’re going against the life, health, 32 safety. So, it’s a question…concern of what’s more important: life, health, safety or maintaining that 33 bond line for those two additional windows for that back northeast…or sorry…northwest bedroom? 34 Number six was a question about adding grills to casement windows. We have done that in the 35 past, which is not a problem, so we can do that with this current design, which is why we’re here today. 36 But, I also want to comment, too, that the Secretary of Interior standards also specifies that the new 37 addition needs to be distinctly different than the existing building. So, what’s more…so we’re adding lap 38 siding versus brick. Do we want the windows to be distinguishably different than the…new versus the 39 old, too? So, that’s a conversation I wanted to bring up with you guys, is, do we really want to match the 40 existing window treatment, which we’re more than happy to do, but when you look at the Secretary of 41 Interior standards, it definitely says to please distinguish from new versus existing. So, doing the 42 casement windows…we’ll do that, absolutely, but we’re more than happy to look at treatments, and 43 we’ve done that in the past. I will say the window manufacturers don’t provide a very good 44 looking…between the two. It’s a good example of what might happen, which is probably fine from the 45 Page 315 Item 15. 7 street, but when you get up close, it’s just not a good replication of the true distinguishment between a 1 double-hung versus a casement window. 2 Looking at number seven, the reason for removing the northwest window is obviously to gain the 3 egress to meet current code and for life, health, safety issues. Unless there was a concern or question 4 about the north window…so, at this point, the north window will obviously be removed to gain access for 5 that addition. But, the window that’s on the west side is more of a removal for being able to put the 6 headboard to the west side and to gain the egress requirements for life, health, safety. 7 Number eight…so the biggest reason for complying with the reversibility of the existing window 8 opening is trying to add modern conveniences to the existing bedroom. So, we’re trying to create two 9 bathrooms on the main floor, one that’s private for the owners’ suite and then one that’s for the public. 10 So, the existing bathroom will remain for public use, and obviously trying to create that private owners’ 11 suite bathroom. So, again, when you read the Interior standards, this is not an abnormal addition, trying 12 to create modern conveniences onto the back of existing historic buildings that accommodate modern 13 conveniences with historic properties. 14 And then number nine…at this time, we have not made a final decision, or selection, or anything 15 on the brick or the finishes for that concrete wall going from the top of foundation down. There’s about 16 twenty-four inches worth of exposed concrete that will be proposed, and we’re just trying to enhance and 17 ground that new addition to replicate the existing conditions. We don’t have to be an exact match to the 18 existing brick; it would be something complementary, but we definitely want to do something that 19 grounds it to where we don’t just have a twenty-three- to twenty-four-inch-tall gray wall that sticks out. 20 So, we’re trying to…it’s more of an architectural appeasing concept versus a…trying to replicate and 21 match. And then we just thought it would be appropriate to match that bond row on the bottom half, just 22 to replicate what’s there…just to try and ground that new addition so when people are looking at, 23 especially the west side, with it being very lineal and everything else, that it’s a replication of what’s 24 currently there. And with that, I believe that answers the questions that you guys provided during the 25 work session and I’m more than happy to answer any other questions you have. 26 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Jeff. And we’ll have plenty…any questions now from 27 Commissioners? We’re going to have plenty of time to talk about this, but we also…I’d like to give 28 public comment an opportunity as well, but any questions for Jeff right off the bat? Alright, thank you, 29 Jeff, I’m sure we will have plenty of discussion time later. Thank you. And at this time, if there are 30 members of the public that would like to comment on this, we have time for that. So, are there any 31 members of the public, either virtually or in the…in person that would like to comment at this time? 32 Alright, seeing none… 33 MR. BERTOLINI: Mr. Chairman, we do have one online. 34 CHAIR KNIERIM: Oh, I’m sorry. Thank you. 35 MR. BERTOLINI: I’m just waiting for Aubrie to switch that over. 36 MS. BRENNAN: I’m trying to promote the public commentor to panelist…I need her to accept 37 my request and then she should be on her way. 38 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Aubrie. 39 MS. LAURA BAILEY: Hi, can you hear me now? 40 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yes. 41 Page 316 Item 15. 8 MS. BAILEY: Okay. 1 CHAIR KNIERIM: Welcome Laura. 2 MS. BAILEY: Thank you. Hello everyone. I think most of you know me, I’m the daughter of 3 Robert Bailey who worked with the Commission to have that home designated. And I’ll make my 4 comment really short. I just want to say I’m pleased to see a design that seems to be much more in sync 5 with the Secretary standards. I do hope you’ll have a good discussion over the windows to ensure that 6 that is really the case, that…I mean, to my mind, they were quite wide, and I just hope you’ll really 7 explore that to ensure that that’s the only way to go. But, other than that, I will leave my comment at that. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you very much. Alright, seeing no other public comment, we will 10 move into discussion. So, Commissioners, feel free to address your questions to the applicant or to the 11 architect…or the…Jeff. Alright, so… 12 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, excuse me, but do I have a chance for rebuttal for the question on public 13 comment? 14 CHAIR KNIERIM: Certainly. 15 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. So, the current window does not meet egress; it’s only 4.35 square 16 feet when it’s fully operable. And so, the standard is the 5.7 square feet for current code. So, that’s the 17 main purpose. When Jim was on site, we talked about the potential of trying to figure out a different way 18 of doing that and modifying that. But, after measuring the opening for the clear space, we determined 19 that it was not feasible because it does not meet current code, so… 20 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Go ahead, Jim Rose? 21 COMMISSIONER JIM ROSE: Jeff, I have a question about the other part of that code 22 requirement. I think there’s a maximum distance above the floor, right? 23 MR. SCHNEIDER: Forty-four inches above… 24 COMMISSIONER ROSE: And so, I’m wondering with the illustration you gave us if that 25 penetration of that brick band that you’ve identified…going down below that and breaking that…that’s a 26 consequence of trying to keep that height so that that’s a function not of your aesthetic choice but of a 27 code issue? 28 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir, we could probably gain about two to two and a half inches to meet 29 the minimum forty-four inches of code, but we’d still be below that bond line… 30 COMMISSIONER ROSE: Okay, thank you. 31 MR. SCHNEIDER: …current code…if we were to go a little bit wider and a little bit shallower in 32 the height. So, our goal was to try and go a little bit narrower in order to maintain the headboard so we 33 don’t block the windows from obstruction for egress purposes. 34 COMMISSIONER ANNE NELSEN: So that 3046 window that’s currently there has a sill height 35 that’s higher than forty-four inches? 36 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. 37 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: What’s the head height? 38 Page 317 Item 15. 9 MR. SCHNEIDER: It’s at the…and I can’t guarantee that’s a 30…where are you getting that’s a 1 30…? 2 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: From your floorplans. It’s an existing… 3 MR. SCHNEIDER: 3046? So, it’s at the normal seven-foot height. So, I cannot confirm exact 4 dimensions of that…I’d be more than happy to get you those exact dimensions, but it’s roughly about that 5 normal seven-foot height for header height. 6 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And probably courses out with the brick? 7 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. So, my guess is that the bricks were laid and then the windows were 8 installed based on that bond line back in the day. So it may be seven foot two inches…but I honestly 9 cannot give you an honest answer for exactly what that is currently. 10 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Sorry…I’m going to just do a little bit of math here for just a 11 second if anyone else has other questions. 12 COMMISSIONER MEG DUNN: So, I have a question. So, I’m wondering…for this 13 addition…it’s got that…it’s like an L-shape so that there’s a little back patio. Is that on purpose or, like, 14 had you considered doing an addition that just went straight across, or is there a specific reason to have 15 that cut out there? Just the shape, I guess, of the addition. 16 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, twofold…one is to keep the square footage down and not exceed that 17 thirty percent. So, with the new addition, we’re only at about twenty-four percent of new additional 18 square footage. So, it was to minimize the footprint onto the rear addition of the house and also to 19 minimize the mass. So, changing the roof line with going back and creating that L-shape to the west, 20 we’re able to drop that pitch down and minimize the mass on the back side, or the west side, of the 21 property. 22 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Which you did a great job at…I love how the roof…I mean, not 23 love…it fits much better, it’s more subordinate. I’m just trying to think through these windows, and if the 24 bedroom had been part of the addition and the bathroom was the current bedroom, if that would work. 25 MR. SCHNEIDER: But the problem is the square footage and maintaining that existing opening 26 to allow for reversibility so we’re not taking away from that existing brick wall. So, if you wanted us…or 27 allowed us to remove that existing brick wall on the northwest portion, or the north portion of the 28 property, we can completely redesign everything. But, we’re trying to maintain that existing historic 29 brick wall that runs… 30 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: That’s good that you’re leaving the brick wall. I think that’s 31 good, and it fits with the Secretary of Interior standards, so… 32 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, just trying to fit within the confines of livability of the kitchen versus the 33 needs of the bathroom/closet area and the bedroom. So, again, looking at the square footage and the 34 footprint was more of a concern that we were looking at in this rendition…to minimize the overall impact 35 on the overall square footage. 36 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: So, you could have about another hundred square feet and still be 37 under the thirty-three percent…that’s what I was wondering. 38 Page 318 Item 15. 10 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, you guys told me…so, again, it’s arbitrary and capricious…you guys 1 have…the numbers are not…right, so… 2 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Right, really it has to do with the design, that’s more important. 3 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct, and so that’s what we’re…based on the last iterations that we’ve 4 been through and listening to the Commission’s response and working with the Commission and staff, we 5 felt this was a subordinate project that met the needs of the property owner and obtained the goals of all 6 for this property, and so that’s why we moved forward with this, what I’m going say, skeleton design, at 7 this point. I guarantee the kitchen is not laid out; the bathroom kind of is because it was kind of one of 8 those, how are we going to function, but the kitchen right now is not a hundred percent laid out based on 9 functionality of the kitchen and what makes the most sense from flow and everything else. So, we’re just 10 listening to the Commission about how do we maintain that smaller footprint, and subordinate to the 11 existing structure, from a roof form and also a square footage. And this is the design that we came up 12 with at this point. So, if you allow us that hundred square feet, we’ll figure out how to add that, but again, 13 we’re not trying to extend this for another six months; we’re trying to create a plan that makes sense for 14 everyone throughout the community and that fits this property. 15 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I think this new addition is definitely better in terms of 16 subordination. The roof height is significantly better…I think it already was well-differentiated, so you 17 maintained that, I think that was good, it appears to be compatible. It’s just the windows; I’m trying to 18 figure out, how can we have a situation where we don’t have to change the windows? 19 MR. SCHNEIDER: But keep in mind that the last reiteration we had was modifying the bathroom 20 windows to a similar design philosophy…removing the one, adding two to the side. And I’ll be perfectly 21 honest, they weren’t as tall, but those didn’t have to meet egress. So, again, it’s one of those…same 22 philosophy, but we’re moving it to the northern part of the property…less visible from street side, and 23 we’re meeting existing life, health, safety issues from an egress standpoint, because the windows 24 currently today…both windows are the exact same size…the windows that are on the west side and the 25 north side currently do not meet egress. So, we’re trying to maintain from a livability standpoint and a 26 long-term care standpoint, that they do meet life, health, safety for everyone. 27 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Right. 28 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: So, the existing window that’s there…3046…if you were to 29 convert that to a casement, would actually be bigger than the windows that you’re proposing. At a seven-30 o head height, if it’s four feet, six inches tall…I didn’t get as much sleep as I had hoped last night, so 31 doublecheck my math, but I think that gives you two feet, six inches as a sill height, which would be 32 thirty inches. Forty-four inches, which is the code required minimum for the opening, is three feet, eight, 33 so I think you have one foot, two inches. 34 MR. SCHNEIDER: And I would have to confirm all that, to be honest with you. I did not 35 measure that today, and I did not go inside of the property to confirm all that. So, I can…more than 36 happy to confirm all that, but, again, it was just maintaining that egress. 37 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Yeah, absolutely. I don’t think anyone on the Commission is 38 going to argue with, you know, the importance of health, safety, and welfare. But I think that you could 39 meet that with that existing opening if it was a different window type. 40 MR. SCHNEIDER: How do you explain a different window type? 41 Page 319 Item 15. 11 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: If you changed the double- or single-hung window to a casement 1 window. 2 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, the new windows are proposed to be casements in order to meet egress. 3 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Right, I understand that…the existing double-hung window that 4 you’re proposing to remove and fill in…I think you have the sill height, and I think you have the clear 5 opening…if it was a casement window, not a double-hung. The issue with double-hungs is that it 6 essentially reduces your clear opening width by half. 7 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct…but then we’re also…if we’re putting the headboard there, then 8 we’re blocking the complete window and then we have no egress at all. So, at the end of the day, what’s 9 better? We can change the window, put a casement window in that looks like a double-hung and meet 10 egress, and then put a headboard against it and have no egress…so what’s the better alternative for the 11 future and longevity? 12 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: The headboard is not required for historic preservation, so I think 13 we need to consider the exterior of the property without, you know, you can do the interior however you 14 feel it needs to be done, but I don’t think it’s something we can take into consideration for moving the 15 window, because there’s going to be something interior. 16 MR. SCHNEIDER: But I’m also talking about reality and what’s going to happen, and so do we 17 really want to block the one egress window, or the one window into that bedroom, or into that sleeping 18 room because that’s where they choose or would like to put their headboard because of flow? With 19 keeping the existing window on the north side and flow in and out of that room to where they don’t see 20 the bed…or the head of the bed…when you look through the door…so it’s a privacy issue as well, too. 21 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: So, if it’s possible, as Anne is saying, that you could get the 22 egress space and height that you need, like distance, with the current window, as long as it’s a different 23 type of window, then I think that’s what we need to consider, that’s what fits under the Secretary of 24 Interior standards. How the interior is laid out or what furniture is used just isn’t a part of what we 25 consider. And that’s really up to the homeowner, how he’s going to lay out the furniture in the interior. 26 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, and I respect that, but I’m being honest about what’s going to happen. 27 And so, the longevity of the property and the use of the space I think also needs to be a consideration for 28 life, health, safety. 29 MR. BERKHAUSEN: This is Brian Berkhausen, and on the illustration you’re seeing on the 30 board now, the…Jim was in that room with us; it’s a fairly tight space, and what we were trying to do was 31 accomplish the ability to move around and access that with…a walker or something else…that we could 32 go through that door, go straight through at the foot of the bed and then into the new bathroom. It…if the 33 bed were to be put on the opposite wall, the headboard, it would be a little cumbersome for us to age in 34 place navigating around that bed, and so we were trying to figure that piece out. Thank you. 35 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, it’s about trying to create another fifty to a hundred years’ worth of use 36 for this house, for property owners to age in place, which is one of our strategic housing goals, plans, 37 correct? And so, I understand that it may not be a hundred percent in guidelines with historic 38 preservation, but it’s also promoting other plans that we have within the City for aging in place and 39 preserving our existing building stock. 40 Page 320 Item 15. 12 COMMISSIONER ROSE: Mr. Chairman…Jeff, I have another question about…now this is the 1 east elevation…and, you know, and I do commend the downsizing. I think you’ve really tried to scale it 2 to really fit what I think of Craftsman bungalow is suggesting. But, the one challenge I think you’re 3 going to confront is on the east side, you have an addition with the same pitch that’s going to have an 4 existing roofing material and a new roofing material. And yes, as you cited earlier, the standard number 5 nine says we should distinguish between the new materials and the existing materials. And, I guess just 6 for…and I don’t expect you to respond to this off the cuff, but my observation is that the porch in 7 this…on this structure has a different roof pitch, and I’m wondering if there isn’t a reason we couldn’t 8 employ that same roof pitch on the addition that then brings down that roof height and creates a definite 9 break between the existing and the new. I think it would still fit with your 3:12 pitch for what you’re 10 suggesting on the hipped portion. So, it’s just…as I say, it’s hitting you with something you probably 11 haven’t considered, but… 12 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, absolutely, and so we’ve talked about that Mr. Rose. And so, we’ve also 13 deemed that the existing mud porch off the rear is a non-historic value, or non-historic attribute to the 14 property. So, that’s already been determined by the Commission, so we’re not looking at that as a design 15 element to the rear because the Commission has already said that that’s not…that’s a non-historic asset to 16 the existing property. So, that’s why we didn’t take that existing roof pitch…we tried to… 17 COMMISSIONER ROSE: I guess you don’t…maybe I didn’t make myself…I’m not talking 18 about any of the old porch that’s going to come away, I’m talking about the front of the building, the 19 street-facing front that has a different roof pitch over the porch portion than the main house. And so, if 20 you took that same roof pitch and took it to the back, you have an automatic break between the main 21 house roof pitch and the addition roof pitch. 22 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. And so the big distinguish between the rear and the front is there is 23 a two and a half offset of the main roof on the front. So, the front roof porch, there’s a two-and-a-half-24 foot setback from…excuse me…from east to west. So, if we had that significant offset…we’d me more 25 than happy to look at that…but from an architectural standpoint, we thought it would be a concern or a 26 disservice to the architectural features of the existing bungalow style, which is why on the west side 27 where we have a foot plus offset to meet, that’s why we were able to change that roof pitch to minimize 28 that. But we don’t have that same offset on the east side. So, that’s why I wanted to maintain that same 29 roof pitch, to maintain the simple lines of the bungalow Craftsman style on the east side of the property. 30 And we’re more than happy to reduce the roof pitch on the west side because of that offset. 31 COMMISSIONER ROSE: And that…you know, that frankly may be an aesthetically more 32 compatible solution. It still leaves you with the challenge that you have to put new shingles on the 33 addition that in some way are not going to be distinguished. You know, I don’t think it makes sense to 34 change a material just for the sake of standard number nine. 35 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct, but again, too, give it five years, ten years, and the roof is going to 36 be replaced anyway, and all that roof is going to look exactly the same. Give it another hail storm, what 37 have you, the material selections are going to be the exact same color, function, features, that are 38 currently there, and it’s just going to be time when the new is compatible with the old because the old is 39 going to be replaced because of some either weather event or just because of time elements of the 40 duration of the existing product. 41 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Jim, is what you’re saying…by changing the roof pitch then you’re 42 able to differentiate…they could be the same singles eventually, but you can see the change in plane…is 43 that…? 44 Page 321 Item 15. 13 MR. SCHNEIDER: What I’m concerned about…going against the bungalow simple lines…and 1 that was expressed to us dramatically in the past projects…or what we’ve presented to you guys in the 2 past, is simple lines, clean lines, straight lines, and so that’s why my impression is you guys wanted that 3 eastern plane to be a very simple, straight line to match the bungalow design, which we’re currently 4 presenting. 5 COMMISSIONER ROSE: I just think it might be worth taking a look at to just get an idea 6 visually of how that…how that would work…I don’t know, and it might not. 7 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: So, back to the west side and the windows. At the bathroom…I 8 was a little unclear if you were talking about replacing the whole window or are you just replacing the 9 glazing? 10 MR. SCHNEIDER: Just the glazing. 11 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Okay. 12 MR. SCHNEIDER: Just to provide tempered glass with the modifications on the interior. 13 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And it’s obscured glass? Tempered obscured glass? 14 MR. SCHNEIDER: We don’t know at this point. I guess tempered glass is all we need to provide 15 for code, and so we haven’t talked about the details of obscured or not obscured…I would assume they 16 would want obscured, but… 17 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Okay. Somehow I thought I got that from…it’s on your 18 plans…replace with tempered, obscured glass window. 19 MR. SCHNEIDER: Because the elevation it says replace with tempered glass. 20 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: The 429, 2022 plan… 21 MR. SCHNEIDER: Oh, yep, it does on the…plan. 22 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: And that was actually…the question about a film versus tempered 23 glass is an interesting one. I was really just curious about would the glass itself be obscured or would 24 there be a film applied to clear glass, clear tempered glass, for privacy reasons, and what was more in line 25 with the standards in that way. But, it sounds like that’s to be determined, and the existing window is 26 staying so, tempered glazing, whether or not its obscured, could always be replaced in the future. 27 So, I think we’re back to…I mean…there’s the question of the massing, I think, to some degree. 28 I mean Jim’s point about exploring the change in planes, and we’re back to the windows. 29 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I have a question for Jim Bertolini. You mentioned in your 30 presentation that there’s precedent for window changes like this, and I can think of houses we’ve 31 landmarked where the windows had already been changed so we didn’t have a say, and I can think of 32 some east side houses where they changed windows and we…first of all, it’s National Register, and we 33 disagreed with their changes. So, I’m trying to think of, what’s an example of a house that you can think 34 of where we did allow this on a landmarked…locally landmarked property? 35 MR. BERTOLINI: And I’ll clarify, when I used the term precedent, that’s based on the Parks 36 Service guidance… 37 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Okay. 38 Page 322 Item 15. 14 MR. BERTOLINI: It really depends on the context and the circumstances, and visibility, and also 1 where on a side elevation when we’re talking about changing windows on a side elevation. So, as with all 2 things in preservation, context matters. I am not aware of a specific City landmark example where we’ve 3 approved that. Again, that’s just based on experience with the federal tax credit program and applying 4 those standards on federally reviewed projects where some modification of side windows and rear 5 windows is tolerated as long as its not disrupting the overall character. 6 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I can think of some entrance examples, and we’ve asked that they 7 maintain the opening but find another way to fill it in. So, I’m trying to imagine if we were to ask for that 8 sort of thing here, you would have a clear prior opening, plus two new openings, which seems to…that 9 starts getting busy. And so, I’m kind of wondering how we should be thinking of this prior window if we 10 were to fill it in. Do we have…like, what’s the guidance there? I think we need to somehow maintain the 11 fact that there used to be an opening there, right? 12 MR. BERTOLINI: Yeah, typically with slump block that’s filling those kinds of window 13 openings, usually it’s offset just a little bit so you’ll see an impression that’s a bit like a ghost sign that 14 you’d see in downtown. It’s not very obvious, but once you kind of stand next to it, you can see either the 15 bricks are offset, or maybe they’re inset just a little bit. There’s a few different ways to do that, but that’s 16 a pretty common way to infill historic window openings. 17 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: So it’s possible to do it where you wouldn’t necessarily notice 18 from the sidewalk, but if you were to walk up, you’d see it. 19 MR. BERTOLINI: Correct. 20 MR. SCHNEIDER: And we’re more than happy to do some sort of a siding treatment in that 21 window if that’s the desirability of the Commission as well, too. And do a completely different… 22 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Well, the way Jim is describing it, there’s a way to do it with 23 brick, so I think that would be better, because siding would definitely be noticeable from the street, and 24 then it would be a very busy…I mean, that’s my takeaway from that windows document that you included 25 was that, sometimes they added so many windows, it’s like, this looks totally different than how this 26 building looked before. And, you know, the characteristic here is simplicity, so we don’t want to make 27 this side too busy. So, that was one of my concerns. The other is, you were talking about differentiation 28 versus the windows being the same…what’s the word…yeah, proportions. Differentiation is important 29 for the addition, and so we’re not talking about the addition here, we’re talking about these windows in 30 the back of the historic house, and there I do think the proportion is important. It should…we should be 31 able to look at them and tell they’re new windows, that they’re not the original windows, but, especially 32 from a distance, the proportions are going to stand out. 33 And that was another thing that document pointed out, is you don’t want windows that are 34 completely not in keeping with the time period or the other windows or whatever. So, it seems to me like 35 somehow these windows would need to change so that they’re approximately similar to what it is you’re 36 taking out. I guess all of this to say that, if we can find a rationale that we feel comfortable with, that fits 37 with Secretary of Interior standards, that would enable you to fill in the window and build the two new 38 ones, the next concerns are: what does that fill in look like, and are the windows in a similar proportion. 39 And usually we aim for something looking a little simpler than what was there, which we’ve 40 already…talking pretty darn simple windows. So, I guess just, you know, if we’re moving forward with 41 that, that’s what we would be looking for. 42 Page 323 Item 15. 15 COMMISSIONER ROSE: This may be for the applicant, it may be for staff. The City of Fort 1 Collins, to my knowledge, uses the International Existing Building Code, and there are some 2 accommodations. And if we got really close, it seems to me, to the maximum height above the floor, and 3 could arrange proportions so that they do, I think to Meg’s point, conform more closely to what’s 4 differentiated and yet compatible. And it seems to me there is some flexibility there because of the City’s 5 adoption of that document. It gives you some flexibility that is not given in the International Building 6 Code. So, I think that’s another thing to look at because there may be a way in which some of these 7 things could be achieved by virtue of the accommodation that, because this is a significant and existing 8 building, that’s precisely why the IEBC exists. And to use that as a vehicle, I think, to potentially 9 proportion the windows in a way that….you know what really disturbs me about what you said was, 10 punching through that brick band that I think is…as Meg said, that’s part of the original fabric, that’s not 11 distinguishing it from something as new construction; that’s taking away existing fabric and that…if that 12 could be adjusted and modified to still create safe…you know, we have to have egress windows in a 13 bedroom, everybody knows that, but if you could create a way to do that safely with some 14 accommodation, I think it would be really worth looking at because I think that would go a long way to 15 really achieving…what I think you’ve done in this overall is extraordinary. I think you have really come 16 down to a scale that is far more compatible with this beautiful old house, and I think it’s very close to 17 being doable. 18 MR. SCHNEIDER: And so, Mr. Rose, I appreciate those comments. And so, even with changing 19 out that window to be an egress window, that may or may not accommodate egress, I still would have to 20 get a variance from the Building Department is my question or concern. I’m more than happy to talk to 21 Marcus about that, and try to get that accomplished as well, too, prior to the final design. 22 MR. BERTOLINI: And I’ll jump in as well, just as a clarification on that existing building code 23 provision for variances. As Jeff brought up, it is a variance; it’s at the discretion of the Chief Building 24 Official, and typically its applied when a character-defining feature is going to be threatened. So, there 25 are some constraints on how those can be allowed, but we can work with Jeff on whether Marcus 26 Coldiron, our Chief Building Official, allow that. 27 I did want to, Mr. Chairman, just to let you know, Margo Carlock has her hand up for a question. 28 CHAIR KNIERIM: Margo, go ahead please. 29 COMMISSIONER MARGO CARLOCK: Thank you. And, thank you Jeff and Brian both for 30 the work you’ve done to make this conform to our concerns; I think you’ve done an excellent job and I’m 31 excited about it. But, I just wanted to point out, on the question of the windows, while it’s unfortunate 32 that the two that you are proposing break that band, if there’s some way to not do that, that would be 33 preferable. But, I have noticed that the windows on the east side…they’re not similar and they don’t all 34 line up with that band. The one window is quite a bit above that band. So, there’s already some variation 35 between the windows on the other side, and it seems to me like this would be a reasonable adaptation to 36 try to achieve the living in place that you’re trying to achieve. 37 MR. SCHNEIDER: May I ask for a point of clarification? Just because the east side does not 38 have…is proposed to be a lap siding, a narrow lap siding, to there will not be a band that follows the 39 bottom portion of the windows…is Margo asking that we try to maintain that height of windows, or is she 40 supportive of dropping the new proposed windows below that band line because the eastern portion does 41 not match the same? I’m just trying to understand… 42 Page 324 Item 15. 16 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Right, and I’m happy to clarify. No, the latter is what I was 1 saying. I think that there’s already some variation in the historic part on the east side, so some variation 2 on the west side I don’t think would be that egregious particularly considering the reasons. 3 MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you. 4 CHAIR KNIERIM: Other thoughts or suggestions for the applicant? 5 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: I think those measurements are important. I mean, I hate to be a 6 stickler…we’ve all gone through a lot on this and thanks for hanging in. But, we need to know the head 7 height and the sill height, and the actual openings before we can determine if this is necessary or not, 8 right? I mean breaking the band is one thing if it’s the only path to providing an egress window, but we 9 don’t know. So, I think it’s essential for us to have that understanding. 10 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, and at this time, working with staff…staff only asked us to do simplistic 11 renderings at this time, so we’re just trying to provide an overall concept to you guys to say, hey, is this 12 philosophically going to work? And, when we talked with Jim and everything else on site, these two 13 windows were going to be the bone of contention, and the question or concern that was raised. I 14 apologize that we don’t have exact details at this point, but we’re also trying to be due diligence in saying, 15 how much time do we spend on something if you’re not happy with the overall scale, massing, and design 16 of the addition. And so, we’re just trying to be respectful of our time and our resources and your guys’ 17 time and resources, and we’re looking for more of a mass, scale, footprint of, hey, this works. We have 18 concerns over the windows; we expected that, so let’s get into the details through final design over the 19 windows and everything else, and we can talk through all that. But, it’s just trying to get the general, hey, 20 were ninety percent there, but we’re ten percent not there with this aspect. Because the last thing we want 21 to do is go through what we’ve been through for the last year plus. 22 So, I guess the one question I do have is, there hasn’t been a conversation about the brick, or the 23 grounding of the foundation…the exposed foundation wall and what you guys would prefer to see from 24 that aspect. So, any feedback would be appreciated. 25 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: So, you’re talking about on the addition? 26 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. So, we’re proposing using some sort of a thin brick that we can 27 apply to the foundation wall so we don’t have a twenty-three to twenty-four inch concrete wall exposed. 28 We personally feel, aesthetically, that’s not pleasing, and we’d like to do something that’s more 29 aesthetically pleasing to be appropriate and accommodating to the historic property. 30 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: And this is where you’d proposed the thin brick, right? 31 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. 32 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: That sounds like a good solution to me…it keeps that feel of the 33 brick but very clearly differentiates it. I think that’s a smart solution. 34 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, it was a concern or a question that came up during the work session, so 35 I just wanted to get some more feedback so, again, as we come forward with final design, or more of a 36 final design, that we don’t have another back and forth conversation…just to try to minimize the back and 37 forth since we have the opportunity to have those conversations tonight. 38 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Sure…it was my question, and I wanted to know what else you had 39 thought about, and it sounds like you’ve thought about a concrete wall, and you’ve thought about thin 40 Page 325 Item 15. 17 brick. I think it’s an okay treatment; I just know that you’re in the conceptual stages, and typically a lot 1 of ideas come up in that point. So, if it’s a thin brick and it’s adhered to the concrete foundation, I think 2 that’s okay, but if we’re here to talk about ideas, I was interested in knowing what else you had thought 3 about, and maybe that would have been…to discuss…an option. 4 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. We talked about doing some sort of a stone, but we thought that 5 was too of a significant character-defining feature to go stone with the new and brick with the front, so 6 that’s why we’re proposing a brick on the new addition to be complementary to the existing format of the 7 existing home. 8 COMMISSIONER ROSE: If you’re just taking sort of random thoughts, I’ll throw you mine. I 9 really, first of all, like the continuation of the band because I think that’s really what defines the 10 bottom…that’s the literal base of the house. I’m not so enamored of thin brick; I think a colored stucco or 11 some coating parging on the concrete wall…not to leave it gray concrete, but to simply create a color 12 that’s compatible and distinguishes material-wise from what is obviously on the original I think would be 13 every bit as effective. But, it’s certainly not of major concern to me. I don’t think, first of all, that is 14 going to determine whether or not it violates it as a character-defining feature, because I don’t think it is. 15 MR. SCHNEIDER: And so, we talked about that…it was just adding another element with 16 having the lap siding, and so, do we really want to have three materials stacked on top of each other? 17 And so, that was a conversation we did have about just the characteristic of the overall design elements, 18 and the aesthetic appreciation from the exterior. So, we thought it was more appropriate to have two 19 elements versus having three stacked on top of each other. But, we did talk about doing some sort of a 20 stucco, which we actually did propose in a future…or prior iteration of doing stucco prior below. But, we 21 just thought it was too busy to have just that bond line continue, which we agree, that was more 22 important. But again, how do we anchor that and not have it be too busy? 23 CHAIR KNIERIM: And that was my concern, was just think about the business of it and how 24 many different materials, so it sounds like you’ve thought through that, so I appreciate that. Other 25 suggestions for the applicant? 26 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I’ll just reiterate some of the stuff I said to try to explain myself, 27 perhaps. But, I do appreciate that it’s more subordinate than what we saw before. I think you’ve done a 28 great job really shrinking it down. As I said earlier, it’s design that matters more than just square footage. 29 Square footage gives us a guideline, but it’s the design that makes all the difference. It can really detract 30 from the character of the house, or it can be really compatible with it, and that’s the key thing that I’m 31 looking for in an addition based on, you know, Secretary of Interior standards two, five, nine, and ten, 32 mostly nine and ten. But, I don’t know that…I mean, if you want to keep rolling this way, that’s fine, but 33 I would say it’s worth exploring a more rectangular, simple form addition, inset perhaps on both sides so 34 that you can bring that roof down, even if it’s just a few inches, and putting the bedroom behind the 35 brick…the current back wall so that you can have windows right where you want them and then find a 36 way to fit the closet and the bathroom where the bedroom is now so that we can leave the window as it is. 37 And I think you might even end up with a better bedroom than what you would get with this one. 38 Obviously, you don’t have to go through all that, we can move forward with this. I’m just saying that it 39 seems like that would still have the simple design that this house has with just a rectangular box added on, 40 and it just might provide more of the space for the headboard and all of the other things that, you know, 41 when you’re older and you need the walker and whatever you need. You might even get a bigger 42 bathroom that will work better so that you can walk in instead of climbing over an edge. I’m just saying, 43 it's possible that you could still maintain the brick wall, have a very simple addition that will be larger 44 Page 326 Item 15. 18 than this one, but again, it’s design that makes…it’s key. We’ve approved a fifty percent addition before 1 because the design really worked well, and that’s the key. And if there’s a way we can design this where 2 it will really provide everything the applicant wants and we won’t be struggling over these windows, 3 because these windows…I just, I really don’t know which way to go. I’m trying to think of precedent just 4 so that I have a better way to think through how should I be thinking about these windows, and that’s my 5 struggle. And I don’t want to get to the point where I say, keep the stupid old window…you know, and 6 everybody is mad. I’d rather find a way that just works well for everybody. And so I’m glad this is a real 7 simple design, and maybe you can just real simply sketch that other way out and see if it works, I don’t 8 know…you know, you’d have to figure out the square footage and all, but it’s something worth exploring 9 I think. 10 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, Ms. Dunn, may I ask a question? Is there…so we’re trying to be 11 respective of past conversations about square footage. 12 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Yeah. 13 MR. SCHNEIDER: What is…I mean, because that’s the arbitrary number, right? That’s not 14 defined… 15 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Right, which is why design is more important. 16 MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct. So, obviously if we were to take the same design, we obviously 17 cannot fit a bedroom into the bathroom space. 18 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Right. 19 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, what would you feel might be an appropriate design? Because I agree 20 with you… 21 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: That’s what I’m saying…a rectangle…the whole addition. 22 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, the bathroom and moving the closet forward would be massive. It would 23 be a lot bigger than what we’re proposing. But then we’re adding on further to the rear, and this has been 24 a contentious project for multiple reasons, but one is because of the size of it. So, I’m trying to be 25 respectful of the Commission’s prior comments, and just knowing, hey is it okay to go up to three 26 hundred and fifty? I mean, I don’t want to come back and provide a three hundred and fifty square foot 27 addition… 28 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Three hundred and sixty-two square feet would be thirty-three 29 percent. So, I feel, again, you could add a hundred square feet in a really horrible way, and we’d be 30 freaking out. It’s…the size matters, but the design matters more. 31 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, and I respect that, and I appreciate that a hundred percent. But again, 32 I’m just trying to be respectful of the conversations that we’ve had over the year, and the sensitivity with 33 the comments that we’ve received from the community, and how to minimize that. And then I guess the 34 other concern I would have in all honesty is, how do we maintain a functional kitchen by stepping in, you 35 know? So we’re taking a small kitchen and trying to make it functional and attainable and meaningful for 36 future, and then if we have this funky jog, are we really…we’re making something that’s proposed to be 37 functional versus, it’s not functional, but…it might look okay. 38 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Well, if it can’t work, then that’s the roof struggle, really. 39 Page 327 Item 15. 19 MR. SCHNEIDER: And I guess that’s where my concern comes down to…is if we bring it in, we 1 can change the roof pitch and concern, but functionality, and does that actually work for the property in 2 the future moving forward from a functional standpoint, from a longevity standpoint, from rehabilitating 3 existing properties and everything else. 4 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I don’t know enough about refrigerator widths, and cabinet widths 5 and all of that; I don’t know if there’s some way you could have a deeper cabinet next to a shorter cabinet, 6 and then from the front you wouldn’t even know that the wall shifts. I don’t know how all that interior 7 stuff works, but it would be a way to have a very simple form addition that subordinates itself well and 8 deals with the roof and all of that in one fell swoop. 9 MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you for your comments. 10 MR. BERKHAUSEN: This is Brian, again. Would it be possible for Jim Bertolini to do some 11 research on the precedent of window modifications that has occurred at the federal level? 12 MR. BERTOLINI: Sure, we can do that. And make sure that at the very latest at least, with final 13 design review, that we’ll have some case studies, including if we have them here in Fort Collins for City 14 landmarks. 15 MR. BERKHAUSEN: Great, just trying to get as much research and information as possible . We 16 have been working to try and come up with a plan that will preserve the back wall. If we were able to 17 remove that wall, the north wall, where we are making a doorway into the bathroom, that would open up a 18 tremendous amount of design possibilities. We are still trying to stay within the thirty percent factor that 19 was recommended, or guideline, that was suggested. And so, you know, Jeff asked that question…is that 20 something we should consider or bring before the Commission, to remove that north wall? 21 MR. SCHNEIDER: That was going to be a clarifying question to me is, if you would allow us to 22 remove that north wall, we could minimize that addition too and have more flexibility of floorspace, so 23 how important is the north existing brick exterior wall from a reversibility standpoint versus minimizing 24 that addition? And so, and I know it’s hard to put on you guys at this point, but it’s a fair question to ask. 25 Just like Mr. Rose asked, too, it’s…we’re talking hypotheticals at this point, but we’re also trying to 26 figure out, at the end of the game, how do we minimize and not bring back to you, you know, almost four 27 hundred square foot addition, and minimize that addition, but we do potentially lose that length of the 28 north existing brick wall to allow for flexibility of design. 29 COMMISSIONER ROSE: You know, there’s obviously ten standards, and you oblige one and 30 you may violate another. I…as the brick wall that’s retained exists now, I’m hard-pressed to think it’s a 31 character-defining feature. It’s an artifact. And so, frankly, I think if we could achieve something that’s 32 more…I think Meg’s suggestion of kind of filling in that rectangle, that’s something over seventy square 33 feet. It’s not a significant addition to the overall footprint. And yet, I think what it opens for you is real 34 rectilinearity…that’s going to be very important, because that is a character -defining feature of this kind 35 of a structure. And as you’ve referred to, Jeff, you’ve said, you know, you want the simple roof lines, you 36 want all of those things…there could be a real achievement made by virtue of filling this out and then 37 using a distinct roof line that I think would accomplish a multitude of things, gives you seventy more 38 square feet to deal with in arranging a floorplan that may be every bit as workable as what you have. So, 39 I think it’s really worth investigating. 40 MR. SCHNEIDER: And so, proposing perhaps removing that north brick wall would be part of 41 that conversation. 42 Page 328 Item 15. 20 COMMISSIONER ROSE: Because, frankly, we’re supposed to be concerned with the external 1 appearance. Who’s going to see it? It’s no longer a feature of the home that the public sees that we’re 2 supposed to be the custodians of, it’s something maybe a remnant that when you’re taking people through 3 the…with the grand opening, you point it out and say, yeah, and this is the original brick wall. Well, I 4 think there are other things more important. 5 MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you for the comments. 6 COMMISSIONER ROSE: So, I do think it’s expendable. But, I’m…that’s just me speaking, 7 so… 8 CHAIR KNIERIM: I would tend to agree with that as well, because we are the…you know…the 9 exterior is what we’re concerned with, and this is no longer exterior. And yeah, it’s original stuff, and 10 that’s hard, but you know, at the end of the day, I’d rather have the exterior as original as possible than 11 something, as Jim was saying, that is no longer an exterior feature. Margo, you had a comment? 12 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: Yeah, I just…just a question for you all…I thought that when 13 we talked about this back in January, people were saying that maintaining that brick wall was important to 14 the reversibility aspect. And that was a feature of the plan that I thought was a good thing. Does that…if 15 you take that wall out, then you can’t put it back. I mean, it…doesn’t that eliminate the reversibility? 16 MR. SCHNEIDER: And that was our concern, to be honest with you. 17 COMMISSIONER CARLOCK: I think that’s a more important part of it than the other. But, you 18 know, I’m new at this, so I’m looking for some instruction. 19 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I will say, brick for brick, I would rather lose one brick in the 20 back for each one brick that we would lose to those windows because that’s…it’s a secondary, you know, 21 viewpoint. People will be seeing that from the sidewalk; they won’t be seeing the back. Secretary of 22 Interior standard number nine does say we’re supposed to be keeping that material so that we can reverse 23 this if someone decides to take it off the back, unlike the addition that’s there currently that did remove a 24 ton of brick. But, if it’s one or the other, I would definitely rather see a back brick removed than the side 25 brick. That said, to the extent that you can keep as much as possible, that would be really helpful. 26 MR. SCHNEIDER: Because if we remove the back brick, we’re talking about ninety-six square 27 feet of brick versus probably maybe eight to ten square feet of brick for the windows. So, it’s a 28 significant difference, but it allows for floorplan. And so that’s where my…again, I’m not trying to…I’m 29 just trying to ask questions so we can… 30 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I get it. The way the Secretary of Interior standard reads, new 31 additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that 32 characterize the property. So, we know the brick characterizes the property. The new work shall be 33 differentiated from the old, blah, blah, blah. I think part of it is, it’s a back wall, it’s not a side wall, that 34 helps. I though of something else that was pertinent, and now I’m not seeing it. 35 MR. SCHNEIDER: Please understand that there was a lot of conversation about maintaining that 36 north wall…in prior conversations, which is part of the…from the first design to the second design that 37 we did maintain that north wall in the second iteration. So, we have been listening to you, it’s just a 38 matter…now I’m hearing something different, which I respect and appreciate… 39 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Ideally, we’ll keep the brick wall, you can expand the addition a 40 little more so that the bedroom fits behind the brick wall, and the bathroom goes where the bedroom is. 41 Page 329 Item 15. 21 And you could still have a bedroom bigger than what it currently is. And the brick wall would still be 1 there, and the windows would remain. 2 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, then my next question would be is, talking about the kitchen, in order to 3 maintain that bedroom…because we’re only proposing…so, are you proposing that we bring, essentially, 4 the proposed bathroom wall out the additional five feet to be in line with the rear kitchen and try and 5 maintain…? 6 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: Right, to make a rectangle. Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: Am I wrong that we were also potentially suggesting stepping in 8 the west…or excuse me, the east wall of the kitchen so that the roof plane could also be changed? 9 MR. SCHNEIDER: Which, again, is going to be a concern just from a design and flow 10 standpoint, from a functionality standpoint. So, I appreciate your comments and we’re happy to look at 11 options for that, and maybe we have to do another design consultation, but I’m concerned from the 12 aesthetic nature and architectural nature that that’s not going to be an appropriate feel when you’re 13 standing on the sidewalk of Mountain looking back at this property, that it’s going to be one of those sore 14 additions versus a natural addition onto the property as well, too. Especially on that east side, which has 15 been the whole conversation that we’ve had from day one is that east exposure standing from the 16 sidewalk looking back to the north. And I’d rather have that be a complimentary addition versus a sore 17 addition, going, oh look, that’s an addition. Because we’ve all seen those additions that, they just don’t 18 fit, they're not right. And I understand this is a historic property, but you still want to be respectful of the 19 existing conditions of the property, and not just have it be a thumb, or a sore, on the back of the house as 20 an addition, and we’ve all seen those, which is not what we’re trying to create. 21 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: I’m not sure what you mean by a sore addition. 22 MR. SCHNEIDER: We’re changing roof pitches, we’re changing wall planes, everything else. 23 It’s going to look like a bad addition on the back of the property; it’s not going to be a complimentary 24 feature onto the back of the property. 25 COMMISSIONER M. DUNN: So, you’re saying when the addition is inset… 26 MR. SCHNEIDER: And changing the roof pitch, it’s going to look like a bad addition onto the 27 back of the property, and that’s what I’m not trying to create here. I’m trying to create something that’s 28 complimentary, something that’s respectful, something that creates historic nature, and everything else, 29 that complies with those simple lines. 30 MR. BERKHAUSEN: At a prior meeting, we discussed the fact that the roof would have a very 31 simple line, and the prior plan that we looked at discussed expanding to the east by seven feet, and during 32 that meeting, the discussion was the house would look much better with one single plane, one simple line 33 going back so it would not break up the lines from Mountain Avenue. That’s how we came up with this 34 plan that we brought. 35 MR. SCHNEIDER: And again, so it’s trying to appreciate your comments throughout the last 36 year of how to maintain that character-defining features of an historic element. 37 COMMISSIONER ROSE: You know, I don’t think you can solve all these problems. There are 38 going to be compromises, and in my forty-five years of doing this, I’ve never been in a situation where it 39 was perfect. So, you know, I think the suggestion that it could be a perfectly rectilinear addition instead 40 of this offset, that simplifies things, creates something more compatible with the simplicity that you’ve 41 Page 330 Item 15. 22 referred to. I think also this whole idea of reversibility is an academic construct; there is no such thing. 1 It's not recoverable, and what was already done to the house when they put that abomination of a porch 2 on…it’s not reversible. So, I don’t think we can be married to that. I really like the idea of creating a 3 very rectilinear addition. Admittedly, we sill have this distinction of new versus old materials, but as I 4 say, it’s all about how do we value and how do we raise in some priority fashion what’s most important, 5 what really defines the character of this building, and then how do we let people know. It’s about being 6 honest and telling people, here’s what’s new, here’s what’s old, the windows may look a little different, 7 but they’re compatible in proportion and they don’t…they don’t adjust something that can be maintained, 8 and yet we compromise where we have to. So, I think these are suggestions that have merit. And, you 9 know, certainly if the brick wall stays, that’s a benefit, but I wouldn’t…that’s not one I would say is of 10 utmost importance. I think the other suggestions about really simplifying this footprint is, to me, an 11 elegant way to get this thing to where it achieves what you’ve just said. 12 MR. SCHNEIDER: So, I guess my question would be also is, maintaining that same roof line or 13 trying to change the roof line for the rear portion because we’re trying to keep that simplistic roof line that 14 has been talked about in the past for the bungalow style, is straight lines, straight features, not having 15 deviation from the planes. 16 COMMISSIONER ROSE: Well, and you know, my reference to the front porch…obviously 17 that’s a different function, and that’s not out of character for a style like this. But I think what you would 18 do at the back is…has a different purpose, and I think can be achieved in a different way. 19 CHAIR KNIERIM: Other thoughts, Commissioners? Well, we’ve succeeded in clarifying 20 nothing, so…but I do appreciate the conversation, and I appreciate the applicant and Jeff, you coming 21 along to address some of these things. And we look forward to seeing what you come up with. 22 MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you for your time this evening. 23 COMMISSIONER NELSEN: I hate to interrupt, but if we really have succeeded in clarifying 24 nothing, I think we’ve done a disservice to the applicant. So, this is a conceptual discussion, reviewing 25 the plans. We’ve given you some feedback, we’ve opened a few options I think and talked about other 26 things to explore. But, outside of, you know, just stamping approval of this proposal that you have, is 27 there anything else? It’s not a fun discussion for anybody…and we know that, but is there anything else 28 that we can leave you with before you go to make the most of your time? To make absolutely sure that 29 you have a clear path forward? 30 MR. SCHNEIDER: In all due respect, no, because we’re going back to the drawing board to try 31 and recreate space, and listening to Commission members’ comments over the last year, and how to 32 change and minimize and reduce…I think we’ve done that appropriately. I do respect the fact that the 33 window element is a concern; I have no qualms with being honest about that. But I also would say that 34 that’s a minimal impact on the overall project and the scale and the mass. I think I am concerned about 35 increasing the scale and the mass of the project and the community feedback that we’ve seen already. So, 36 I’m trying to be respectful of community feedback that we’ve seen prior, and so, unfortunately, we’re 37 going back to the drawing board to try and accommodate what you guys are proposing. And I respect 38 that, and I understand that, but unfortunately, I think our proposed plan is the most minimal impact to the 39 footprint, the scale, the mass. In the window treatment, Mr. Guenther is the only one that’s really ever 40 going to see those impacts. No one is really going to notice that from the street side, and I think the 41 average citizen walking by would not recognize that interruption. I understand all of us are in the 42 profession, we’re all in the world, and we respect that, and I respect the historic nature of it, but if you 43 also look at the bathroom window has that course row underneath it, so why couldn’t we add that same 44 Page 331 Item 15. 23 course row underneath the new proposed windows to replicate and duplicate what’s done to the existing 1 bathroom window? To highlight that as a soldier course underneath the windows? So, I think there’s 2 design elements that we can do. I respect your conversation this evening, and we’ll go back and try to 3 figure something out, but in all honesty, I think the plan that we’re proposing from a mass and scale and 4 size, is the most appropriate based on community feedback and you guys’ feedback throughout the year. 5 So, I’m sorry that the windows are a concern, but I think we can work through the windows with adding 6 that soldier course underneath the windows to replicate the same design element that’s underneath the 7 existing bathroom window, and we can look at the size of that and see how that, you know, how those 8 affect. But, I’m a little concern about increasing the overall size from the community feedback that we’ve 9 seen over the year. So, again, thank you for your time this evening. 10 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Jeff, and thank you, Anne, for your comments. 11 MR. BERKHAUSEN: Thank you very much. 12 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you very much, Brian…appreciate it. 13 MR. BERKHAUSEN: Thank you. 14 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 15 Page 332 Item 15. Appeal: 1306 West Mountain Avenue City Landmark Design Review October 4, 2022 Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Services Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Page 333 Item 15. 2 Page 334 Item 15. 3Background: Property Designation •City Landmark •Jackson-Bailey Property •Designated December 2, 2014 •Standards 3/C •No period of significance defined •1922 •1942 •House constructed in c.1922 •Garage in 1942 Page 335 Item 15. 4Background: Additions & Modifications to City Landmarks Major Functions of Design Review •Protect “character-defining features” of an historic place, property, or building •Conserve historic building materials •Preserve tangible connections with the city’s history Page 336 Item 15. 5Code Process HPC Role outlined in Chapter 14, Article IV -Review project against the City’s adopted Standards for historic preservation review -U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties -Make Decision on proposed work -Approve; -Approve w/ Conditions; or -Deny Page 337 Item 15. 6Role of Council 1.Determine if allegations made by the appellant have merit 2.Based on determination: •Uphold HPC decision; •Overturn HPC decision; or •Modify HPC decision Page 338 Item 15. 7Item Summary 1306 W. Mountain Ave –Appeal of Design Review Decision •May 18, 2022, HPC Conceptual Review (feedback only) •July 20, 2022, HPC Decision, (4-2, 1 recusal, 2 vacancies): •Approve proposed addition •Deny modifications to historic window in northwest bedroom -Note –some work in scope previously approved by HPC at Feb 16, 2022 hearing: •Modification of basement windows for egress •Demolition of non-historic garage •Construction of new garage on NE corner of lot -Posted Hearing/Gathered Community Input •2 verbal comments at meeting •1 in favor of approval w/ no conditions •1 in favor of approval w/ conditions •August 2, 2022, Owner Appeal to Council Page 339 Item 15. 8Background: Proposed Project 1.Construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2) onto the existing 1,097 ft2 home •(Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 75 ft2 rear mud porch slated for demolition). 2.Modification of windows on west wall of northwest bedroom on historic house. Page 340 Item 15. 9Proposed Alterations –Site Page 341 Item 15. 10Proposed Alterations –Existing Conditions Page 342 Item 15. 11Proposed Alterations –East Elevation Page 343 Item 15. 12Proposed Alterations –West Elevation Page 344 Item 15. 13Analysis & Decision •Standards respond to proposed work in relation to building’s “character-defining features.” •Key Standards for this project are: •2 –Preserve historic character •5 –Preserve character-defining features •9 –Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate •10 –Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible •HPC finding: •Proposed addition meets the Standards •Proposed window modification in NW bedroom does not, specifically Standards 2 and 5 Page 345 Item 15. 14HPC Motion & Findings •Addition meets Standards –approved •Window modification did not meet Standards –inappropriate and doesn’t meet federal guidelines •Standard 2 –preserving overall historic character •Windows are part of overall character, including pattern along side elevations •Alternatives exist •Standard 5 –preserving character-defining features •Windows are a character-defining feature of the property and should be retained •Modification not necessary to meet any IEBC requirement •NPS Bulletin 14 –Windows on secondary elevations •Minimalist approach to alterations Page 346 Item 15. 15Allegations •Allegation #2 (consider first –issue of fairness at hearing) •One or more HPC members had a conflict of interest in a personal and social relationship that interfered with the HPC’s independence of judgement. •Commissioner M. Dunn’s relationship with the prior owner, Bob Bailey •General bias on HPC against project •Concern about inconsistency in feedback during conceptual reviews •Allegation #1 (consider second) •That the Commission and City staff did not properly interpret City Code 14-53 •Staff inappropriately interpreted Rehabilitation Standards 2 and 5, and NPS Bulletin 14 regarding window alterations. •Inconsistency between Certificate (includes staff analysis) and HPC motion. •No discussion of adding new windows during May 18th hearing Page 347 Item 15. 16Role of Council 1.Determine if allegations made by the appellant have merit, beginning with Allegation #2 2.Based on determination: •Uphold HPC finding; •Overturn HPC finding; or •Modify HPC finding Page 348 Item 15. Appeal: 1306 West Mountain Avenue City Landmark Design Review October 4, 2022 Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Services Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Page 349 Item 15.