Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/18/2021Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 August 18, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Walter Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Kevin Murray and via Zoom Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting August 18, 2021 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Mike Bello STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Marcus Coldiron, Aubrie Brennan Chair Dunn commented on the meeting being conducted in a hybrid fashion. AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW Jim Bertolini reviewed the agenda. STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 August 18, 2021  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 16, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 320 WOOD ST Member Knierim moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the August 18, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. 4. 201 S LOOMIS AVE – LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Portner Property at 201 South Loomis Avenue. APPLICANT: Kathryn Wernsman Belden (daughter), on behalf of owners Charles & M. Gayle Wernsman (**Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn recused herself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Staff Report Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner, presented the staff report. He noted this is a landmark designation request from the property owners at 201 South Loomis Avenue. He discussed the location of the property and noted it was recommended for designation as part of the recent historic property survey for the Loomis Addition. He stated the property is being nominated under standard 3 for design and construction as a significant example of classic Queen Anne architecture and he noted the property has good integrity under all seven aspects. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the ownership of the house by the Portners and Wernsmans and commented on the Loomis Addition survey report which makes some fairly heavy recommendations for individual landmark eligibility. He outlined the role of the Historic Preservation Commission to make a recommendation to Council after determining whether the criteria established in the Municipal Code are being met. Applicant Presentation Kathryn Wernsman Belden gave the Applicant presentation and noted her parents have owned the property since 1981, though her mother recently passed away. Mom was caretaker and passed away. They hope to restore the house. Public Input Gina Janett stated she was part of the group that worked on the Loomis Addition survey and thanked the Wernsmans for requesting landmark designation and the City for providing support for the survey. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 August 18, 2021 Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked if anything besides the house would be designated. Ms. Belden replied in the negative. Commission Deliberation Member Murray commented the home stands out and is historically well documented. Member Knierim said the house had a great story and the original owners are buried in Grandview Cemetery. Member Rose agreed with the significance of the property and commended the designation petition. He also noted the integrity of the home is remarkable. Member Nelsen concurred with Members Murray and Rose that the property is well-preserved and has a beautiful story. Member Dunn agreed and supported landmarking the property. Member Rose made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Portner Property at 201 South Loomis Avenue, 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 and Landmark nomination dated August 18, 2021, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through seven aspects of integrity to a sufficient degree; 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. Member Murray seconded. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 5:55 p.m.] (**Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn rejoined the meeting at this point.) 5. 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE – LANDMARK DESIGNATION HEARING 2 DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the Samuel & Jessie Moore Property at 528 W. Mountain Avenue. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jason and Misha Green. APPLICANT: Mark Greenwald, Resident; Gina Janett, Resident; Robin Stitzel, Resident; William Whitley, Resident Claire Havelda, City Attorney’s Office, noted Member Murray disclosed he did some independent research regarding 528 West Mountain Avenue prior to the hearing. Member Murray stated he reviewed the First Methamphetamine Report (“First Report”) the City received from the Homeowner on the property in May. Having concerns regarding the qualifications of the drafter of the First Report, Member Murray sent the First Report to a professional he knew with significant experience in the field (Kyle Baber) for Mr. Baber’s assessment of the First Report. As the First Report raised concerns for Commission Member Murray and Staff, Havelda noted the City requested that the Homeowner provide a second methamphetamine mitigation report drafted by an entity recognized by the State to provide qualified methamphetamine mitigation reports. The Homeowners’ second submitted methamphetamine mitigation report (“Second Report”) met these requirements. Havelda then asked Member Murray, if, after reviewing the Second Report, he had similar concerns regarding the Second Report. Member Murray replied in the negative and stated he has not prejudged this matter based on his involvement. Chair Dunn outlined the process for the consideration of this item. She noted all six members would need to be in support of recommending this designation to Council in order to move it forward. Chair Dunn disclosed her involvement with historic preservation and stated she knows at least three of the applicants through that involvement; however, she stated that will not affect her judgement of this matter. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 August 18, 2021 Member Murray noted he can see this property from his house and he knows two of the applicants; however, he did not believe that would affect his judgement of this matter. He stated he would not have any personal financial interest regardless of whether this property ends up being designated. Mr. Bertolini requested a representative from each group would come forth indicating approval of the hybrid meeting format. Gina Janett, applicant, expressed approval. Jason Green, property owner, expressed approval. Mr. Bertolini asked if all six members received today’s confidential memo from the City Attorney’s Office. All members replied in the affirmative. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report and noted this is an involuntary landmark designation request for the property at 528 West Mountain Avenue. He stated the role of the Historic Preservation Commission in this item is to determine whether a recommendation should be made to Council to place a landmark designation on the property. Because the property owner is not in support of the designation, two separate hearing are required. The first hearing, which occurred on May 19th, involved the determination the property met the eligibility requirements; therefore, this second hearing is occurring and the primary task of the Commission is to determine whether the criteria in Section 14- 33(C) are satisfied. Mr. Bertolini discussed the next steps should the Commission recommend for or against designation. He discussed the historic elements of the property and provided further detail on the eligibility as found by the Commission at the first hearing. He discussed the nomination petition submitted by four citizens and provided additional geographic information related to the property. He outlined recommended questions for the Commission to consider, primarily what specific policies and purposes in the applicable City Code sections are being met by requiring preservation of this property, and are they being met to a sufficient degree to justify a designation against the owners’ wishes. Additionally, the Commission should consider to what degree should the environmental health concerns that have been documented and confirmed affect whether designating the property meets the applicable provisions, and whether required mitigation, if designation moves forward, may result in a loss of historic integrity to the property. Mr. Bertolini discussed the staff analysis of materials provided by both the applicants and property owners over the course of this process. He also discussed the questions brought forth at the work session noting there is likely a cost difference between simple demolition of the property and methamphetamine mitigation and preservation of the property. He provided a summary of public comments noting 24 of the 36 individuals providing comment expressed favor for designation. Applicant Presentation Gina Janett introduced herself and Mark Greenwald gave the applicant presentation. He discussed the application for designation stating it was based on the historical significance of the property’s long-time early occupants, two of whom were highly regarded schoolteachers, and the quality of its well- preserved 19th century architecture. He discussed the history of the property and its occupants, primarily school teacher Jessie Moore, and stated replacement of this home with a larger and less affordable one would significantly disturb the balance of the neighborhood resulting in a loss of equity, enhancement of which is increasingly sought by preservationists and others whose concern focuses on our collective past. He also noted restoration efforts, in contrast to demolition and rebuilding, have a relatively positive impact on the environment. Owner Presentation Jordan Obermann gave the owner presentation. He discussed the meaning of ‘general welfare’ noting health and safety are widely considered as being part of that definition. He discussed the methamphetamine (meth) contamination of the property and noted decontamination will not rid the property of meth. He also commented on the poor condition of the property. Dr. Jason Green, owner, discussed the health implications of prolonged exposure to meth and noted there is little research regarding health side effects of living in methamphetamine-remediated homes. He questioned whether it seems rational or reasonable to expect people to live in a building where the long-term side effects and potential health risks are unknown. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 August 18, 2021 Mr. Obermann discussed the options for decontamination, specifically addressing times when an occupant may come in contact with the interior of a wall. He reiterated decontamination does not equate to removal. He outlined cost estimates of decontamination and questioned whether any monetary value can be put on the health and safety of occupants. He stated the only way to ensure the safety of this property is to demolish it and he outlined the state allowances for demolition in these instances. Mr. Obermann provided additional details regarding what aspects of the building will need to be removed based on their levels of contamination. Ultimately, he stated this structure cannot remain if the goal is to have zero meth levels. He stated most nearby neighbors are in support of demolition of the home and he showed slides of the current condition of the property. Applicant Presentation Additional Time (**Secretary’s Note: the applicants were granted additional time due to the overrun of the owner presentation.) Ms. Janett stated there are two individuals present who are certified by the state, one to do meth testing and one to do meth remediation. She reiterated Section 14-1 and noted the Commission is tasked with upholding the Code. She commented on zero interest loans and tax credits that could be applied to some of the cost of the interior remodeling work that would not be available to the owner if the property is not landmarked. (**Secretary’s Note: Havelda requested a brief recess be taken to confer with staff and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Havelda noted Kyle Baber was the consultant Member Murray had review the first meth report; however, she stated she did not believe Member Murray was aware Mr. Baber was present to give comment. She stated the applicant team requested his testimony. Kyle Baber, owner of an environmental remediation and demolition firm, discussed his experience in remediation and historic preservation. He discussed the reports produced regarding this property and suggested it is unfair for individuals who do not carry accreditation are allowed to make recommendations to the general public. He discussed his experience in remediating meth-affected properties and stated the second report on the property showed no signs of meth manufacturing in this home. He stated the levels of meth in the home would be a hundred times what is seen in this home if it were actually manufactured there and stated the only solution based on those levels is not demolition. He acknowledged the objective in cleaning these properties is not zero levels of meth, nor is that the goal of the environmental community or the scientists behind the recommendations. He stated he is completely confident this property is a candidate for extraction and remediation. He stated his price to clean the house would likely be around $10,000 assuming no asbestos was present. Member Murray acknowledged he has a working relationship with the following speaker. Jim Dennison stated his firm does environmental testing for things such as meth. He discussed his experience and stated he has done meth testing since 2005. He stated he first submitted public comment on this issue prior to being contacted by the applicants and stated the cost for his testing service and remediation on a home such as this would not exceed $15,000. He also stated he has never heard of the state giving a variance to allow for higher levels of meth to be allowed after remediation. Public Input Shelly Terry spoke in favor of designation in honor of Jessie Moore due to the value of education in Fort Collins and the value of women’s history. Kimberly Medina spoke in favor of designation of this property and in favor of historic preservation in general in Fort Collins. She stated this home can be remediated and its historical significance cannot be understated. Alan Braslau spoke in favor of designation due to the sense of responsibility purchasing a historic home implies. He compared radon mitigation to meth mitigation and stated both are possible. Mark Greenwald, applicant, commented on an historic property in Chicago that was once in poor condition but is now a major tourist attraction. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 August 18, 2021 Myrne Watrous spoke in favor of designation due to the home’s proximity to the Downtown Historic District and the Loomis Addition. She opposed the style of recent redeveloped homes. Beth Fisher spoke against designation due to the property rights of the homeowners and the current condition of the house. She noted the home was vacant for years and questioned why the applicants didn’t purchase it when it was vacant if they wanted the property to be designated. Carol Goettl stated she lives in a landmarked home across the street from this house and spoke against designation because of its level of disrepair. Jim Dennison spoke in favor of designation because he believes the house could be safely remediated under the Colorado guidelines. Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked Mr. Obermann if he has received a mitigation cost estimate from a registered subcontractor. Mr. Obermann replied he has received one estimate from NovaTech Environmental, which recommended demolition of the property, of about $49,000. Chair Dunn asked which of Mr. Obermann’s contractors were licensed. Mr. Obermann replied one of the original testers was not licensed; therefore, they sought testing from Quest. He stated NovaTech is certified and the other contractor, Resolution Contractors, do not need to have any meth related certification for demolition. Member Murray asked Dr. Green if the article he cited in his presentation are part of the packet. Dr. Green replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn requested a list of what would be removed from the property during remediation. Mr. Obermann replied all plaster would be removed and the entire house would be gutted. Additionally, all wood would be sanded. He stated the demolition list was created with the idea of bringing meth levels down to zero, not just to acceptable standards. Member Rose asked if there was a requirement to treat the exterior in normal protocol for this remediation. Dr. Dennison replied, in his experience, he has not seen anything removed from an exterior in a meth remediation. Member Nelsen asked if the contamination of the porch is safe within the State’s acceptable cleanup levels. Dr. Dennison replied no remediation of the porch would be necessary because it was within acceptable levels; however, structurally the porch may need to be rebuilt. Member Nelsen asked if the meth could seep into the house from exterior materials. Dr. Dennison replied he had tested meth migration several times and it does not occur to any significant level. He explained most meth transfer occurs through skin and stated many houses have meth contamination that is unknown. Member Nelsen asked if there was anything else Dr. Dennison wanted to add to address the homeowners’ safety concerns. Dr. Dennison replied Colorado law includes a section that if a certified contractor is hired to mitigate the property to standards, a certified tester is hired who certifies it meets the standards, and reports are filed with the health department, then nothing has to be disclosed on further sales of the house and any tenants could not sue for health effects. Member Murray asked if meth permeation would come to the surface later. Dr. Dennison replied some will be absorbed into the paint layer and contractors would extract it from the paint layer during cleaning. He stated regulations require porous materials to be discarded; however, painted drywall is not considered porous. Member Murray asked how a traditional plaster wall would be remediated. Dr. Dennison replied they are not hard to clean. He commented on the meth levels in the house being about five times the legal limit, which is lower that was is usually seen. He stated he cannot think of a single instance wherein the exterior of the house has been cleaned. Member Nelsen asked how wood windows and entry doors are remediated. Dr. Dennison replied contractors would clean interiors with the windows down and nothing on the exterior would be cleaned. Member Nelsen asked if painted wood is considered porous. Dr. Dennison replied there are not many true porous materials in a house without personal belongings. He stated carpet is typically the main porous item found in a home. Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 August 18, 2021 Member Knierim asked Mr. Obermann to comment on what it would take to rehabilitate the damage to the exterior of the home as that speaks to the integrity of the building. Mr. Obermann replied there are foundation failures that will need to be addressed in some fashion based on the ultimate goal and on meeting building standards. He noted state law gives property owners the right to remove items that are contaminated, and in this case, that will lead to historic losses. He stated the health risks are not worth preserving the historic nature of the building. Member Nelsen asked if there is any situation wherein remediation would be worth it. Mr. Obermann replied it would be up to the level of acceptable risk and noted the homeowners are granted the right to protect themselves from risk based on future scientific evidence that may show greater risk. He stated he believes zero meth contamination should be the standard. Member Nelsen asked if there is any value to the house if it could be assumed meth contamination was not an issue. Mr. Obermann replied he has not fully been able to assess the structural integrity of the house as no one is allowed inside the house. He also noted his experts are the only testers who have provided testimony that have actually been inside the home. He stated the owners are willing to donate the house if someone wants to move it. Member Nelsen asked if there is any merit to the house’s context and location from Mr. Obermann’s perspective. Mr. Obermann replied there are large homes on the street and the lot has inherent value because it is on Mountain Avenue. Member Nelsen asked if Mr. Obermann believes there is value to the community of the location of the home. Mr. Obermann replied it is a prominent location in town for many reasons; therefore, it is even more important to remove a meth-contaminated home. He stated he did not believe this hearing would be occurring if the house was not on Mountain Avenue. Chair Dunn requested staff input on why this section is part of the Code and homeowners are not allowed to do what they wish with these homes. Mr. Bertolini replied the involuntary landmark designation option has been in the Code since about 1990 and it has only had one successful use on an individual property, which is the former Old Town post office. He stated the intent behind having this option is, in part, because the process of designating a property as historic falls under the land use regulations of a local government; therefore, a city has the option of designating resources and protecting them if they feel that would provide a public benefit. He noted the core question for the Commission is whether it finds the public benefit of designation to be so great that it overwhelms the very important consideration of private property rights. He stated the intent in allowing someone other than the owner to nominate the property for designation is to acknowledge there is some community stake in the preservation of historic properties and to acknowledge that the knowledge about what constitutes a property worthy of preservation does not necessarily rest in one place. Ms. Bzdek noted involuntary designation is not unusual across the Unites States. Chair Dunn requested staff input regarding City priorities related to preservation. Ms. Bzdek replied there are some directives in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or City Plan, as well as in the adopted Our Climate Future plan. She stated the current Council is in the process of finalizing its list of priorities. Chair Dunn asked if Moore School is still named Moore School. Member Knierim replied Moore school closed in 2011 and the building is now Polaris Expeditionary School. Member Murray disclosed the next speaker is his wife. Suzanne Murray asked when a house is considered historic based on its structure and development and questioned why buildings are attached to individuals who may or may not have been integral to the development of the community. She questioned when the importance of a former resident trumps someone’s right to decide what to do with their property. She stated she feels this discussion has lacked details about the physical historic significance of the house. Member Murray noted those questions were answered at the first hearing regarding whether the property had significance, which it was found to have. Chair Dunn stated the house was found to qualify for designation and was found to be significant for architecture and its association with a person. She noted this second hearing is required because the designation is involuntary. She reviewed what the Commission would be deciding this evening. Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 August 18, 2021 Member Nelsen asked Marcus Coldiron to weigh in on demolition by neglect, structural integrity and whether it is uninhabitable. Mr. Bertolini noted the demolition by neglect ordinance relates to designated historic properties. Mr. Coldiron replied the home is not inhabitable as it stands now due to the meth contamination. He stated the Larimer County Health Department would have to clear the property for habitation following remediation. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Applicant Rebuttal Gina Janett stated both a certified meth tester and remediation contractor have testified the meth levels in this house can be cleaned for an affordable price. She commented on Council’s equity and inclusion priorities and stated this house tells an important story for the community’s history. She discussed the role of Jessie Moore and the history of Germans from Russia in the sugar beet industry in Fort Collins. Mark Greenwald stated any structural issues with the house have yet to be discussed by an impartial party and should therefore not be part of the consideration. He stated there is no way to get rid of trace amounts of chemicals to which people are exposed every day and stated he would not personally hesitate to live in the home after remediation. Owner Rebuttal Dr. Green stated he has lived in Fort Collins for sixteen years, has started his family here, and serves the community as an emergency room physician. He stated the meth contamination is a very real problem and commented on an article which stated elimination of risk through demolition may be a safer option. He stated there is no way to possibly predict the possible future effects of meth contamination in a home and there is evidence it does penetrate through walls. He also stated the home is dilapidated and is not an example of community pride. He discussed the Colorado regulations which allow a homeowner, in consultation with a contractor, to remove and properly dispose of materials at a solid state waste landfill in lieu of remediating them and questioned why individuals would be able to force someone to live in a property that is contaminated with methamphetamine when there are no guarantees about the long-term effects of such exposure. He also stated there was no interest in this property as being the Moore house prior to this proceeding and stated there is a great deal of overreach in telling individuals they should live in a property contaminated at a level with which they are not comfortable. Staff Comment Havelda noted the City disagrees with the homeowners’ analysis of the state law regarding meth- affected properties. She also cautioned the Commission on the level of weight it gives statements that may be considered heresay in a court of law and reminded the Commission it needs to consider the policies in Sections 14-1 and 14-2 against the articulated opposition of the homeowners. Commission Deliberation Chair Dunn requested the Commission first consider Section 14-1, which is a declaration of policy. Member Knierim stated this section addresses civic pride and stated it is clear the definition is met by this property. Chair Dunn explained what Code sections should be considered at this hearing. Member Rose commented on a general understanding of history and background being consistent with the general welfare and stated this property meets that definition. Member Nelsen noted the home has been a part of Fort Collins history which contributes to civic pride and general welfare. Chair Dunn commented women’s history being a subset of history that is lacking in Fort Collins in terms of landmarking specific properties. Member Nelsen agreed and stated it is important to consider the entire cross-section of the community, which this designation would help preserve. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to subsection B. Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 August 18, 2021 Member Murray commented on this home being built on the far edge of town at the time. Member Rose stated the home could be characterized as a cultural asset and is part of the built cultural heritage. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider 14-2. Member Murray stated the property could be a local landmark based on the survey. Chair Dunn commented on the property reflecting important city heritage elements of cultural, social, architectural, and artistic. Member Nelsen commented the economic category playing a role as well as Fort Collins is a city for everyone. Chair Dunn agreed that places of lower socioeconomic classes should be protected. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider whether the property ‘fosters civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past.’ She stated she believes it does. Member Knierim stated there is beauty in the 50 years of schoolchildren that have a history with the property and the building reflects that heritage. Chair Dunn stated that would fall within the accomplishments of the four women who lived in the home serving those most in need. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection C and stated, if this home were preserved and rehabilitated, it would significantly help to stabilize and improve the continuing economic vitality of the structure. Member Nelsen agreed it could be stabilized and used as originally intended. She stated there are details on the home that exist solely for aesthetic reasons. Chair Dunn stated the state tax credits and zero interest loans would not be able to occur unless the property is available for their use. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection D. Member Murray stated it should be ensured Mountain Avenue homes are connected to its history. Chair Dunn commented on the location of the property being on the trolley route and stated this house is one of the key homes people notice. Member Nelsen stated the scale and architectural charm of the home are appealing and its story enhances that. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection E. Member Knierim commented on stories provided by trolley drivers related to important sites and structures. Member Murray discussed the time period during which this home was built. Member Nelsen stated this home also has a link to some more unpleasant parts of the history of Fort Collins in terms of Jessie Moore helping to end child labor on sugar beet farms. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection F. Member Nelsen stated the home promoted good urban design in terms of scale, green space, walkability, and footprint. Member Rose commented on the wide front porch that is now being adopted in New Urbanism. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection G. Member Knierim stated this situation is difficult as requiring the owners to live in the house will not encourage private ownership and utilization of historic properties. Member Murray noted the buyers never intended to live in the home. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection H. She stated this designation would fit with the financial incentives offered and feedback the Commission can given in terms of rehabilitation; however, it does not seem to fit in terms of a nonconsensual designation. Historic Preservation Commission Page 10 August 18, 2021 Member Nelsen commented on the designation promoting environmental sustainability through the potential rehabilitation of an existing building. Chair Dunn commented on the home addressing some aspects of history that have traditionally been skipped over and stated its designation seems to fit all terms of the policy. She stated most members seem to agree the purposes are met with Subsections A-F with some questions on G and H. Member Murray commented on looking at the highest use of the property. Member Knierim questioned whether the home, despite its historical significance, has been broken beyond the point of people wanting to live there. Member Nelsen stated she did not believe the home is damaged beyond repair but questioned whether the value of the home is irreplaceable. Chair Dunn stated a question to consider is whether Fort Collins will be a substantially different community if the house is demolished and stated she believes it will. Member Nelsen agreed. Member Murray noted nonconsensual applications are rarely submitted. Chair Dunn discussed how many people had commented on this item which she stated speaks to the community’s value of the building. Member Rose stated it is his job to make a recommendation to City Council and acknowledged he has a bias as he has been involved in historic preservation for some time. He stated losing contributing resources diminishes the community. He stated there is no question this is a contributing structure. Member Murray asked if the garage on the property is part of this designation. Mr. Bertolini replied the application considers the full parcel and both structures. Member Murray questioned whether the property could be divided based on the zoning and stated the designation does not need to include the garage. Member Nelsen stated the Commission considers demolition requests for potentially eligible properties frequently and disagreed with the notion the Commission landmarks properties simply because they are old. She stated the community participation around this property was significant and the designation seems to meet the applicable Code requirements. Member Dunn stated he is struggling with the rights of the property owners as they did not voluntarily submit for the designation. He stated this action would not ‘promote and encourage continued private ownership.’ Chair Dunn commented on homes being owned temporarily whereas the homes themselves remain. She stated there was reference to the fact this house has historic relevance and there may be neighbors that would try to landmark it prior to the purchase of the property. She stated the historic value of the property outweighs the property owners rights to demolish the home. Member Rose commented the Commission is not exercising eminent domain and seizing the property. He stated the Commission is charged with doing everything it can to preserve the cultural heritage of Fort Collins. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Member Murray made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that the designation of the main house on the Samuel & Jessie Moore Property, 528 W. Mountain Avenue, will promote the following policies and purposes of the City as specified in Sections 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owner’s consent:  Section 14-1 A and B; and  Section 14-2 A through F and directing that the nomination be forwarded to City Council for a final decision pursuant to Municipal Code 14-33(c). Member Knierim second the motion.