Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 06/17/2020Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 June 17, 2020 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was conducted Michael Bello remotely on the Zoom platform. Mollie Bredehoft Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Regular Meeting June 17, 2020 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. (**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.) • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bello, Dunn, Knierim, Michell, Murray, Nelsen, Wallace ABSENT: Bredehoft STAFF: Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager Chair Dunn read a statement explaining why the Commission is meeting remotely and reviewed the basic mechanics of conducting the meeting online. • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS Mr. Bertolini shared information about a new historic resource planning map on the City’s website. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 June 17, 2020 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 20, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 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 Landmark 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. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the June 20, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. THE WOODS-GILKISON-DUNN PROPERTY AT 331 S. LOOMIS STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Woods-Gilkison-Dunn Property at 331 S. Loomis Street. APPLICANT: Housing Catalyst Chair Dunn recused herself from this item due to her involvement in a potential landmark designation for the historic district that includes this property. She also noted she is not related to the “Dunn” in the property name. Ms. Wallace assumed the duties of Chair. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the role of the Commission. He stated that staff had found this property eligible under Standard 3, Design/Construction, as an example of Free Classic Queen Anne architecture, and that the property meets all seven aspects of integrity. He explained how designation of the property supports the policies outlined in City Plan and aligns with Municipal Code Section 14-2 as a significant example of local architecture and craftmanship as well as its continued use as a private residence. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions None Commission Discussion Mr. Murray agreed that the building is significant for its architecture and commented that it is a good anchor for the corner. Acting Chair Wallace stated this Free Classic Queen Anne reflected the community and its working class better than a high-style Queen Anne would. Ms. Nelsen agreed that the home is significant architecturally and stated the addition does not detract from the home’s eligibility. Mr. Knierim commented that the 1980’s addition blends with the existing footprint. Ms. Nelsen stated that the addition was subservient to the original house and is set back and detailed in a way that isn’t distracting from the original form. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 June 17, 2020 Mr. Murray commented on the uniqueness of the gable and the pitch of the dormer. Mr. Bello asked if the horizontal window is original. Mr. Bertolini said most of the windows have been replaced, but in most cases replicate the form of the original. Mr. Murray said the window is wider than he would expect but stated it would make sense to have a special window in that area. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Woods-Gilkison-Dunn Property at 331 S. Loomis Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report dated June 17, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dunn returned to the meeting. 4. THE BENTON-SCHULTZ DUPLEX AT 1016-1018 MORGAN STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Benton-Schultz Duplex at 1016-1018 Morgan Street. APPLICANT: Housing Catalyst Chair Dunn disclosed that she is mentioned in the sources section of the property documentation, but that the article she wrote was on the neighborhood and not specific to this project and does not create any bias for her. Mr. Yatabe encouraged the members to interrupt if at any point they have trouble hearing a speaker. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the role of the Commission. He stated the property is eligible under Standard 3 (Design/Construction), as an example of a Contemporary-style Duplex, and has good to excellent integrity in all seven aspects. He explained how designation of the property supports the policies outlined in City Plan and aligns with Municipal Code Section 14-2 as a significant example of local architecture and craftmanship as well as its continued use as a private residence. Mr. Bertolini clarified that the property was not nominated under Standard 2 for its association with Harvey Schultz as a builder because staff does not have sufficient information to make the case for him as a master builder. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Knierim asked if there are other landmarked duplexes in Fort Collins. Mr. Bertolini said there are a handful that are pre-WWII, especially along Remington and the west side of College. Duplexes for this development period in Fort Collins are rare. Ms. Nelsen clarified there are some other post-WWII duplexes in Fort Collins that aren’t landmarked. Mr. Bertolini confirmed that, adding that the entire block is a unique enclave. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 June 17, 2020 Commission Discussion Mr. Murray commented that one unit is about half the size of the other and noted that the home being a triplex now doesn’t affect the exterior of the building. Chair Dunn agreed that you can’t tell it’s a triplex which helps to maintain the exterior integrity, and also supports the policies and purposes of the City with regard to increasing density while maintaining historic character. She also commented on the uniqueness of a post-war duplex. Ms. Wallace noted that this property is outside the Old Town area where most historic properties are located and talked about the University Acres area becoming more prominent and more historically significant. Chair Dunn mentioned that a property like this may often be overlooked, but stated this property exudes a sense of place and time. Mr. Murray said University Acres is said to have been developed because of CSU but may have also been related to the hospital. Chair Dunn agreed, noting that Kodak, HP and Waterpik were also contributors to the expansion outward, and reflects an important time of growth for the city. Ms. Nelsen stated that the property is well-preserved and deserving of landmark status. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Benton-Schultz Duplex at 1016-1018 Morgan Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report dated June 17, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Wallace seconded. The motion passed 7-0. 5. THE BRAWNER-MCARTHUR PROPERTY AT 228 WHEDBEE STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Brawner-McArthur property at 228 Whedbee Street. APPLICANT: Housing Catalyst Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the role of the Commission. He stated the property is eligible under Standard 3 (Design/Construction), as an example of a modified Hipped-Roof Box and meets all seven aspects of integrity. He explained how designation of the property supports the policies outlined in City Plan and aligns with Municipal Code Section 14-2 as a significant example of local architecture and craftmanship as well as its continued use as a private residence. He clarified that the shed on the property could have been used as a chicken coop, as there was a chicken coop on the property at one point. He noted that a rear addition is fairly common on these homes. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Murray asked about the year of the additions. Mr. Bertolini stated the gable-end addition was in 1909 and the rear porch may have been added in 1943, but he will clarify that in the nomination. Mr. Bertolini stated the circa 1949 addition was the additional south entrance, based on historic building Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 June 17, 2020 permits issued by the City. Mr. Murray asked if it is still a duplex. Preston Nakayama with Housing Catalyst stated that the home is currently single-family. Mr. Bertolini noted it had been used as boarding space in the past, as there were times when multiple names were listed in the City directory in the same year. Commission Discussion Mr. Knierim stated this demonstrates the varying socio-economic levels in the city over time. Mr. Murray pointed out an issue on the roof. Mr. Bertolini stated that the roof had been replaced since the photo was taken and that these properties have generally been well-maintained. Mr. Murray said it was an interesting modified duplex. Ms. Nelsen said it was an interesting property and represents the evolution of the use of the home. She added it is a good example of a unique property in the city. Chair Dunn said it was interesting that the expansion was on the side instead of the back which seems rare. Commission Deliberation Mr. Knierim moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Brawner-McArthur Property at 228 Whedbee Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report dated June 17, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Secretary’s Note – The Commission took a break from 6:43-6:50 pm. A roll call was conducted upon return confirming all members were present.] 6. 140 E. OAK MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: A six-story, mixed-use development with ground floor office and retail, podium parking on level 2, and affordable apartment units (studio, 1 and 2 bedroom) on levels 3 to 6, to be constructed on a currently vacant parcel in the Historic Core of the Downtown District. APPLICANT: Owners: Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Housing Catalyst Design: Shopworks Architecture; Ripley Design Ms. Nelson disclosed that her company had bid on this project, but she stated she can be fair and impartial. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained that the Commission has been asked to provide comments relative to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for this conceptual review. Ms. Bzdek explained that the applicant has several modifications of standards requests for this project, specifically regarding the height, setback, and parking requirements. She noted this property is in the historic core of the Downtown District. Ms. Bzdek explained that comments provided by the Commission will become part of the staff review conversations. When the Applicant comes back to the Commission, it will be for a recommendation to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Bzdek reminded the Commission of the six design compatibility standards included in 3.4.7. Ms. Bzdek reviewed the history of 140 E. Oak. She pointed out the historic resources within the area of adjacency and detailed some key characteristics in the area such as heights of 1 to 2 stories, narrow widths, use of brick and sandstone materials, commercial storefronts and vertically oriented windows defined by decorative detail. She discussed other design details including flat roofs with decorative cornices and parapets, horizontal brick banding and sandstone details. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 June 17, 2020 Ms. Bzdek provided some questions for the Commission to consider in their review regarding width, height, stepbacks, materials, fenestration and design details. Applicant Presentation Kristin Fritz introduced herself and stated that Housing Catalyst is the housing authority for the City of Fort Collins. She explained this is a joint project between Housing Catalyst and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), explained the missions of those organizations and highlighted some of Housing Catalyst’s previous projects. Ms. Fritz noted that this is a rare opportunity for affordable housing Downtown which is likely not to present itself again. She said they are aiming for strong delivery of affordable housing and solid architectural design. She provided an overview of the proposed project and discussed the desire to activate the street level while meeting the parking demand in an efficient way. She mentioned some of the amenities that would be incorporated into the project. Ms. Fritz explained why underground parking was not a viable option for the project. She also explained the need for the height modification to provide the desired number of affordable housing units. Ms. Fritz discussed how this project meets the guidelines of the Downtown Plan. She talked about meeting the community need for affordable housing and described the targeted demographic characteristics of the resident population. Ms. Fritz summarized the benefits of the project and introduced Chad Holtzinger with Shopworks Architecture to discuss design. Mr. Holtzinger discussed the team’s process and the evolution of the design for the project. He shared his observations of the design elements of the surrounding properties. He talked about integrating art into urbanism and shared some examples. He talked about the team’s efforts to keep the building active and interesting from the street. Mr. Holtzinger described the articulation and massing of the project. He mentioned the strategy behind the stepbacks. He discussed the use of materials throughout the design and how they draw from the surrounding historic resources. He talked about incorporating historic window patterns into the exterior design. Ms. Fritz addressed the timeline for the project. She stated there is a critical funding application due August 1st and the project needs to move through the development review and entitlement process prior to that to demonstrate the project is ready to proceed. She talked about the neighborhood outreach they had conducted and stated that the feedback was generally positive. They hope to come back to the LPC in July. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn said the YMCA had been a community resource when it was in this location, and mentioned she was glad this would also be a place for people in need. She also pointed out that the other affordable housing Downtown, such as the Northern Hotel, is only for seniors, so it is nice to see something for other age groups. She said she heard the 2016 design charette seemed to heavily favor the need for affordable housing, and she was glad to see this project come forward. Mr. Bello expressed concern that there were fewer parking spaces than units and suggested the possibility of renting spaces from the lot to the south. He also stated that it would be nice to include some ownership options in addition to rentals. Chair Dunn was interested in more information about the parking lot to south as well. Ms. Fritz stated it is a City-owned lot, but there is a possibility the lot could be redeveloped in the future. She mentioned there may be a possibility of obtaining permits in other nearby parking structures. Mr. Murray asked about the possibility of a City partnership on parking. Matt Robenalt with the DDA stated the financial resources are not available at this time. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 June 17, 2020 Chair Dunn asked how long the apartments will be affordable. Ms. Fritz said there is a 50-year minimum, but Housing Catalyst is committed to permanent affordability. Chair Dunn asked about maintenance. Ms. Fritz said their budget includes maintenance, property management, staffing, and building reserves over the course of 15 years. She explained the financing is contingent upon evaluation of these budgeting considerations. Chair Dunn asked whether 146 Remington is eligible for landmark designation. Ms. Bzdek confirmed that it is, as well as the property where Equinox Brewery is located. Mr. Bello asked about the requirements for qualification. Ms. Fritz clarified that these units are strictly for those in the 30-80% AMI range, but while they are targeting people who are employed Downtown, they cannot restrict the geographic area in which residents are employed. Chair Dunn asked that the Commission comment on the questions posed by staff in order of topic. Massing Mr. Bello said the elevation comparison slide does a good job of illustrating how it fits into the overall massing of the Downtown area. Mr. Murray mentioned that the Uncommon development is the same height. Chair Dunn pointed out that Uncommon is not in the Historic Core of Old Town. Chair Dunn commented that the parking level seems to be driving the design and she would prefer to see fewer spaces to make the design fit better in Downtown. She said it causes problems with referencing the historic widths. There was discussion about the recessed window walls and punched windows giving a sense of the rhythm of the widths of the other buildings. Chair Dunn said that would be tough to carry up to 2nd level. Mr. Holtzinger noted that the Code specifically states the first story should break into modules. Mr. Bello mentioned there were two slides showing the residential entrance and one had more color differentiation than the other which helps break up the east elevation. Mr. Holtzinger explained that the building name, Spark, would be relieved into the brick about three inches. Ms. Nelsen stated the solid to void pattern of the first floor doesn’t seem quite right and gives it a more private feel which may not be the intended interface with the street level. Chair Dunn asked whether 3.4.7 Section 1 refers to the width of the entire building or just the first floor. Ms. Bzdek said the code was written to apply to a variety of scenarios and not be too prescriptive. Chair Dunn commented on the differentiation between the commercial entrance and the residential entrance. Mr. Murray wondered about changing the commercial storefront, particularly at the corner of Oak and Remington, to be more a traditional look and accentuate the door opening more. Ms. Nelsen commented on the amount of glass and said it didn’t feel friendly or engaging. Mr. Bello asked if they considered carrying the facades from farther north through first floor of Spark and then have a break to differentiate the 2nd floor. Mr. Holtzinger said the team was concerned that the design was getting too busy with that much architectural difference on the same elevation. Mr. Bello also expressed that the metal and cool tone of the color are a departure from the warmer tones of the surrounding buildings. Ms. Nelsen commented that there was previously a large building on this site, so she is comfortable with another large building as infill. She isn’t concerned about the height, and the Oak Street massing is an elegant solution, but the Remington façade feels secondary for a corner building. She expressed concern about the blank wall on the northeast corner. She would like to see a better sense of scale and hierarchy, perhaps modeled off the south elevation. Ms. Wallace expressed general concern about the corner and lack of articulation on the blank wall. Chair Dunn referenced a building off Walnut next to the Bohemian building that had a lively mural plan and suggested something like that might be a good fit for the corner. Ms. Nelsen suggested incorporating fire-rated glazing or glass block. She would even support increasing the height in some places to make room for more articulation on that façade. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 June 17, 2020 Mr. Bello stated he is not as concerned about the height. Mr. Murray is generally not supportive of the height but agrees that the blank wall doesn’t work. Ms. Michell does not see how adding height would help the blank wall and does not support that approach. Mr. Knierim stated he is intrigued with Ms. Nelsen’s suggestion of adding glazing while keeping the fire rating. He is not as concerned with the height. Ms. Wallace is concerned about the height and its potential effect on viewsheds. While she would like to see the northeast corner improved, she does not support going higher to accomplish that. Chair Dunn stated the members seem to agree about the need to adapt the northeast corner to feel more articulated or connected to Downtown. The members discussed the impact art could have on that corner. Articulation of the Remington Side Mr. Bello said there could be more contrast between the residential and commercial spaces and expressed a preference for warmer colors. Mr. Murray liked the idea of a three-dimensional band that would provide more shadow lines on the upper level. Chair Dunn suggested the pilasters might make a difference on articulating the east elevation on Remington. Ms. Nelsen asked about screening for the mechanical rooftop elements. Mr. Holtzinger said there would be at least two rooftop units for air circulation. He talked about working with the fire department to ensure the fire stairs don’t interrupt the cornice line of the building. He said they are aiming to center the equipment. Chair Dunn asked if anyone had comments about the stepbacks and there were no concerns. Materials Chair Dunn asked if the materials had been selected. Mr. Holtzinger said they are thinking about brick veneer, clad wood windows, and prefinished corrugated steel on the upper floors. He stated the pilaster is up in the air, including potential stucco for the mural surface. Chair Dunn asked about durability of painted stucco and expressed concern about maintaining vibrancy. Mr. Holtzinger said there are paint materials that perform better than others, which will require additional research. Ms. Nelsen said the building needs to be enlivened beyond just color; the architecture itself needs to activate the space. Mr. Murray said the materials were generally good but requested samples for the next meeting. Ms. Nelsen asked about the overall approach to materiality. Mr. Holtzinger talked about focusing on the pedestrian experience with a robust masonry base and punched openings, embracing the quirkiness of Montezuma Fuller Alley, and using more a contemporary and lighter approach with simple fenestration in the upper residential elevations. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern that the materials are too disparate. Mr. Holtzinger stated the brick is for the outer plane, the metal is for upper step-backs and the mural approach is for the insets and cut-ins. Ms. Nelsen suggested a cornice at the top. Chair Dunn agreed. Fenestration Chair Dunn asked about the lack of symmetry in the windows of the south upper floor. Mr. Holtzinger stated that balance can’t be achieved while accommodating the unit floorplan necessary to accommodate interior uses. Chair Dunn stated the plan seems to be at odds with the façade. Mr. Holtzinger agreed and will see what he can do. Mr. Murray agreed there is inconsistency in the windows. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern about a lack of cohesiveness in the window rhythm. She said it feels “under-fenestrated” on some elevations and that it is hard to see a sense of scale or hierarchy through the windows. She asked about the window materials. Mr. Holtzinger said the ground floor Landmark Preservation Commission Page 9 June 17, 2020 windows would be wood clad, but the upper floors would probably be vinyl with a deeper profile due to budget constraints. He talked about getting depth and relief from the masonry. Ms. Nelsen stated the project generally needs larger windows or more glazing space. Mr. Holtzinger said that is difficult because bathrooms are located on the south elevation. Mr. Bello said the inconsistency interrupts the rhythm between this building and the historic buildings nearby. Chair Dunn asked how the metal cladding meets the windows. Mr. Holtzinger described a substantial brake-metal cross-section with some detail and interest at the sill line with simple trim around the window body. Design Chair Dunn asked about the curved edges on the upper floor referencing the Mayor’s residence. Mr. Bello said it seems subtle compared to other buildings. Mr. Knierim said he would keep the curve referencing the Mayor's residence. He also pointed out the heavy use of awnings on the rest of the street and wondered if that could help the rhythm. Mr. Holtzinger said it may be a permitting issue, and may not appeal to tenants, but they could explore it. Chair Dunn said the first-floor windows work for office use. Ms. Nelsen said the curved edges referencing the Mayor’s reference are nice but are so subtle that it isn’t an important feature. Mr. Murray said a visual header on the upper windows would provide more horizontal distinction. He also reinforced that the recessed corner entry should be brought forward and stated he didn’t care for the floating garage. Chair Dunn stated the recessed entries provide some needed modularity but agreed on the issue with the floating garage and suggested adding a curve to that corner. Ms. Nelsen suggested that additional screening beyond the plantings would help prevent parking garage lighting from flooding the streetscape which would create an unpleasant experience. Ms. Fritz said they had heard that comment before and are discussing solutions. Chair Dunn was appreciative that the alley is acknowledged in the design. Mr. Murray noted that the garage entrances are in the alleys on the west and north sides and inquired about pedestrian and bike safety from drivers going in and out of garage. Ms. Fritz said that was consistent with the Land Use Code. Mr. Holtzinger asked about timing of the July LPC meeting. Ms. Bzdek stated that June 22 is the submittal deadline. She also suggested it would be better to have more conversations with City staff between the Conceptual and final Development Review. Ms. Fritz said they plan to go to P&Z in September. Chair Dunn asked the members to provide final thoughts. Mr. Knierim felt the project was good overall and just needed some small tweaks on the design. Mr. Bello agreed. Ms. Nelsen stated some tweaks are needed. The mural treatment doesn't seem resolved but isn't a deal-breaker. Her biggest concern is the northeast corner. Ms. Wallace did not express major concerns. [Secretary’s note: There was significant interference in Ms. Wallace’s audio at this point in the meeting, making it difficult to understand.] Ms. Michell stated the project is mostly good, although the parking isn’t great. The height is still a concern but is okay based on the proposed use. While she likes the southeast corner, she agrees that the project needs some tweaks. Mr. Murray is still worried about the height. The fenestration upstairs needs tweaks, and the recessed doorways should be changed. Chair Dunn said the northeast corner is her biggest concern, but the rest is tweaking. • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOU RNM ENT C hair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10 : 13 p.m. .. T·-···-·-··-·-•••••--•••••-••••••oo00000000000000o00000000000004>o Oo Oooooo,,o,oooo,,,,,,ooOOHOH000000000o0000000----••00-0000000000000000000000 .. 000 .. 0+•H .. HOOOH .. ,o .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oo0000000000000000000000000000000000+0+++oooo-ooooooo ooooo++++ . Minutes. respectfully submitted . by .Gretchen . Schiager ................................................................................................................................... -............... . M inutes approved by a vote of t he Commission on ) S--( ) V / ~ ;2.0d-0 Mtt,-Jv Landmar k Preservatfon Commission Page 10 June 17, 2020