Commission approves state tax credit for Mohawk Road rehab despite staff's recommendation to deny

The Historic Preservation Commission voted 3-2 to approve an application for a Colorado state income tax credit for rehabilitation work at 5475 Mohawk Road, a contributing property in the Arapahoe Hills National Register Historic District.

Staff recommended denial, saying key interior changes did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. "Staff has found that the project does not qualify for the credits because it does not meet standards 2, 5, and 6," Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Duesenberry told the commission, citing alterations to the kitchen layout and to the rear window wall.

Commissioners approved HPC Resolution 04-2025 with a 3-2 vote; Commissioners Hoehne and Fisher voted no. The resolution authorizes the commission to certify the project's Part 1 application for the state program; a separate Part 2 review will certify whether completed work meets the Part 1 submission.

Staff presented the project scope and finances. Staff reported total project costs of $232,666 and estimated "qualified rehabilitation expenditures" of about $114,416; at the state program's 20% rate, staff calculated a prospective credit of $22,883.20. Staff said the program requires the entire project to meet the Secretary of the Interior standards; if any component fails the standards, the entire project is ineligible for the credit.

Homeowner and applicant Brent Forger, who identified himself as an architect and the property owner, summarized why he and his husband proceeded with the work and why they believe it should receive the credit. "Since we discovered the leak and the damage 5 months ago, it's been my full time job as a homeowner, on top of my full time job as an architect to try to stop any further damage and remediate what was there and find solutions to the additional problems that we've discovered," Forger said. He described discovery of a leaking sewer line, mold remediation, slab settlement, a sagging header beam, and a gas-line replacement discovered during structural work; Forger said the owners prioritized long-term, compatible repairs over short-term fixes.

Duesenberry said staff concluded that two elements did not meet the standards: the project relocates and reconfigures the original mid-century kitchen and replaces a fixed/sliding window wall with an accordion-style system that, while operable, departs from the historic fixed-window rhythm. Under Standard 2 (retain historic character and avoid removal of features that characterize the property), Standard 5 (preserve distinctive features and finishes), and Standard 6 (repair rather than replace deteriorated features and match new features to old), staff found the work did not qualify.

Commission discussion was split. Commissioners who voted to approve said the project includes substantial repair work, addressed immediate safety and structural issues, and the replacements were designed to be sympathetic to the house's character. Commissioners opposing the application said the kitchen relocation and window-wall changes fundamentally altered character-defining interior features and therefore did not meet the standards required for state tax credits. One commissioner said the standards are not always applied only to exteriors and can properly be applied to interior rehabilitation when the incentive is financial.

The commission approved the Part 1 application despite staff's recommendation. The applicant will still need to complete the Part 2 certification after work is finished and provide evidence that the completed work meets the standards; the state program allows municipalities with HPCs to act as the initial certifying body for residential tax-credit applications.

The commission also discussed limits on awarding credits when applicants have already performed work before approval; staff reiterated that timing and the content of work affect eligibility and that the entire project is considered under the program rules.