Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - MINUTES - 02/19/2025Historic Preservation Commission REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025 – 5:30 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL o Commission Members Present – Jim Rose (Chair) Bonnie Gibson (Vice Chair) Margo Carlock Chris Conway Jeff Gaines Jenna Edwards Aaron Hull David Woodlee o Commission Members Absent – None o Staff Members Present – Stephanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Melissa Matsunaka, HPC Admin o Guest(s) – None •AGENDA REVIEW Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, reviewed the published agenda. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS ON OR NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2025. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carlock, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Bertolini noted staff and Council are currently interviewing for the vacant seat on the Commission. Additionally, staff is seeking nominations for the Friends of Preservation awards that will occur in May. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP None. • 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, reported on staff and Commission members attending the Saving Places conference in Colorado Springs. Bertolini reported on a 2010 historic survey of the El Palomino Motel on North College, noting it was considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. He stated the pool pump house, which is considered a contributing historic resource, was run into by a vehicle and was considered not salvageable; therefore, a demolition permit was issued. Jones reported on the upcoming Friends of Preservation awards and stated nominations will close on March 2nd at midnight. Jones also reported on upcoming education and outreach opportunities, including a sold out program related to the work of Montezuma Fuller tomorrow at the Museum of Discovery, which will be repeated in May, and a Laurel Street and College Avenue survey and open house at Avogadro’s Number on February 26th. Jones also provided a reminder about the Historic Preservation newsletter. 3. 509 REMINGTON STREET (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: barn that contributes to the City Landmark at 509 Remington St., the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn. The proposal includes relocation of the barn, some exterior alterations, and a garage addition. The applicant has waived Conceptual Landmark Design Review and is seeking a Certificate of APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Taylor Meyer, VFLA (Applicant); Kevin Buffington (Owner) Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner STAFF PRESENTATION Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, provided location information and showed photos of the property and historic buildings on site. She noted the Commission will be providing a final design review for the proposed addition to and rehabilitation of the historic barn on the site as the conceptual design review has been waived. Jones provided some historical information about the property, which was designated as a City Landmark in 1997 and is on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Laurel School Historic District. She commented on the architectural significance of the site and its association with prominent community figures. Jones discussed the proposal to relocate the barn, which was determined to be feasible by a structural engineer. Additionally, the barn is proposed to be rehabilitated to convert it into habitable space and an addition would be added for a garage. Jones provided additional details regarding the proposed rehabilitation, materials, and proposed window and door replacements and alterations. Jones stated staff finds the project to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) standards for rehabilitation. She noted no new exterior openings are proposed, thereby minimizing the loss of historic material. The addition that is proposed to be removed for the garage is not known to have historic significance in its own right. Jones showed images of the house on the site and stated the distance between the house and the existing location of the barn is approximately 44 feet, and the distance between the house and the proposed location of the barn is approximately 37 feet to the historic part of the barn and 33 feet to the proposed addition. Jones stated staff recommends approval and issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for this work. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Taylor Meyer, VFLA, discussed the desire of the property owners to utilize the barn structure in a more functional manner and to prevent it from deteriorating over time. He noted the proposal would include habitable space, but would not be a living unit. Meyer discussed the reasons for relocating the barn and noted the alley improvement project to the west of the property will be underway shortly, and relocating the barn prior to that project would be advantageous. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Vice Chair Gibson concurred with the staff assessment that the proposed project meets the SOI standards and supported issuing a certificate of appropriateness. Commissioner Gaines concurred and commended the design. Commissioner Carlock commended the effort that went into mirroring the barn doors and windows to the existing structure. Commissioner Carlock made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hull, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed work on the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington Street because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. 509 REMINGTON ST. (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) AND 515 REMINGTON ST. (FRED W. STOVER HOUSE, GARAGE, AND SHARED BARN) LANDMARK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS DESCRIPTION: include both Chestnut (the alley north of E. Mountain Ave between Chestnut and Jefferson), and East Mulberry (the alley east of S. College Ave between E. Mulberry St and E. Myrtle St.). Both projects include LID treatments, public art, improvement/concentration of trash & utility infrastructure, etc. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Kevin and Dawn Buffington (owners of 509 and 515 Remington St.) Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner STAFF PRESENTATION Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, provided location information and showed photos of the properties. She noted the barn straddles the property between the two parcels: 509 and 515 Remington Street. Jones outlined the role of the Commission related to landmark ordinance amendments and noted City Council will be the final decision maker. Jones discussed the historic designation of 515 Remington Street, both architecturally and for its historical association. She outlined the request for landmark ordinance amendments, one of which is an update to the landmark boundaries and legal descriptions to reflect an already completed lot line adjustment that has been recorded with Larimer County and reviewed by City Zoning staff. The second amendment request deals with the relocation of the barn to update the name and text of the 515 Remington Street landmark to strike references to the shared barn to more accurately reflect the location of the barn to being entirely within the 509 Remington parcel, as was just approved with the Commission’s previous action. Jones stated staff recommends leaving the reference to the shared barn in the 509 Remington Street ordinance as a reminder of the historical association. Jones stated staff recommends adoption of a written resolution recommending that City Council approve the landmark ordinance amendments as proposed. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Taylor Meyer, VFLA, stated he was available for questions. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Commissioner Gaines made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hull, that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution recommending that City Council adopt ordinances to amend the designations of the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington Street, and the Frank W. Stover House Garage and Shared Barn at 515 Remington Street, specifically to strike the phrase ‘shared barn’ from the 515 Remington Street landmark ordinance, update the boundary and legal description on the 509 Remington Street landmark ordinance from north 45 feet of lot 6, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 509 Remington Street, to north 45 feet of lot 6 and the south 5 feet of the west 39 feet of lot 6, and the north 8 feet of the west 39 feet of lot 5, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 509 Remington Street, update the boundary and legal description on the 515 Remington Street landmark ordinance from lot 5 and the south 5 feet of lot 6, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 515 Remington Street, to lot 5 and the south 5 feet of lot 6, except the north 8 feet of the west 39 feet of lot 5, and except the south 5 feet of the west 39 feet lot 6, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 515 Remington Street. Further, that the Commission finds that the proposed amendments are supported by the analysis of provided in the staff report, the 1997 landmark nominations, and the presented evidence at this meeting that such modifications would not diminish the historic significance or historic integrity of the properties, and finds also that the amended designations would allow the preservation of the properties to remain consistent with the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: new two-story building at the corner of Chestnut and Mountain Avenues, directly abutting the Armory building, an individual City Landmark located outside of the Old Town Historic District boundary. The project includes minor modifications to the west wall of the Armory to provide access between the two buildings. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Mountain 300, LLC, represented by Chris Aronson (design, VFLA) 262 E. Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this item is a recommendation on a development review at 300 East Mountain Avenue that is adjacent to a historic building. He noted the role of the Commission is to provide a formal recommendation via motion to the decision maker, which is the Community Development Director in this case. Bertolini provided renderings of the proposed project: a two-story mixed office and commercial building which is approximately 31 feet tall. He noted there is some functional relationship proposed between this building and the existing historic Armory building. Bertolini stated the applicant completed a historic survey in 2019 of the one-story structure that was formerly on the site and he provided a summary of the building’s history. Bertolini noted there was historic significance found in the historic survey; however, the former building was considered not eligible for historic designation largely due to building modifications over time which eliminated the historic integrity of the site’s ability to tell the story of its former use as a vehicle service garage. Bertolini discussed the community and architectural significance of the abutting historic Armory building, which is the anchor point for the design compatibility discussion. He noted the proposal includes minor modifications to the west wall of the Armory to prove access between the two buildings. Bertolini provided renderings of the proposed building and noted all seven of the compatibility requirements in the Code must be met. He outlined those requirements and associated staff findings: width and massing similarity, which staff found to be mostly met, step backs for buildings taller than the historic resource, which is not applicable in this case as the proposed building height will be the same, the use of durable and authentic materials, which is a duplicate requirement to one of the Downtown zone district, which staff found is not clearly met as one of the proposed exterior materials is a high-pressure laminate, compatibility between new construction and historic buildings based on dominant materials, which staff found is not clearly met given some of the proposed materials, windows and fenestration compatibility, which staff found to be exceeded, matching some degree of horizontal or vertical alignment, which staff found to comply roughly, and visibility, which staff found to be met particularly from the Mountain Avenue elevation. In terms of Commission questions from the work session, Bertolini stated ‘authentic’ typically involves referencing or using materials that are part of the historic vernacular within the downtown area. In terms of why the ghost sign on the west elevation of the Armory building was not considered to be a character-defining feature that needed to be preserved, Bertolini stated the sign relates to the Paramount Laundry business that did exist in the building for a long period of time, but was not recognized with the National Register nomination. Bertolini stated the proposed project was considered new construction rather than an addition to a historic structure given the applicability of various standards, the building’s presence outside of the landmark boundary, which is the west wall of the Armory, and the parcel line that exists between the buildings. Bertolini stated the Commission requested a discussion of how staff has interpreted the seventh compatibility requirement regarding visibility of historic features in the past. He stated this is a unique situation in that it is part of the densely populated downtown area where abutting construction is common. He noted examples of those situations were provided in the Commission’s packet. Bertolini outlined the Commission’s requests from the applicant for clarity on the expected long- term durability of the high-pressure laminate material, information regarding how the applicant is framing ‘primary’ materials, and clarification and additional detail about the joint between the two buildings on the Mountain Avenue side. He provided some suggested discussion questions for the Commission and summarized some input received from members of the public. COMMISSION QUESTIONS Commissioner Carlock expressed concern about the review of the project as a stand-alone building rather than as an addition given the entry points between the two buildings. She asked if the first floor of the new building will serve a function for the Armory or be leased out to a different commercial tenant. Bertolini replied he would let the applicant answer that question. Commissioner Carlock asked if there are other examples of the landmark lot line being the deciding factor for review as an addition versus a stand-alone new construction building. Bertolini replied he cannot think of an exact example of functionally related buildings across parcel lines being classified as new construction. Commissioner Carlock stated reviewing the project as an addition would involve the question of subordination and other items which could make this project not viable as proposed. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Chris Aronson, VFLA, provided some renderings of the project to help examine scale and context. He outlined the goal of the project to draw pedestrians further east on Mountain and showed photos of the existing site and Armory building. He commented on the symmetry of the Armory building and the matching design of the new building. In terms of materiality, Aronson stated the desire was to have brick be the primary material creating contrast with the Armory in order to highlight it. Aronson commented on the rounded section of the proposed building at the corner and noted that since the building is within the storefront area of downtown, there must be a minimum of 60% glazing on the ground floor. He noted the primary entrance to the building is on the Chestnut side of the building and showed some renderings of the proposed building versus other nearby buildings to show scale and the compact nature of the building. Aronson stated the building’s uses will include support space for the Armory on the first floor against the west wall of the Armory, including a ticket office, bar extension, and green room, though most of the first floor will be used for a new unidentified tenant. Aronson stated two of the west wall penetrations will be new, one in the basement and one on the first floor, and three are existing. Aronson discussed the proposed exterior materials and exterior light fixtures. He stated the high- pressure laminate is a very durable, high-cost product and noted it is in use on the City’s Lincoln Center building. He commented on the seven compatibility requirements and the ways in which the project meets those requirements. Additionally, he showed images of other downtown buildings that used panelized products and noted there is about 40% more brick on the façade than the panel material. He provided additional details regarding the Trespa panel material and showed some photos of buildings across the country that have used the material. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Commissioner Carlock requested clarification regarding the use of the second floor and asked if the rounded corner space of the first floor is the space to be occupied by the commercial tenant. Aronson replied in the affirmative to the second question and stated the basement will be storage for the Armory and the potential tenant and the second floor could be a separate tenant, or possibly the same as the first floor tenant, and the second floor will not be used for the Armory. Commissioner Carlock asked why there is still an opening on the second floor. Aronson replied the opening already exists. Commissioner Carlock asked if there was any thought given to expanding into the second floor for entertainment space or a larger bar. Aronson replied the second floor of the existing Armory is primarily administrative and there is no logical way to get guests between the existing balcony area and the second floor of the new building. Commissioner Hull asked if the show time screens on the new building will be used for the Armory. Aronson replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Woodlee asked how the Trespa panels will be affixed to the building. Aronson provided a sample to the Commission and stated there will be a concealed fastener that requires thicker panels. Commissioner Woodlee asked if the distance that the front façade goes above the roof will terminate on a substructure. Aronson replied there will be another Trespa panel for top of parapet. Commissioner Conway asked about the significance of the use of the building in the Commission’s determination. Bertolini replied it can be a factor, but does not change the legal pathway in terms of the need for the Commission to make a recommendation; use is not the determining factor. Vice Chair Gibson asked if the material percentages presented are for the entire building or just the Mountain Avenue elevation. Aronson replied they are just for Mountain Avenue. Commissioner Edwards asked about the difference in evaluation if the project were to be classified as an addition. Bertolini replied classifying it as an addition would change the set of standards that would be applied to the project. As a stand-alone new construction project, the seven compatibility standards must be met, and they are influenced by the National Parks Service rehabilitation standards. If the project were to be analyzed as an addition, the Secretary of Interior standards nine and ten for rehabilitation would apply and the addition would need to be compatible, distinguishable from the historic building, subordinate to the historic building, and reversible. Bertolini stated the Land Use Code follows that logic, though the standards are not a one-to-one comparison. Chair Rose stated this process normally involves a conceptual design review and final design review and asked why this project did not involve the conceptual phase. Bertolini replied the Land Use Code does not require a conceptual review in front of the Commission, though it is optional, and staff did not make a point to recommend that in this case based on advanced looks at the plans. Members of the Commission examined samples of the materials planned to be used for the building’s exterior. Commissioner Conway stated there are incentives for the building owner to utilize a durable, long- lasting product. Commissioner Gaines stated that because the landmark designation is specific to the Armory property and does not extend beyond the wall, there is no framework or grounds for this project to be considered an addition. Bertolini replied the Commission does have the option of reviewing the project as an addition; however, the Commission’s authority in terms of approving projects is limited to the landmark boundary. He noted staff’s recommendation is to consider the project to be new construction and review it under the Land Use Code; however, the Commission could opt to review it as an addition and recommend that staff ensure the design is compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and reversible per the Secretary of the Interior standards. Commissioner Gaines stated the building is functioning, in large part, as an addition to the Armory and it is not as independent and severable as many neighboring buildings across party walls are. He stated that many of the requirements for a successful design are covered within the Land Use Code standards; however, the consideration missing from the Land Use Code standards is the question of subordination. He stated he believes the Commission could have a constructive conversation by walking through the Land Use Code standards. Commissioner Carlock commended the building’s design overall, particularly the fenestration and lines to ensure the building fits in with and yet is distinct from the Armory. However, she stated the building clearly does not meet the SOI standards if it is considered an addition. Vice Chair Gibson echoed the concerns and noted much of the building will be used for the Armory. However, in looking at property lines and historic landmark lines, there is no language in the Land Use Code that can definitively point to the building not being new construction. She stated her main concern was the materials; however, there are statistics to show the panel material does not take up as much of the façade as it initially appears. She stated the project seems to meet the applicable Land Use Code standards. Commissioner Gaines disagreed and stated there are major opportunities for improvement. He stated the design falls short of the Land Use Code requirements in almost every category. Chair Rose suggested the Commission discuss each of the seven compatibility criteria individually. Commissioner Edwards asked if the Commission could agree on new construction versus an addition. Stephanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission could conduct a ‘straw poll’ on the issue, though it would not be binding. Commissioners Carlock and Edwards viewed the building as an addition. Commissioners Hull, Conway, Gaines, Gibson, and Woodlee viewed the building as being new construction. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Width/Massing/Articulation Commissioner Carlock stated she does not believe the building meets these criteria. Commissioner Gaines concurred and stated the building has a complicated façade that is split into several irregular pieces without any hierarchy or clear unifying organization. Commissioner Woodlee questioned whether eliminating the wings of the building could help with the visual massing. Commissioner Gaines stated the building’s design feels like a mini Armory that is very simplified but the design does not meet the standard by trying to force in the wing motif. He also commented on the joint between the buildings and stated the single most important thing that could be done to honor this standard would be to have an intentional piece of relief that separates the two buildings. Chair Rose concurred the design looks like three separate buildings and agreed there should be a separation in the design between the Armory and the new building. Commissioner Gaines stated he does not believe the choices in the massing options are doing the job of respecting the Armory. Commissioner Conway suggested the building does meet the width standard and stated the color change from the Armory building distinguishes the new building. Vice Chair Gibson stated it seems the width standard is met. Commissioner Conway stated he does not necessarily agree with the articulation requirement; however, this building meets the standard. Step Backs Commissioner Gaines noted the standard calls for step backs to be located at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources. He stated this façade shows the importance of the transition happening at the same height. He also stated the transition between the brick and paneling seems stark and the new façade creates a mis-proportioned section of brick above the windows which has an awkward relationship to the proportions of the Armory. He stated the choice to keep the new building to two stories does not ameliorate the building’s design. Commissioner Carlock stated she was initially concerned about the massing; however, the new building is visually two separate buildings. She commended the design overall. Vice Chair Gibson stated this standard is met given the buildings are the same height; therefore, a step back is not required. Authentic/Durable/High-Quality Materials Commissioner Carlock stated the standard is met. Vice Chair Gibson stated it is difficult to assess new materials; however, the sample seemed durable. Commissioner Woodlee noted this Code section was written before many materials were even viable options. He noted wood is a material on the list and Trespa has stated the panel material is 70% wood. He stated he believes this requirement is met. Commissioner Gaines stated ‘authentic’ is somewhat of a loaded term, but noted the goal is to avoid simulated materials. He expressed concern that the panel material falls into a simulated material category; therefore, the intent of this standard is not met. Referencing Predominant Material(s) in Type/Scale/Color/3-Dimensionality/Pattern (at least 2) Commissioner Carlock stated the standard is met. Commissioner Conway concurred. Windows – Pattern/Proportion/Solid-to-Void Pattern (at least 1) Chair Rose stated the portion that is adjacent to the Armory makes reasonable references to window fenestration, though it departs from that further west on the elevation. Commissioner Gaines stated this standard is met and stated the building becoming more transparent further west is beneficial. Chair Rose concurred. Horizontal/Vertical Reference Points Vice Chair Gibson stated the reference lines are distinctly present. Commissioner Gaines stated the parapet with the laminate material seems problematic. He stated the intent to pull the Armory’s dentils across does a disservice to the integrity of the Armory façade. He stated designers have a need to check boxes in some of these situations; however, there are cases where that can detract from what is trying to be protected. Visibility Vice Chair Gibson stated the ghost sign for the laundry is not part of the historic integrity of the property; however, there are few ghost signs left. Commissioner Carlock stated this standard is met and stated the ghost sign is not necessarily the most important one in town. Vice Chair Gibson concurred the standard is met and stated the sign is not from the period of significance. Commissioner Conway made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Woodlee, that that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the two- story commercial/office building at 300 East Mountain Avenue, finding that the proposal complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 5.8.1(F)(1)(c), Table 1., specifically that it meets the applicable Standards with the exception of the third standard for authentic/durable/high-quality materials. Further, that the Commission advises staff to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the modifications to the Armory to facilitate connection to the new building, finding that the work meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Commissioner Hull concurred with the motion stating the materials are not as authentic as they could be. Commissioner Gaines questioned whether it is appropriate to give a recommendation of approval if a standard is not met that would have a significant impact on the design. Bertolini replied the Commission has issued conditional approvals in the past and suggested that if the Commission feels the recommendation is properly articulated with a note that one of the standards is not met and the decision maker should take that into account and perhaps require a change before approval, staff could include that in a memorandum to the decision maker. He requested the Commission articulate what part of the standard is not met to provide guidance to the decision maker regarding what they should consider as an acceptable change. Commissioner Gaines stated there is significant opportunity to improve on the design and the balance between the two buildings. He stated the applicable Land Use Code standards articulate goals of the new construction being compatible while protecting and complementing the historic character of historic resources, which he stated this design does not accomplish. He stated the materials are a large part of that; however, there are also other items that could improve upon the way the building protects and compliments the Armory, including articulating the joint between the two buildings. He suggested the applicant focus more on designing a nice, new building rather than on meeting the letter of the standards. He stated the Chestnut façade is in some ways more elegant and the Mountain Avenue façade could be strengthened by incorporating more of those aspects. He asked how much leeway the applicant has to change the design based on the Commission’s recommendation as he would not just want the laminate material to be replaced as the only change. Bertolini stated the decision maker is very much awaiting feedback from the Commission on the design in terms of whether the Code is met. He noted the design conversation specifically is a matter of whether the Downtown zone district standards and Land Use Code standards are met, the applicant does have leeway to alter their designs. He noted the project has only gone through one round of review with the full City staff; therefore, there would be some opportunities to modify elevations. Commissioner Carlock asked if the requirement is that all seven of the standards are met. Bertolini replied that the expectation is that all standards are met given the abutting historic resource. Chair Rose suggested there may be sufficient background captured in the minutes that could clarify why the material element is considered as not meeting the Code language. Bertolini noted there was not consensus on whether the authentic/durable/high-quality material Code section was met. He stated it would be helpful for staff to have a bit more clarity on what exactly is not met and some potential pathways forward. Vice Chair Gibson suggested adding language into the motion that the concern is based on concerns regarding the authenticity of materials. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaines, to amend the motion to add the language ‘based on concerns of authenticity of materials’ to the third standard. Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: Carlock. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on the amended motion was as follows: Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: Carlock. THE MOTION CARRIED. •OTHER BUSINESS None. •ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.