Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/19/2022Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 [January 19, 2022] Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was held Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair Remotely via Zoom Margo Carlock Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting January 19, 2022 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Jim Rose ABSENT: Anne Nelsen STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Brad Yatabe, Aubrie Brennan *Secretary’s note: Assistant City Attorney Brad Yatabe started as counsel for the meeting, due to Assistant City Attorney Claire Havelda’s recusal on Item 3, 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. Chair Dunn introduced the new members of the HPC, Margo Carlock and Eric Guenther. All members of the HPC briefly introduced themselves. Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: “We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.”  AGENDA REVIEW There was a minor change to the Agenda that Mr. Bertolini would give a report on properties that recently came before the HPC, as requested by Chair Dunn.  CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW Historic Preservation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 [January 19, 2022] No items were pulled from consent.  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Bertolini reported on the status of 528 W. Mountain Avenue, the Jessie Moore house, and 1433 S. Overland Trail, the Maxwell Rock House. Council did not adopt the ordinance for the involuntary designation of 528 W Mountain and demolition would occur in the near future. 1433 S Overland Trail was adopted on first reading January 18, 2022, and the second reading should be approved in February resulting in landmark status. Chair Dunn asked Staff about the change in the MLK Day Parade. Ms. Bzdek responded the route had been changed to go through a historically black neighborhood and past sites of African American historical significance to make the march more meaningful and avoid the difficult logistics of College Avenue.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:47 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 15, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Knierim moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the December 15, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dunn clarified members can vote on minutes for meetings they did not attend, as long as they do not try to make corrections. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe agreed. [Timestamp: 5:48 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 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 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. Mr. Bertolini explained to new members this is usually a written report for review and does not have a presentation. These are mostly design reviews covered by Staff, as well as a few other actions covered by Staff. DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 [January 19, 2022] 3. 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a 2nd round conceptual review of the applicants’ project, identify key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Alexandra Haggarty (legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) Member Guenther recused himself from this item, due to being a directly adjacent neighbor to the property. He did not have a legal or financial interest. He had submitted a public comment as a private citizen and requested to observe the meeting as a member of the public. Chair Dunn disclosed she knew Bob Bailey, the former owner, as a member of the preservation community. Mr. Yatabe stated Member Guenther could attend this portion of the meeting as a private citizen and could give further public comment if he desired. Laura Bailey challenged Member Guenther’s ability to attend as a private citizen if he was a member of the HPC. Mr. Yatabe clarified Member Guenther would not be serving as a Commissioner or voting on the item. She understood he would not be serving in both roles simultaneously, and she thought it made sense. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report for the conceptual review 1306 W Mountain Avenue was a City landmark. He noted a few pages of the report had not been corrected from a previous iteration, the site map and page 14, that had been corrected in the packet. The role of the HPC was to provide guidance to the Applicant on how the project could be improved to meet the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Design Standards. This item originally came before the HPC for the March 2021 hearing but was continued at the Applicant’s request due to a late-running meeting. Staff and Applicants had participated in several meetings since that time. The last and first time the HPC saw this item was a conceptual review in November 2021. The size of the addition had been reduced. There were elements of the design with which the HPC had not had issues in November that had been retained. The revision changed the design to attach to the home solely at the wood porch, saving the historic brick wall, but it still bumped out to the East. Staff found that despite noted improvements, the design still did not meet SOI Design Standards 2 and 9. Applicant Presentation Mr. Berkhausen gave the Applicant presentation. He reviewed the revisions to the original plan. He and his wife desired to retire in place on a single level; currently, necessities such as laundry and a shower were located in the basement down steep stairs that did not meet current Code. The non- historic garage would be demolished and increase open space on the lot. A new garage would be built on the alley. The addition to the house would be 887 square feet. In addition to the HPC they were working with various City entities to meet Land Use Code, as well as other City initiatives, with the design. He highlighted the need to keep the historic use of homes over time. He believed the SOI Standards were only applicable when used in light of each case’s unique facts. The home did not comply with required setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR) codes which is why the addition design bumped out to the side. Due to the simple floor plan and basement staircase in the middle, there were design challenges which necessitated the bump-out. However, they would be retaining the home’s historic character. The new plan honored current Code on setbacks and had limited visibility from the street. The original design was completed before he knew what a landmarked home meant. The new plan was more modest in scale to make it subordinate. DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 [January 19, 2022] The new addition would not require demolition of the original brick wall on the back of the house, but would instead replace the enclosed wood porch that was part of an undocumented addition to the kitchen during the home’s lifetime. The window opening on that wall would be turned into a cabinet for future reversibility. The roof height, massing, and scale were subordinate to the main house. The original windows would be rehabilitated. Mr. Berkhausen pointed out the SOI Standards were open to interpretation and designed to be applied on a specific basis. He believed the term “subordinate” was subjective, and the current plan fit the Webster’s Dictionary definition. He believed Standard 9 was met because the materials made the addition distinguishable from the original and it was subordinate in size with a lower roofline. He believed the overarching objectives of Bulletin 37 were reversibility and protection of historic material so the bump out was not fatal to the design. It did not require removal of historic material and was reversible. Public Input Laura Bailey spoke in opposition to the plan. She was the daughter of the previous owner, who had restored and landmarked the home, and had written for architectural and bungalow-specific magazines. She agreed with Mr. Berkhausen’s assertion the SOI Standards were not one-size-fits-all, but she believed a level of consistency was expected. She agreed with Staff the design did not meet the standards in significant ways. To her understanding, additions should not exceed 30% of the original home, but this would almost double the footprint of the home. The addition would destroy the simple symmetrical cottage layout and the large natural buffer of the yard, defining characteristics of a bungalow home. Allowing this plan to go forward would violate the spirit of the historic preservation program and landmarked properties would lose their protections in the future. She believed the home was already viable for the next 100 years, despite Applicants’ assertion it was not. Improvements had been made, such as a furnace in the basement and Wi-Fi. Many internal things could be done in the home to bring it up to modern standards. She pointed out there was a bathroom on the main level that had a bathtub which could easily be converted to a shower. She believed the house could be livable for those aging in place without a large addition. She asked the HPC to uphold the standards and protect the home. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn opened discussion and pointed out for a conceptual review, discussion was not just among the HPC but included Applicants. Chair Dunn had asked Mr. Bertolini to research Loomis Addition properties and a Wood Street property with additions. Mr. Bertolini researched how the State Historic office dealt with historic properties in the past, around 2016-2017. The correspondence was related to which properties would be contributing to the National Register of Historic Places Loomis Addition Historic District. There were two cases where HPC-approved additions to City landmarks were found to be no longer contributing to the historic district. The addresses were 227 Wood Street and 145 N. Loomis. It does indicate the State would interpret the standards more stringently, although there was an understanding local governments would be more flexible due to local needs. Mr. Schneider asked if past additions were relevant to the discussion because he felt City Staff had told him he could not bring up past work. Chair Dunn felt it was important to look at the past to see if additions changed a property to the point it was no longer eligible for landmark status. He asked if he could submit evidence regarding two historic properties on which he had done additions to the side of the homes. The bump outs on those homes were larger than what was proposed for this item. He understood the State challenged the City around 2015-2016 for allowing too many large additions to historic homes. He felt the approach was not consistent to what had been approved in the past and was not sure designs were required to comply with all ten SOI standards. He was unsure how much more the design could change to make the project feasible. Mr. Bertolini clarified that Staff cautioned Mr. Schneider that using past examples might not be the best approach, given the feedback received from the State regarding the additions mentioned. Chair Dunn did not want to do a side-by-side comparison; the standards are open to interpretation but the goal is to be as consistent as possible. The HPC has trainings several times a year to contrast and compare similar situations of applying the Standards with other jurisdictions’ approaches to improve HPC decision making. That is the context in which feedback was given to Applicants. DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 [January 19, 2022] Mr. Schneider worked on homes all over Fort Collins, including Mountain Avenue. He would not do anything to degrade the neighborhood. He felt the Applicants had compromised with the HPC as much as possible. He and the Applicants respected the home but needed to make it livable for future generations. Mr. Yatabe noticed a raised hand among participants and suggested that the HPC formally finish public comment and close it. Chair Dunn thought she had closed it but acknowledged Karen McWilliams’ hand was raised. As the recently retired Historic Preservation Manager, Ms. McWilliams commented the HPC had approved a couple of additions Mr. Schneider did prior to the 2015 review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO had challenged a few properties the City believed were contributing to the Loomis Addition, the lowest level of historic property. Staff was surprised that local landmarks, allowed additions after landmark status, were found not to even be contributing on the National Register. Staff made changes to Code requirements and processes afterward, so today could not be compared to 2006 when Mr. Schneider completed those additions. As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the City had to uphold the State standards to maintain the CLG status. Specific feedback from the SHPO was a property footprint increase of 30% would likely not be compatible because it would be hard to comply with the Standards for designated properties. Chair Dunn closed public comment. The Chair suggested looking at the Standards specifically. She believed all would agree on Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and the HPC agreed. The HPC had concerns with 5 and 10 last time but Staff felt the revised design complied. Member Knierim felt the new design met standard 5 and appreciated the thoughtfulness of not driving into the structure. The Chair agreed the addition on the rear of the house was probably historic but not a character-defining feature, so the removal would be acceptable. Member Rose agreed with Staff that Standard 10 was met due to the design modification. He pointed out there was an error in the Staff report that had not updated from the November version. Member Rose appreciated how the Applicants had scaled down size and massing and implemented the HPC’s feedback. The Chair went back to Standard 5 to ask if the back chimney would remain. Mr. Schneider commented it was part of the coal furnace and would not be removed. Chair Dunn commented the design was stronger on standard 5. Chair Dunn moved on to Standards 2 and 9, which overlapped. Member Carlock had a problem with the size of the proposed addition almost a doubling of the size of the house. She lived in an old house and understood there were some aspects with which one must live. If the addition were allowed, the house would no longer meet the requirements for a landmark. She had a concern with the bump out and asked Mr. Schneider to explain the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement to her. Chair Dunn commented the FAR was a pain to preservationists because it forced homeowners to go up or sideways instead of down, which is preferred. Chair Dunn stated the HPC could probably write a letter in support of a variance for this property to the FAR. Mr. Schneider opined the intent for the FAR was to encourage solar shading and larger backyards. Member Knierim had an issue with the size due to the reason for the original landmark. The size and style of Craftsmans are supposed to be diminutive. The addition which almost doubled the home was too much, and the bump out changed the reason for designation. He liked the idea of a variance in the back so there would not be a bump out and suggested a reduction in square footage to make the addition more subordinate. Mr. Schneider commented a 30% addition would only be a 300 square foot addition, which could not contain all the improvements needed and 30% was not a hard rule. Chair Dunn pointed out when the house was landmarked, it was commended for its simple design as a compact rectangle. If the Applicants moved the addition to the back, it would keep the house a rectangle and preserve the roof line. Any addition had to preserve or enhance the character-defining features of the house. Mr. Berkhausen stated moving the addition entirely to the back would be a problem for the layout and flow of the house, requiring one to go through the bedroom to get to the kitchen or living room. He and his wife purchased the home because they loved the character and charm and wanted to preserve it, but they could not add the addition entirely onto the back. DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 [January 19, 2022] Chair Dunn commented she lived in a house like Mr. Berkhausen’s, and she knew similar homes around the City had additions. The goal was to have a consistent approach. She paraphrased, then quoted ITS 37: “In cases where an overly large addition is required you have to go sideways to get the doors as wide as you need them. ‘In order to suit the owners’ programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identified.’” She felt Applicants were trying to shoehorn a design into the wrong house, and it would strip away the reason it was identified to be landmarked in the first place. The design was a simple rectangle with a simple roof and a porch with one gable. An addition in the back could be larger than 30%, if it was done well and enhanced the character-defining features of the house. Mr. Schneider asked why going sideways was an issue because the addition was behind the house. The bump out was to the side a small amount, and they had taken feedback from the HPC. Chair Dunn explained the side bump out would stop a property that should have a simple rectangular form from being eligible. Mr. Schneider explained the bump out had to happen to one side to comply with Land Use Code because the setback requirement was not met on the other. The Chair suggested maybe this was not the best building for this program. Mr. Berkhausen commented he had seen other properties in Old Town with additions. He stated Laura Bailey did not tell him the house was designated until they were at closing, although she would dispute that. Chair Dunn pointed out all landmark information is online and available. Member Rose was unsure if there would be Commission Deliberation, but Chair Dunn said only for a final review. Mr. Berkhausen commented he was not ready for a final design review. Member Rose stated the HPC does not rely on precedent and had to deal with the information before it. He believed the design had been taken as far as possible and Applicants had done everything they could on the design, given their limitations. The house was built in 1922 and had always been occupied by middle class people. It was not intended for the rich, and that was what the house was still. Tastes and needs had changed since then, and he was unsure if the home could conform to what the Applicants wanted. It would be better off being what it had always been – a home for a small, middle class family. Mr. Schneider pointed out a middle class family today could not afford the home. Member Rose commented gentrification was endemic to society, but Brownstones in Greenwich Village were not being added onto despite their high cost. Perhaps there was someone out there willing to pay the price that wanted a small bungalow. Member Rose commented the HPC has a narrow, specific set of criteria by which to evaluate applications. The HPC was not the final authority, and the final decisionmakers would have a wider purview, including FAR. Mr. Schneider was familiar with the process. The Chair asked if there were any further questions or statements from the Applicants. The HPC liked the changes that had been made, but there were still some struggles with the standards. Mr. Berkhausen had nothing further but wanted dialogue to meet the requirements of the HPC and accomplish aging in place in his home. Bumping out to the rear would use all the open space and he had concerns about that. He and Mr. Schneider thanked the HPC for their time and volunteerism. Commission Deliberation None. [Timestamp: 7:35 p.m.] There was a break until 7:41 p.m., when the meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. All were present. *Secretary’s note: During the break, Assistant City Attorney Yatabe left the meeting and Assistant City Attorney Havelda joined it. DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 [January 19, 2022] 4. 900 S. COLLEGE AVE – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a final design review of the exterior component of the applicant’s project based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and either issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant is proposing full rehabilitation of the main Scott Apartments building, with exterior project components including masonry repair, window rehab and partial replacement (to provide egress), and partial enclosure of the rear/east entry. APPLICANT: Steve Levinger Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. The property known as the Scott Apartments was before the HPC for a final design review for exterior rehabilitation. This property had been seen by the HPC in December for a conceptual review. The owner was applying for federal tax credits, which was part of the motivation in getting the property listed in the National Register. The role of the HPC was to make a decision on whether the proposed rehabilitation met the SOI Standards. The property had been a City landmark since 2002 and was built around 1924-1925. It was considered important because it was one of several early-20th century apartment buildings added to the downtown area during that time. It was a very distinctive type of building, unique and rare for the City. The proposal included rehabilitation of the exterior masonry, rehabilitation of most of the windows in the building, rehabilitation of exterior doors, repair of a non-historic deck on the upper East side of the building, construction of a matching deck on the upper West side, addition of condensers on the flat roof, a partial enclosure of the East portico into an entry vestibule, and replacement of sidewalks. Staff felt the project met the standards. The specific standards considered were: Standard 2 – overall historic character, Standard 5 - character defining features and materials, Standard 6 – repairing or replacing materials in kind, and Standard 7 – avoiding damage to historic materials. Applicant Presentation Mr. Levinger gave the Applicant presentation. He had some technology issues and left the meeting, then rejoined. No discussion of the item occurred during his absence. Mr. Levinger and his wife had owned the building since 2002 and wanted to do a comprehensive rehabilitation because some systems and amenities were antiquated. He wanted to make the building more livable and give it another 100 years of service. He preferred to keep more historic fabric of the building because he liked its unique character. He was applying for Federal and State tax credits, so the vestibule on the East side may not be approved at a different level, even if the HPC were to approve it. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn had not seen the vestibule and asked on which page of the packet it was located. Member Carlock also had not seen it. Mr. Levinger said the building was identical on the East and West sides and had ten feet by seven feet deep porticos. The area is semi-enclosed but exterior. He wanted to take a portion of it to create a vestibule for safety, as well as the building mailboxes and fire alarm panel. A visitor could enter the vestibule, but would need someone in the building to gain admittance. The door system to the vestibule would be similar to the existing door and would be reversible. It would set back three and a half feet behind the portico area. Member Carlock asked if fire escapes would be removed. Mr. Levinger said they would remain because they cannot be removed per Code. He was considering adding a fire suppression system for life safety. Member Guenther asked if Mr. Levinger expected a significant increase in rent for tenants. Mr. Levinger replied all tenants had received notice and would be out by late April or early May. He would be updating and raising rent to market rates, due to the cost of the project. Chair Dunn pointed out affordability was not in the HPC purview. DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 [January 19, 2022] Chair Dunn asked what kind of door would be added for the vestibule. Mr. Levinger understood the Standards said new items should not match existing, but he was thinking it could match because it was reversible. However, he was not married to the proposed design if the HPC did not think it was appropriate. He could do an aluminum storefront system instead. Member Rose asked if the most prominent deck was on the West End. Mr. Levinger explained on the end of one of the gables of the uppermost floor there was a casement exit door that exits onto a flat steel roof near the fire escape. Tenants had been using that roof as a deck, damaging it. He was going to build a deck structure above the roof to protect it. There was a deck already on the East side, but he wanted to put a similar deck on the West side. Member Rose asked how tenants would access the decks. Double hung windows had already been converted to the casement door. The Chair asked what the living room windows would look like. Mr. Levinger submitted a drawing with the tax credit proposal. Mr. Bertolini located the drawing on packet pages 252-253. Mr. Levinger explained it would be a wood window that would be painted like the rest. The jamb, the sill, and the brick molding would remain. The two sashes and the window stops would be removed. The new window would install inside the old jamb. All windows had screens over them, so once it was in place no one would know the difference. He wanted to replace the window because the meeting rail was overspanned, the glass was warped, and it was difficult to open. It was the only window that could be used as a means of egress, so he felt a new window would be safer. Commission Deliberation The Chair asked if anyone disagreed with Staff’s determination the plan met the Standards or had any overall concerns. Member Carlock agreed with Staff’s recommendations and asked about the location of the condensers. Chair Dunn said the picture of the location was on packet page 322. They would be below the parapet and unobtrusive. Mr. Bertolini noted an elevation picture was on packet page 321, and he had noted there should be some screening. They were small so Staff had less concerns. They would be on the South corner of the East and West sides. Chair Dunn suggested the HPC talk about the vestibule. Member Rose thought it was reversible and there was a need for it. He did not believe either solution, aluminum storefront or mirroring what was there, affected overall eligibility. Member Carlock thought it was a good idea from a safety point of view and would lean more towards something aesthetically pleasing in line with the building. Member Knierim agreed and did not believe it needed to be differentiated much since it would be totally reversible. Chair Dunn posed the question of how to add a door that was compatible but was distinguishable as not original. Member Carlock was no construction expert but believed it could be done. Old doors were distinguishable from new ones. Member Knierim suggested a more modern-looking door that was not a storefront. Member Rose pointed out packet page 326 was the only information they had and the door, lights, and sidelights looked very similar to what was already there. Maybe it was not sufficient differentiation. They were suggesting woodframe construction and every part of the exterior of the existing building was masonry so that was a differentiation. Another differentiation could be the number of sidelights. He agreed with Member Carlock and Vice Chair Knierim that an aluminum storefront was not the right choice. Mr. Levinger was brought back to discuss the vestibule. Chair Dunn asked what was between the sidelights and the door that was rounded and looked like a column. It was framing, and the whole system was wood. They were not rounded but square. There was brick molding around the perimeter and down into the door frame. Member Rose stated the correct term was mullion. Chair Dunn asked on what page the picture was located. Mr. Bertolini replied packet page 326. Chair Dunn noted the proposed door had the exact same number of lights as the existing one. Mr. Levinger suggested a solution would be to do full light panels on either side and a full light door. Member Rose liked the idea of using a full light door because it was compatible. Member Carlock agreed. Chair Dunn liked the idea of keeping the sidelights because it was an echo of the original. Member Rose commented the decks were reversible because they were suspended but removeable. Mr. Levinger explained the only exception would be putting a little bit of mortar in the holes where the thread and rod went through to hold the rim joist. Chair Dunn thanked him for doing the masonry repair because it helped historic buildings last longer. Member Rose thanked him for his desire to do a mortar analysis, because a building this old could have various types of mortar. Using the wrong mortar could be really damaging. Mr. Levinger found a company to do the analysis and provide the mortar mix. DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 [January 19, 2022] Chair Dunn asked if there were any other items to discuss or for a motion. Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Scott Apartment building at 900 South College Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Member Dunn seconded. Chair Dunn asked if Member Rose wanted to modify the motion regarding the number of lights. He commented the number of lights were not a character-defining feature. Mr. Levinger seemed sensitive to the building and what improvements need to be done. He commended Mr. Levinger for doing this project because it was a terrific example of real historic preservation. Mr. Levinger thanked him. Member Guenther agreed with Member Rose because it was an iconic building. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dunn thanked Mr. Levinger for adding health and safety measures to the building, as well as preserving it. He appreciated it, thanked Mr. Bertolini for his help, and said the National Register nomination would go before the State on Friday. [Timestamp: 8:49 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn suggested preservation award nominees be discussed via email and outlined what could be nominated. A new addition to a historic building could be nominated, for example, Ginger and Baker had won in the past for its new building. New infill development that has been sensitively done could be nominated. A project over and above the call of duty, not just following the SOI Standards, could be nominated. People outside Fort Collins had been given awards in the past. The project must be completed to receive an award. A person involved in historic preservation or keeping history alive could be awarded. An event or a group could also be awarded. The plan was to give out awards in May during Preservation Month. Ms. Bzdek wanted to move the awards back to May after a period without awards during the Covid pandemic. They would need to check on turnaround time for the physical award blocks. In the past, the awards had been held as a reception prior to a Council hearing. An in-person or virtual event could be held, but if in person was preferred that should be decided right away. Awardees should be determined by March to order the blocks. If the reception was virtual, Chair Dunn asked if there could be a video for each awardee and the block mailed to them. Ms. Bzdek said in the past, there had been slides for each awardee and some combination could be done but a PowerPoint would be best. Chair Dunn would send an email to the HPC. She asked them to think about it and get back to her in a weeks’ time via an email from each member with an idea for nomination. Mr. Bertolini asked if the HPC was interested in public nominations and they were. Ideally, they could ask for nominations in the Coloradoan. Ms. Bzdek commented they would do a press release, regardless, and would want to include clear criteria to show the process was fair. Mr. Bertolini would draft a public nomination form and send it to the HPC for feedback. If it was done by the end of the month, Chair Dunn could include it in her History Now newsletter. Ms. Bzdek would go ahead with making logistical plans for an online program that could be live or presented via recording, and possibly a hybrid. Chair Dunn commented Ms. Bzdek and Mr. Bertolini would be making a presentation for Historic Larimer County January 25th at 7:00 pm that would be available online at historiclarimercounty.org. Ms. Bzdek stated they were providing an overview of the grant-supported work they had been doing on Civil Rights History in Fort Collins, along with the work they would be doing with stakeholders to identify places important to the community related to Civil Rights in an intersectional way. They would invite attendees to get involved in the project. Chair Dunn commented in February, Jason LaBelle would DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987 Historic Preservation Commission Page 10 [January 19, 2022] speak about a new study of the Lindenmeier site. It was February 9th, but she was not sure if it would be in person or online. Chair Dunn’s last comment was for anyone that had a Master Class membership, the Frank Gehry class was surprisingly good. The class was fabulous and she had new respect for Frank Gehry after taking it. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair February 16, 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: D600600C-3F13-434E-BA3B-9992F2DD9987