Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - MINUTES - 04/17/2024Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Chris Conway David Woodlee Tom Wilson Staff Liaison: Jeff Gaines Maren Bzdek Aaron Hull Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting April 17, 2024 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Chris Conway, Jeff Gaines, Bonnie Gibson, Jim Rose, Tom Wilson ABSENT: Jenna Edwards, Aaron Hull, David Woodlee STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Yani Jones, Rebekah Schields, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Jones stated there were no changes to the published agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2024. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 20, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carlock, to approve the consent agenda for the March 20, 2024 meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Gaines, Gibson, Wilson, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed some of the staff activities that have occurred since the last meeting, including a design review of 211-217 Jefferson Street for a mural on the stucco side of the building and a civil rights history walking tour for a group of CSU students. Ms. Jones also provided a reminder about the Historic Preservation newsletter. 3. PROPOSED POLICY ADOPTION: EXPANDED ROOFTOP SOLAR OPTIONS FOR PROJECTS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS DESCRIPTION: Potential adoption of a revised rooftop solar policy for projects on historic buildings that would expand the allowable installation types and locations, and reduce the importance of visibility when considering solar installations. STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Presentation Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this is a proposal for a policy adoption to expand situations in which rooftop solar can be approved for historic buildings. He noted this is part of a larger City effort to combat climate change, which poses a threat to all cultural resources. He also noted there is a growing body of policy documents and statements by public officials who work in historic preservation that the standards used for most historic buildings for rehabilitation related to climate action are not sufficient. Bertolini outlined the change in policy being proposed noting it is consistent with Our Climate Future, the Historic Preservation Commission’s Work Plan, and staff research on Fort Collins’ specific climate change scenarios, largely related to roofing. He noted the importance of providing broad and equitable access to residents for independent and renewable power generation. Bertolini noted this policy will not be required to be met in the immediate future, though there will likely be some pressure to make existing buildings net zero at some point in the future. Bertolini noted the definition of sustainability involves a triple bottom-line approach, which includes environmental, economic, and social aspects; however, this presentation will focus on the contribution of historic preservation to environmental sustainability, which is primarily related to energy use and consumption. He noted the action being proposed as part of this policy relates to reducing the operating energy of historic buildings. Bertolini stated staff is requesting the Commission pass a motion to adopt this expanded solar policy which would allow for greater flexibility in Fort Collins than what adopted federal standards would typically allow. Additionally, he noted most of these project approvals would be moved to a staff level. Bertolini discussed what the federal policies and guidelines already allow noting solar is allowed in many circumstances; however, the placement of the panels tends to be limited which has the potential side effect of reducing the collection efficiency and overall collection potential. He stated the proposed policy would expand scenarios wherein rooftop solar could be approved on historic buildings, would reduce, but not eliminate, the role of visibility in approving rooftop solar projects on historic buildings, and would establish City staff as the approving authority on solar installations on historic buildings. Bertolini showed some examples of solar projects that meet federal guidelines and some examples of those that may be approved under the new policy. Bertolini stated the protection of character-defining features of a property would not change and he showed some examples of projects that would not be approved under this policy. Additionally, he noted the removal of trees for solar collection will likely not be approved. Bertolini requested the Commission provide input on general concerns, whether there are situations wherein the Commission would prefer to retain decision-making authority, and whether there is concern about not requiring a variance for properties built post-1950. Commission Questions Commissioner Carlock expressed general support for revising the solar panel policies, but expressed concern with allowing panels to have a slanted pitch over a flat roof and suggested that may be a situation wherein the Commission considers each individual case. She asked if panels would be allowed on buildings with character-defining roof materials. Bertolini replied in the negative. Vice Chair Gibson expressed support for revising the policy and stated she is not concerned with allowing solar on post-1950 buildings, even on the street-facing roof slopes if the panels do not take up the entire front roof. Commissioner Conway expressed support for the focus on climate change and stated he would prefer to see the staff keep purview over approval of solar panels on flat roofs stating juxtaposition between old and new can be valuable and staff can be trusted to make those decisions. He asked how easy it will be for a homeowner or business owner to put together the documentation needed for a variance. Bertolini replied it should be fairly straightforward as most solar installers include calculations on household power needs and collection potential of a particular roof. Commissioner Conway requested staff continue to be in communication with solar installers regarding documentation to make things easier for property owners. Commissioner Gaines asked about the setback requirement for panels on flat roofs. Bertolini replied the policy calls for a setback that is direct relation to the pitch of the solar panels; therefore, if the property owner opts for flush mounted panels, the setback would be eight inches from the roof edge. For each foot of pitch, two feet of setback is required. Commissioner Gaines expressed support for the policy change and stated his main concern would be related to flat roofs, particularly for smaller buildings with lower roof heights wherein the panels could overwhelm the building. Vice Chair Gibson asked if there are grant options for historic homeowners or business owners to install solar panels. Bertolini replied historic preservation funds would not be available for solar installation on historic buildings; however, other federal, state, and local sources that support solar installations could be used, including the City’s EPIC loan program which is marketing solar installations in combination with household batteries. He noted the policy does address where to place household batteries on historic buildings. Commissioner Wilson concurred with leaving the decisions under staff’s purview. Chair Rose stated he is less concerned about the flat roof issue given the provisions related to setbacks and maximum height. He stated the policy, as it is developed and proposed, is sufficient from his perspective. Commissioner Carlock expressed support for adding a caveat about flat roofs. Commissioner Conway made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the proposed policy regarding the installation of solar technology on historic resources in Fort Collins finding that the proposed policy remains reasonably consistent with the intent of the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation, supports the City’s preservation policies and priorities in the Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2, and supports the City’s broader sustainability and climate action goals. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. Commissioner Gaines stated building height makes the most difference in terms of the impact of pitched solar panels on flat roofs. He suggested the possibility of requiring additional review for one-story buildings with flat roofs and pitched panels and allowing two-story and greater buildings to be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Carlock stated she would at least like to have the opportunity for the Commission to review projects that are visible from the street. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion to amend the original motion to include a modification that one-story buildings with flat roofs be subject to Commission review. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. Yeas: Carlock, Gaines, Gibson, Wilson, and Rose. Nays: Conway. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on the amended motion was as follows: Yeas: Carlock, Gaines, Gibson, Wilson, and Rose. Nays: Conway. THE MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Conway stated his main concern is that historic preservation codes can be difficult to sort through, and having little exemptions can make things more difficult and confusing. He commented on the importance of making the process as approachable as possible for the average person. Vice Chair Gibson concurred and stated it is incumbent upon the Commission to help provide education to applicants and the public; however, she supported having additional review for the one-story buildings noting most will be outside that restriction. Commissioner Gaines stated this will allow the vast majority of solar applications to be streamlined and only create additional review for some of the situations on which panels could have the greatest impact. He encouraged staff to remain aware if frustration in the community is occurring. 4. 1605 SHEELY DR. (MOYER HOUSE) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final Landmark design review of a proposed solar panel array for the City Landmark at 1605 Sheely Dr., the Moyer House. The owner has waived conceptual Landmark design review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Sarah Fonte & Steven Fonte STAFF: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Staff Presentation Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, showed a map of the property and Sheely Drive Landmark District. She stated the role of the Commission is to provide a final design review for the proposed solar array on the City Landmark at 1605 Sheely Drive. She noted the applicant has waived the conceptual review for the project. Jones provided some historical information about the home, which was designated in 2000 as an example of the ranch building type with international and prairie style influences constructed between 1953 and 1954. She stated the proposed project is for the installation of a solar system with 18 flush- mounted roof panels which are set back more than eight inches from the ridge and edge of the roof. Given the proposal and just adopted solar policy, the project is in compliance with applicable standards. Jones stated staff is recommending approval of the proposal and granting of a certificate of appropriateness with no required waiver given the adopted solar policy. Public Input None. Commission Questions/Discussion Vice Chair Gibson stated this project is perfectly in line with what was just passed given the flush mount and setback. Commissioner Carlock concurred. Commissioner Carlock made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Drive, as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation under the Commission’s recently adopted solar policy. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Gaines, Gibson, Wilson, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. 2601 S. COLLEGE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the commercial property at 2601 South College Avenue. On October 17, 2023, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property was Landmark-eligible based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, Landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: DRACOL, LLC STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist Chair Rose outlined the order of procedure for the appeal hearing. Staff Presentation Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this item is an appeal of a staff finding of eligibility for the property at 2601 South College Avenue, historically Ghent Motors. He provided information on the location of the building and on the three features that were documented during the historic survey process: the primary automobile showroom and service garage, an accessory drive- through shop for auto parts, and a non-contributing carriage step stamped with W.A. Drake in reference to the former Drake Farm that was at this location. Bertolini noted this is a de novo hearing; therefore, the Commission’s decision will replace the staff finding. He outlined the role of the Commission and noted its decision is subject to appeal to City Council. Bertolini noted the Commission is not to consider adaptive reuse potential as that is not a consideration outlined in Municipal Code 14-2. Bertolini discussed the timeline of the landmark eligibility finding and discussed the survey of property and resulting staff consensus that the property is landmark eligible. He noted a formal landmark designation is not required or initiated if the Commission determines the property to be eligible; however, that determination would require the property to be preserved and adaptively reused, or a modification of standards could be requested. Should the Commission find the property to not be eligible, that would end preservation concerns related to the development site barring an appeal of that decision. Bertolini outlined the methodology for how the City determines whether a property meets eligibility requirements. He showed photos of the site and discussed the physical history of the property, including a roofing replacement. Bertolini stated staff found the property to be eligible under standard one for events and trends, specifically to the South College commercial expansion after WWII, especially for businesses that were embracing the shift to an automobile-focused commercial and public life in the 1950’s and later. Staff also found the property to be eligible under standard two for persons and groups, specifically for its association with Frank and Dwight Ghent, the owners of the automobile dealership. Additionally, staff found the property to be eligible under standard three for design and construction as a significant example of modern architecture in Fort Collins, especially along South College, and a significant surviving example of an auto dealership. In terms of historic integrity, Bertolini stated staff acknowledges there are some places wherein integrity is lost, specifically when dealing with the service garage due to the loss of most of the overhead garage doors and the 1998 roof modification; however, staff found those changes to not be so significant as to keep from telling the story of post-WWII expansion on South College Avenue. Bertolini further detailed the aspects of integrity and the ways in which the property meets them. Bertolini provided a staff evaluation of appellant materials related to significance, including their assertion that car dealerships cannot individually contribute to patterns of urban development, which staff opposes, and their statement that the best years of car sales for the Ghent family were at other Fort Collins sites and that its social contributions were not directly related to the dealership property. He stated staff found there to be enough association with the site and the Ghent’s commercial contributions to the community to make it eligible. In terms of standard three, the appellants argued that while there are specific elements of the property that represent the style of the period, the design and details were very common and not remarkable for the period. Bertolini outlined some requests made by the Commission during its work session, including that the previous determination and appeal that was made for the property in 2018 be added to the record, and the appellant request to add redlines from the 2019 Code changes to Chapter 14, specifically the standards for eligibility, both of which have been included in the packet. Bertolini provided a summary of the seven written comments opposed to the eligibility finding and to the preservation of the site and three comments in support of a finding of eligibility and adaptive reuse. Appellant Presentation Angela Hygh, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck, land use counsel to the appellant, introduced the appellant team. She offered some clarification regarding a de novo hearing noting it means the Commission is not required to give deference to the prior decision and the burden of proof is not on the appellant. She noted Council found this property to be ineligible for historic designation in 2018 and stated the property has remained largely the same since that time as have the historic designation criteria. Kris Spradley, property owner, stated he and his partner, Bill Barr, originally leased the property in 1988 and purchased the property in 2012 with the intention of redeveloping the site. In 2018, the Mazda franchise was sold and the current owners will be vacating the building in May. He stated the property no longer conforms to modern new car dealership standards and the building is very inefficient. Spradley stated he is excited about the potential for the property and has been working with a developer on a project that aligns with City Plan and the Midtown Plan. Hygh noted there is a requirement to find both significance and integrity in order to find a building to be eligible for designation. She stated the appellant does not believe the property is significant under any of the three standards mentioned by staff nor does the appellant believe the site maintains sufficient integrity to convey any significance. Hygh introduced Natalie Feinberg Lopez, a historic preservation expert approved by City staff, as the historic preservation planner who prepared the cultural resource survey of the site. Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Built Environment Evolution, discussed her qualifications and work with mid- century modern architecture. She stated she found this property does not meet the Code standards for eligibility and she detailed her findings that the site does not meet the criteria for significance related to events, persons and groups, or design and construction. She further detailed her finding that the property does not meet the seven aspects integrity. Feinberg Lopez noted the Commission found the site did not retain integrity of materials in 2018 and she commented on many elements of the building showing significant deterioration as many of the original materials were inexpensive. With these types of buildings, Feinberg Lopez noted it is much more costly to conserve what exists versus rebuilding. Feinberg Lopez stated it is important to be selective about what is eligible for historic designation in order to preserve the designation process. Hygh noted the property has undergone no significant changes since 2018 when the original determination of ineligibility was made, nor have there been significant changes to the criteria to an extent that would warrant a different determination. Public Input None. Staff Response Bertolini noted there are properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places that are mid- century modern auto dealerships as found by the research of Rebecca Shields. He also noted the standards are applied based on local history, trends, and architecture. Appellant Response None. Commission Questions Commissioner Carlock asked if there has been consideration given to repurposing the main building as something other than a car dealership and if the development project could include the building or be amended to include the building. Hygh noted, as mentioned by staff, that adaptive reuse is not one of the criteria for eligibility; however, she stated adaptive reuse was considered, but due to a number of factors, including the materials and site layout, no possibilities for adaptive reuse were identified at this time. Commissioner Wilson requested confirmation as to the building being found ineligible in 2018 and that finding lapsing in 2023. Bertolini replied Council made the finding of ineligibility at in 2018 and that finding was good for five years with an expiration in April of 2023 prior to the development application coming in in August of 2023. Due to changes in the Code process, the property underwent a new survey at that time. Commission Deliberation Vice Chair Gibson suggested discussing each standard in order. Chair Rose stated the Commission first consider standard one related to events. Vice Chair Gibson commented on the post war movements south in the city which changed the pattern of how life worked in the city. She expressed general support for standard one. Commissioner Gaines concurred and noted it was the first business of its kind to locate along the corridor. He acknowledged the appellant’s comments related to contribution and stated the question is whether the dealership is making a contribution to a pattern or is a reflection of a pattern. He stated he believes there is a case to be made for this building making a contribution. Commissioner Conway commented on his thought that the expansion south would likely have occurred with or without the location of this building due to larger, broader trends. Additionally, he stated it is likely another dealership would have sold any cars not sold by the Ghent dealership. Commissioner Wilson stated the property has been modified and changed throughout the years and the original location of the dealership seems to be more valuable. Commissioner Carlock stated the dealership does represent an expansion of the city, and though it may have happened eventually, this use played a part. Vice Chair Gibson commented on the criteria for the events standard stating car dealerships were part of the trend that helped build Fort Collins into what it is today. Chair Rose stated this is related to a local evolution and community importance of this site. He stated that though the evolution would have occurred anyway, this was nonetheless one of the first facilities to move south, which was part of what was likely an inevitable progress toward a larger city. He stated this site is still a remnant of that movement south and noted many other buildings have been demolished. Commissioner Conway stated the trend seems more national than local and stated the building is not a unique style to Fort Collins. Regarding standard number two, related to persons, Commissioner Conway stated his comments regarding events also apply. Commissioner Gaines stated that while Frank Ghent made some civic contributions to the community, that is not uncommon for someone of his station. However, Mr. Ghent had an interesting life. He stated the uncertainty is around what makes the figure significant to the community and stated the dealership is significant to Mr. Ghent’s life, noting it was built from the ground up and was not a building with a former use. Vice Chair Gibson stated the Ghent name is well known and the fact that the building is the second location for the dealership shows further success. She stated Mr. Ghent did lead a significant life and expressed support for eligibility under standard two. Commissioner Carlock stated much of Fort Collins was based on the foresight of people who started businesses, and they are the reason the town is here. She stated it is important to recognize the contributions to the community that people have made over the years and Mr. Ghent was of considerable influence in the community in addition to being a businessperson. She also expressed support for eligibility under standard two. Commissioner Conway stated he would give deference to businesspeople who start local businesses rather than franchises. Vice Chair Gibson stated recent history is just as valuable as not recent history and noted franchising was a new trend at the time the dealership opened. Commissioner Carlock stated that type of a franchise seems necessary given there were no ‘local’ car makers. Chair Rose stated that the connection of Frank and Dwight Ghent to this building is somewhat tenuous given the original location of the dealership at the current Beau Jo’s location. Commissioner Gaines concurred with Chair Rose and noted Spradley/Barr has been in possession of the building longer than the Ghent’s. Regarding standard three related to workmanship, Vice Chair Gibson stated it is obvious the structure is mid-century modern, and the building looks the same as it did originally. Commissioner Gaines stated the building seems to meet the standard noting it is not about buildings being master works of architecture but about representing and embodying a time period. Commissioner Conway stated he had never noticed the building to be different from any other car dealership on South College when driving past. Additionally, he stated the building currently has a large Mazda sign on its front which is detracting from the architecture. Commissioner Gaines stated some of the building’s characteristics, such as the signage, do make it blend in with the rest of the car dealerships; however, it is a unique building. Chair Rose stated the building is the work of a designer and visionary occupant and it remains intact. He stated the standard for workmanship is the strongest of the three. He stated the building is a local icon in the sense that the Commission is called upon to examine it. He noted the architecture was not common in 1966 across the country, and certainly not in Fort Collins. Commissioner Carlock concurred the workmanship standard is the strongest, particularly because so many early commercial buildings from that time period south of downtown Fort Collins have been lost. Vice Chair Gibson summarized the Commission’s comments that there is general agreement about standard three, but not standards one and two, and suggested moving forward with a discussion on integrity for only standard three. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Chair Rose noted there are seven aspects of integrity, first being location. Commissioner Carlock stated the building is in its original location and stated the surrounding area does not need to remain exactly the same for the location to still be valid. Vice Chair Gibson concurred. In terms of design, Vice Chair Gibson noted the front façade is exactly the same as when the building was constructed; therefore, design is intact. Commissioner Conway stated the back garage area seems to be significantly different in terms of the windows. Commissioner Gaines stated not having the original glass doors along the shop area is a big change; however, the overall design of the area is well retained. Chair Rose stated the garage is the most expendable part of the property as there are two other structures on the property that provide good examples of novel, contemporary, 1966 architecture. In terms of setting, Commissioner Gaines stated the surroundings have changed and therefore, the setting has changed; however, the major traffic corridors around the building remain. Commissioner Carlock stated she understands the appellant’s argument that the building is in a changing area, and the desire of the community is to produce more high-density housing and other uses for the area; therefore, the setting will likely change more in the future. Regarding materials, Vice Chair Gibson noted the roofing and garage doors have changed. She stated integrity is not the same as condition, but noted there are some deteriorating materials. She stated material integrity is generally intact however. Regarding feeling and association, Commissioner Conway stated most passersby probably have no idea the building is anything more than a car dealership. He stated the location of the building on a major car-oriented intersection makes it difficult for the place to tell a story. Commissioner Gaines stated College Avenue will likely have a great deal of redevelopment in the future and this building does provide a feeling of its original time and place. He acknowledged the building is not one in which most people spend much time; however, in thinking about the future changes for College, it could become that type of place. Chair Rose stated this is a difficult item given the association with persons is a weaker part of the argument for eligibility. Commissioner Gaines stated there is not a clear association with persons or events and he does not believe that piece of integrity exists. Commissioner Carlock stated association is stronger than feeling as drivers passing the buildings are not focusing on them; however, there is an association with the event that happened happening at the building. She reiterated this is one of only two remaining commercial buildings from that era in that area. Commissioner Gaines made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission find the commercial property at 2601 South College Avenue eligible as a Fort Collins landmark according to the standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code based on the evidence in the staff report, City survey form, and appellants’ documentation, and based on the following findings of fact: the property meets standards one for significance because of its association with the expansion of Fort Collins south along College Avenue and as an early car dealership along College Avenue, and standard three as a building embodying identifiable characteristics of modern contemporary design. Further, the property at 2601 South College Avenue meets the following aspects of integrity: location, as it is in the original place where it was constructed, design, as it maintains the overall aesthetics of its original construction, setting, as the surrounding neighborhood does not detract from the original setting of the building, materials, as only minor elements have been removed or altered, and in general, the original building remains intact, and workmanship, as it maintains original materials and construction techniques of its time. Vice Chair Gibson seconded the motion. Yeas: Carlock, Gaines, Gibson, and Rose. Nays: Conway and Wilson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Vice Chair Gibson commented on the importance of recent history and stated mid-century modern buildings are a dwindling resource. She stated her opinion was based on architecture, the fact that car dealerships helped extend the city south, and the five aspects of integrity. Commissioner Carlock stated she voted in favor of the motion as not everything that is historically valuable is a grand building; historical properties should tell the story of the city and reflect its character. Commissioner Conway stated he opposed the motion because he does not believe the story of Fort Collins will be will told by the building itself. He stated he struggles to find any building that would not meet the criteria related to ‘embodying identifiable characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.’ He stated he believes it will be difficult to use the building as a historic resource for the community. Commissioner Gaines stated this was a difficult decision given the community’s desire to see the corridor redevelop with additional housing; however, those things can take place without eliminating what exists. He expressed concern that if the rare buildings of this era are not preserved, Fort Collins will become a city of Old Town buildings and whatever the current time period should be. Commissioner Wilson stated this was a difficult decision; however, he felt the bar was a bit low and he has a desire to see a balance for the potential of the location and other community needs. Commissioner Conway stated the placement of housing near transit helps to meet the Historic Preservation Commission’s goals around equity and sustainability. He also commented on the importance of the Commission not being seen as blocking much needed housing. Commissioner Carlock concurred but noted the Commission is bound by the Secretary of the Interior standards and its role as part of the certified local government, which is a difficult part of the role of the Commission. Chair Rose thanked the Commissioners for their time and thoughtful comments and commended the appellant and staff for their excellent materials. He noted the Commission is bound by certain criteria to make its judgements but noted there will be other voices involved moving forward. He stated his hope is that this determination will not be a deterrent to the ultimate successful development of the property. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tripoint Data and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.