Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/15/2023Page 1 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Jenna Edwards Fort Collins, Colorado And Remotely Via Zoom Bonnie Gibson Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting February 15, 2023 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Bonnie Gibson, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose, Jenna Edwards ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Heather Jarvis, Yani Jones, M. Matsunaka • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated Item No. 6, 232 East Vine Drive Landmark Nomination, will be postponed at the applicants request. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek noted that applications are open for the Historic Preservation Commission’s vacant seats. • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 18, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Carlock made a motion, seconded by Member Gibson, to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2023 regular meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Mr. Jim Bertolini reported on the release of a video about Black history in Fort Collins, which is part of the Full Story Fort Collins project, available online. 3. 319 E. PLUM – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW - ROOF DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual design review for a proposed change of roof material on the City Landmark at 319 E. Plum St., the Schalk-Stallings House. The owner is seeking feedback regarding his proposal to change the roof from wood shingle to architectural asphalt shingle material given the deteriorated state of the existing roof. APPLICANT: Wayne Snyder, Owner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission consider moving to a final review and granting a Waiver of Conditions (Municipal Code Sec. 14-5) to permit this alteration because the wood shingle roof is not a character-defining feature of this Craftsman Bungalow home, and so the proposal “does not diverge from the conditions and requirements of [Chapter 14] except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance the purposes of [Chapter 14].” Staff and Applicant Presentations Ms. Yani Jones stated this item is a conceptual design review for a change in roof material from wood shingles to architectural asphalt shingles for the Schalk-Stallings House at 319 East Plum Street. She outlined the role of the Commission to provide feedback to the owner for a future final design review or to proceed to a final design review this evening. Ms. Jones provided a history of the home and its designation and showed photos of the home and proposed roofing product. Page 3 Ms. Jones stated the proposed project is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation if the wood roof is considered a character-defining feature. However, the home’s ability to convey it’s architectural significance as a bungalow does not depend on that feature; therefore, staff is recommending the Commission proceed to final design review and consider approving the proposal by granting a waiver of conditions under Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code because the proposal does not diverge from the conditions and requirements of that chapter except in nominal and inconsequential ways and will continue to advance the purposes of the chapter. Wayne Snyder, property owner, noted he and his wife were responsible for securing the original historic designation. He stated this request has to do with re-roofing as a part of routine home maintenance and noted the current shingles are not shake, but smooth wood shingles. He noted re-roofing with wood has become problematic and last year’s Marshall Fire brought to light issues with older wood roofing. He stated wood look-alike shingles are designed to mimic the appearance of shake shingles, and shake shingles were not commonly used in construction in the 1920’s. Additionally, he noted the wood look-alike shingles are extremely costly in comparison to architectural asphalt shingles. Mr. Snyder stated the use of high-quality asphalt shingles does not significantly detract from the unique features that characterize the Craftsman bungalow roof. He went on to detail those character-defining features and requested the Commission consider granting a waiver of conditions. Member Edwards asked which of two colors Mr. Snyder is leaning toward using. Mr. Snyder replied one of the colors matches the current roof much better when it is wet and the other when it is dry. He stated he would be happy with either color, but somewhat prefers the darker. Public Comment Ben Manvel, neighboring property owner, commented on his experience replacing wood shingles with asphalt and expressed support for allowing the change for Mr. Snyder’s property. He thanked the Commissioners for their service. Commission Questions and Discussion Member Nelsen thanked Mr. Snyder for this thoughtful presentation. She stated she does not believe the shingles are a character-defining feature and the request to change them seems to be very reasonable. Member Rose concurred and also stated the shingles are not a character-defining feature and the true character of a bungalow is clearly transmitted. Member Rose made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, to move into final review as the proposed solution will be completely compatible with retaining the historic character of the home. Member Carlock also noted the change to asphalt shingles is a safer alternative. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Member Rose made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve a waiver of conditions under Municipal Code Section 14-5 permitting the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with architectural asphalt shingles at the Schalk-Stallings House at 319 East Plum Street as presented, finding that although the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation, the project does meet the criteria for a waiver of conditions, specifically that the requested waiver is submitted and will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of Chapter 14 except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance its purposes because the wood shingle roof is not a character-defining feature of this property. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Page 4 4. 1802 N. COLLEGE – NONOWNER-INITIATED LANDMARK NOMINATION HEARING #2 DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the Pobre Pancho’s Property at 1802 N. College Ave. The nomination is not supported by the owner, H & H Properties. This is the second of two code-required hearings following a determination of eligibility in the affirmative by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on January 18, 2023. APPLICANTS: Amelia A. Perez, Resident; Matt D. Perez, Resident; Christopher B. Bird, Resident; Monica Bird, Non-Resident/Nomination Preparer OWNERS: H&H Properties (Darren & Asher Haun, owners; Jeff Cullers, legal representative). Chair Knierim asked if either party would desire a presentation time longer than 20 minutes. Jeff Cullers, property owners’ legal counsel, requested 25 minutes and an opportunity for rebuttal to public comment. Chair Knierim granted both requests. Staff Presentation Mr. Jim Bertolini stated this is the second hearing for the involuntary landmark designation of the property at 1802 North College Avenue. He noted the goal of this hearing is for the Commission to establish whether the designation and protection of this property would meet the City’s historic preservation policies and purposes sufficiently enough to outweigh the property owners’ objection. He stated the process would end should the Commission not adopt a resolution indicating the property is eligible for designation, and if it does adopt such a resolution, the process would move forward to City Council for a final decision. Additionally, he noted there is a special vote requirement for advancing the resolution: all six members must vote to pass the resolution to send it to Council. Mr. Bertolini outlined the history of this item and showed images of the property. He summarized the significance of the property which was established at the previous hearing and noted the building could not be demolished should the Commission recommend the property for designation and Council also makes the same finding. If those circumstances do not occur, the property still remains landmark eligible and is therefore subject to the protections of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7; however, a modification of standards is still allowed with a recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Bertolini discussed questions that were brought up at the previous hearing that are more applicable to this hearing, including those related to the potential use of the building and how modifications for modern use would be handled. He outlined suggested questions for the Commission to consider, including how the property compares to other similar properties within the historic context, how the designation supports or does not support the policies and purposes in Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2, and whether the degree to which the City’s preservation policies and purposes would be supported by landmarking the property is sufficient to outweigh the owners’ objection. Applicant Presentation Monica Bird discussed the importance of history and stated the building at 1802 North College is the definition of history. She detailed her father, Frank Perez’, story and history in starting Pobre Pancho’s. She urged the Commission to look past the monetary value of the property and consider the importance of history that is woven into the foundation of the building. Page 5 Owner Presentation Asher Haun, property owner, discussed his ownership of the business and building. He noted he made Carolyn Bird, Frank Perez’ granddaughter, a minority owner in the business aspect with the plan for her to eventually take over that portion. He stated investments were made to attempt to save the business and he is unsure how he will move forward should the building be designated as a landmark. He stated that while he believes Mr. Perez’ history should be documented, the building does not tell that story. Mr. Cullers further detailed Mr. Haun’s financial investment in the property. He summarized some of the practical implications for limitations for the future of the building, including the fact that the building footprint cannot be expanded due to the lot size and parking and setback requirements as well as historic preservation requirements. Mark O’Donnell, commercial real estate broker, stated the property was purchased by the Haun’s with the intent to improve and expand the restaurant; however, it was forced to close two years later due to extensive financial losses. He outlined the market complications that exist for the building noting those limitations would be expanded should the property be designated as an historic landmark, including the fact that the building is not large enough to generate sufficient income to feasibly support a restaurant and the lot size is inadequate to allow for expansion of the building footprint, the building is not well-suited for other uses, and the building façade is aesthetically unappealing for non-restaurant users. He noted Raising Cane’s was under contract to purchase the building and neighboring property; however, that contract was terminated several weeks ago because of the potential historic landmark designation which would render the site unfeasible for their intended use. He stated designating the property as an historic landmark could ultimately result in the property being left vacant for years to come. Mr. Cullers noted landmarking the property will put Mr. Haun personally underwater on the mortgage and will require him to continue carrying costs of approximately $3,000 per month. He outlined the role of the Commission to weigh that heavy burden on the property owner against the policies and purposes of the Code related to historic preservation. He questioned whether community members would feel any civic pride in preserving the building and noted there is intrinsic difficulty in preserving a building for association purposes. He commented on the desire to improve the North College corridor and stated preservation of this building will not improve the aesthetics of the area. He stated landmarking the building does only one thing: prevents the building from being torn down; it does not ensure the building will become another restaurant, museum, or community center. Public Comment Kathleen Kilkelly supported designating 1802 North College as a landmark because the building represents many stories that have great significance to the history of the Mexican-American community in Fort Collins. Owner Rebuttal Mr. Cullers stated the applicant’s presentation did not directly address any of the policies and purposes in the Code, nor did the staff presentation opine on how any of those policies and purposes would be served by designation; therefore, there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the policies outweigh the burden placed on the property owner. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Bird stated that while she did not specifically address each policy and purpose in the Code, she felt her presentation was transparent in its focus on the history that is entwined in the building. She stated she believes the building could have many uses and be well cared for. Staff Response Mr. Bertolini noted the staff presentation did not interpret all policies and purposes as that is not typically done for involuntary landmark designations; however, staff is available for any questions. Page 6 Commission Questions Member Carlock asked Ms. Bird about possible uses for the building moving forward. Ms. Bird replied she only has ideas related to the use of the building, possibly including writing grants to help purchase the property. She noted none of those plans can move forward with an unwilling seller. She stated they have discussed using the building as a commissary kitchen for food trucks or having some other type of business that would help fund outreach programs. Member Nelsen requested a response from the property owner and asked if he has discussed any options with design professionals. Mr. Cullers replied there has not been any communication between the Haun’s and the Perez family regarding the family buying the building back. He stated he did not believe the Perez family participated in the Raising Cane’s proposal and, at this point, the Haun’s have not had any communications with design professionals related to possibilities for the building if it were landmarked. Mr. Haun stated he has no intention of investing more money in the building, and he would be willing to sell it to Ms. Bird for an amount equal to his total investment. Member Carlock asked if the possible uses of the property mentioned by Ms. Bird are determinate upon a landmark designation. Ms. Bird replied the purpose would be to save the building and have it be landmarked to keep it from being demolished. Member Gibson asked how long the property is protected as it has been deemed eligible for landmark designation. Mr. Bertolini replied a finding of eligibility applies to a property for five years, after which a finding would need to be reissued. He noted the property could be demolished with a finding of eligibility; however, a modification request would need to be granted. Commission Discussion Member Rose asked about the details of Municipal Code Section 14-33(C). Heather Jarvis replied the 14-33 designation review will result in the Commission’s decision to either not designate the property, in which case the process would be terminated, or to recommend to City Council the property be designated, after which Council would go through the process of determining eligibility and whether designation over the owner’s objection would further the Code’s policies and purposes. Member Rose noted the Council has somewhat different authorities and responsibilities in terms of the judgements it makes about factors the Commission is not charged to consider. Ms. Jarvis noted this hearing is specifically focused on determining whether the requested designation will advance the policies and purposes in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation without the consent of the property owner. Mr. Yatabe noted Council would go through substantially the same analysis the Commission is going through should the recommendation move forward. Chair Knierim suggested the Commission consider the policies in Section 14-1 with the intent of weighing them against the owners’ concerns. He commented on the vagueness of the language related to resources of significance within the city, but also discussed the importance of story and stated this building represents a story which perpetuates a resource of significance. Member Gibson stated she struggles with the non-consensual aspect; however, she also struggles with the idea of development and prosperity of the North College corridor and how its gentrification could result in erasure of cultural identity and stories. She stated she believes it is the duty of the Commission to ensure there is some sort of development and maintenance of those stories and civic pride. She noted that since the original offer from Raising Cane’s to purchase the property is off the table, there is a possibility Ms. Bird could re-purchase the building which would prevent the erasure of that story. Chair Knierim stated there is a story with the property intact; however, without the building, the story is much harder to tell. He commented on the value of the property to heritage tourism and resources for education. Member Carlock agreed the first two purposes, A and B, are served; however, she stated she does not believe it serves the others. Page 7 Member Edwards noted the property being eligible does not outright eliminate demolition of the building, but does make that more difficult. She stated designating the property as a landmark would put more restrictions on the property owner, to whom she is sympathetic; however, she stated she believes the building is part of Fort Collins’ cultural history. She asked about the process should the property just remain eligible and the owner wanted to make significant changes. Mr. Bertolini replied the Land Use Code process would be a modification of standards for demolition or any significant changes and any modification request would come before the Commission for a recommendation. Member Carlock asked if it would be one year before another application for designation could be submitted should the Commission not recommend landmarking the property. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative but stated any exception could be made given new substantive information. Member Gibson asked if a change in property ownership would be considered substantive information. Mr. Bertolini replied he did not believe the one-year application prohibition is affected by ownership. Mr. Yatabe concurred a substantive change would be related to the application, not the property owner. Member Gibson asked if that would change should the application be owner-initiated. Mr. Yatabe replied there is a provision that states the one-year prohibition may be waived by the Director upon a showing of changed circumstances that demonstrate the need for designation of the resource or district, which could potentially apply in that case. Member Nelsen stated it is important to recognize the difficulty of this conversation and she was unsure the Commission could come to a consensus that will please all parties involved. She stated she recognizes this is a chronically under-told story of racism; however, Mr. Haun has worked hard, the purchase of this building had good intentions, and landmarking it could have negative financial implications. She stated she would like to hear about the financial opportunities for a landmarked property and whether those might enable other uses that may not be financially viable at this point. She stated she believes landmarking the property would fulfill purposes in Municipal Code 14-2 related to perpetuating resources that reflect important elements of the city’s heritage, fostering civic pride in accomplishments, promoting and encouraging continued private ownership and utilization of resources, promoting the use of resources for education, stimulation, and welfare, and promoting economic, social, and environmental sustainability through identification, use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of resources. She stated she believes the building has the potential to be used for other commercial purposes. Member Carlock concurred in general, but stated it is contingent upon the future use of the building. Chair Knierim noted the building’s location in North Fort Collins is part of the story as well and contributes to the heritage tourism aspect. Member Nelsen asked what financial opportunities would become available if the building were to be landmarked. Mr. Bertolini replied properties that are found eligible do not qualify for any of the preservation funds; however, there are several state and local programs that are available to help offset rehabilitation costs for landmarked properties. He stated the likely maximum local amount that could be leveraged is about $10,000 between loans and design assistance grants however, the state programs tend to be more lucrative because they can fund things such as utility upgrades, insulation, or anything other than demolition, new construction, and appliances. He also noted following the Secretary of the Interior rehabilitation guidelines is a requirement of all assistance programs. Member Nelsen noted there may be community-building grant opportunities depending on the use of the property, as mentioned by Ms. Bird, that are not necessarily tied to the landmark status of the building. Page 8 Member Gibson made a motion, seconded by Member Rose, that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution, to be signed by the Chair, finding that the designation of the Pobre Pancho’s property at 1802 North College Avenue will promote the following policies and purposes of the City as specified in Section 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owners’ consent: under 14-2, A, B, D, E, G, and H, and directing that the nomination be forwarded to City Council for a final decision pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-33(C). Member Rose stated the minutes of the last meeting show the rationale for the eligibility decision, and he does not believe that rationale departs significantly from the decision related to a landmark recommendation. He noted there is language related to City Council giving consideration to the owners’ interests. Member Carlock stated the Commission’s task this evening was to look at whether the purposes and policies of the City are advanced sufficiently enough to overcome the objection of the owners’. She noted the property being found eligible already protects it to a great degree and she does not believe the policies and purposes are advanced significantly enough to justify landmark designation. She stated she believes Ms. Bird would find enough assistance and support to purchase the building and have it remain with one of the uses she described; however, she stated she hesitates to designate a building that may remain vacant in perpetuity, which would be detrimental not only to Mr. Haun, but also to the city and the North College corridor. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: Carlock and Edwards. THE MOTION FAILED. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 5. 825 N. COLLEGE – APPEAL OF DESIGNATION OF ELIGIBILITY REMAND HEARING DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the remanded appeal of the determination of eligibility for the commercial property at 825 North College Avenue, which is the basis for identifying historic resources subject to preservation requirements under Land Use Code 3.4.7. On September 7, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that all three structures on the property meet the requirements to be considered an “historic resource” under the City’s Land Use code based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level historic survey form. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) heard the appeal on October 19, 2022, and determined that only the main service station building meets the eligibility requirements. The property owner appealed the decision to City Council based on the allegation of an unfair hearing and failure to interpret the code properly, which was heard on December 20, 2022. Council determined that the HPC conducted a fair hearing but remanded the matter back to the HPC to rehear the appeal, which will include consideration of additional information that was not included in the original HPC decision. This process will result in a new determination of eligibility. When undergoing development review, historic resources (properties that meet the City’s standards to qualify as a City Landmark) are subject to the project approval requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Grem Armstrong, GARA LLC (Property Owner) Page 9 Staff Presentation Mr. Jim Bertolini noted this is a remand hearing for the appeal of the determination of eligibility for the property at 825 North College Avenue. He discussed the Commission’s original determination of eligibility noting it reduced the staff recommendation for eligibility down to just the service station and did not include the house or accessory garage. He outlined the role of the Commission to reconsider the property and its finding of eligibility and establish a new determination. He stated additional information can be considered, and has been provided by staff. Mr. Bertolini provided an overview of the administrative history of the item which started with a conceptual review for a car wash which initiated the historic review process. He stated historic preservation considerations for the site would be ended should the Commission find the property not eligible, and if it does find the property eligible, the development applicant would generally be expected to incorporate the building into its development plans. He outlined the requirements for finding a property to be eligible for historic designation and discussed the ways in which the property was found eligible in the Commission’s previous determination. He noted the subject of this appeal pertains to the service station only. Mr. Bertolini showed photos of the property over time and further detailed the Commission’s previous findings related to significance and integrity. He provided examples of similar property types and discussed the staff evaluations of them. He noted the one public comment received opposed a finding of eligibility. Appellant Presentation Tim Goddard, representative for GARA, the property owner, requested 30 minutes for the appellant presentation and provided an outline of the appellants’ presentation. Wayne Sundberg discussed his history with the city and Landmark Preservation Commission and opposed designating these types of properties. He stated historic designation should be for properties that are truly historic and are either architecturally significant or significant for a relationship to an important individual. He opposed the oblong box as being identified as historic. Mr. Goddard discussed the lack of integrity between the original M.K. Cole building and the existing structure, and the lack of significance of the existing structure given its lack of integrity. He stated integrity is the ability of a building to carry the historical story and argued the current building does not have that integrity. He outlined the aspects of integrity and stated not enough are present, including setting, possibly materials, craftsmanship, and persons or groups, to justify the integrity of the existing service station building. He also stated the history of the original M.K. Cole building cannot be relied upon to make this building a landmark and he commented on the oblong box architecture highlighting characteristics of the oblong box that do not exist in this building, including a car wash bay, two exterior restrooms, a metal roof, and exterior porcelain enamel steel panels. Grem Armstrong, property owner, discussed the inconsistency and lack of clarity regarding the property addresses throughout the reports. He also noted there was no indication the building was added onto in 1960, contrary to the staff report. He discussed the various timelines of the history of the property and other inconsistencies in reports. He stated it is his belief the service station building was constructed in 1970 based on phone book and ownership records. He questioned how integrity could be present when the date and origin of the property are unknown. He stated he and his wife did some research and found 44 oblong boxes in a 25.5-mile span of Highway 287. Commission Questions Member Nelsen requested a staff response to the inconsistencies referenced by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Bertolini replied some are due to poor proof-reading and errors in the report. He stated the service station construction date is based on the building permit record on file; however, he acknowledged there were many changes to the building between 1937 and 1977. Member Carlock asked when the building that is currently located at 825 North College was built. Mr. Armstrong replied he believes it was built in 1970. Member Carlock asked if there are any indications of a demolition permit being granted for the building that was on the property prior. Mr. Armstrong replied in the negative but stated he was unsure those types of permits were required then as he was told building permits were not even required prior to 1975. Page 10 Member Gibson asked Mr. Armstrong if he was able to find any historic maps or aerials that would have clarified any of the addresses. Mr. Armstrong replied all of the older Sanborn Maps stop at the river, and even after this parcels north of the river began to show in the 1950’s, it was just the parcel and the block, not actual buildings. Commission Discussion Member Carlock suggested the lack of a phone book entry for the building in 1970 could have been due to the building being vacant and closed, not necessarily being demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Armstrong reiterated his opinion this is a building about which not enough is known to be designated. Member Gibson commented on the History Colorado handout on oblong box gas stations which discusses common elements of the architecture and noted this building has all of those elements, including two bays, a corner office, and a flat roof. Mr. Armstrong replied the building does not have a flat roof and that handout indicates the second bay should be a wash bay, which this building does not have. Additionally, the exterior material is not the common oblong box porcelain material. Chair Knierim stated the integrity is called into question given the materiality and he cited the many other examples of the architecture style mentioned by Mr. Armstrong. Member Rose stated any discussion about prior buildings on the site is irrelevant and this building, which is at least 50 years old, is, in his opinion, a stereotypical example of an oblong box. He stated the roof may be sloped, but is flat, and is iconic of a particular building type and style that is reflective of a given age. He stated it does not matter a great deal as to whether there is real porcelain enamel as the appearance is the same with the painted steel panels. Additionally, the building was affiliated with a major oil company for much of its life which suggests it is a prototypical example of that era’s service station. He stated he believes the building possesses integrity under all seven aspects and it does not matter how many other structures like this exist. He particularly cited the building’s location on North College Avenue. Member Edwards stated the point of history is to record what will be history for future generations. Member Nelsen stated she is unsure this is the building of this type she wants to save and she thanked Mr. Armstrong and his team for their investment in learning about the property. Chair Knierim stated Member Rose’s point about the location of the property on North College gives him pause and stated North College Avenue gained more significance because of this service station. Member Edwards stated the inconsistencies that were pointed out do give her pause; however, Member Rose’s point about the building being significant because of its place and location was valid. Member Rose made a motion, seconded by Member Gibson, that the Historic Preservation Commission find the service station at 825 North College Avenue meets the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and is an historic resource for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 based on the following findings of fact: that it conforms to the requirements for significance of both events and architecture, and that it meets all seven criteria for integrity. Member Carlock stated she wished she had more time to review the materials. Member Nelsen asked Member Carlock what specifically she has concerns about. Member Carlock replied the questions about the construction date would change the period of significance; however, it does meet all of the qualifications for an oblong box. She stated she likes the idea of the building being reused rather than being torn down to make way for a car wash, though she admitted that opinion may be irrelevant. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, Carlock, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Page 11 6. 232 E. VINE DR. – LANDMARK NOMINATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Alexander and Emma Barry Farm Property at 232 E. Vine Dr. APPLICANT: Aziza Syed, Real Estate Director for Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative, dba. Innosphere Ventures (owner) (**Secretary’s Note: Consideration of this item was postponed.) 7. HPC OFFICER ELECTIONS Chair Knierim requested nominations for the Chair position. Member Carlock made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, to nominate Kurt Knierim as Chair. Member Nelsen commended Chair Knierim on his previous work in the role. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, Carlock, Edwards, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Member Carlock made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, to nominate Jim Rose as Vice Chair. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS Member Gibson announced a talk tomorrow at the Council Tree Library on the Dutch George Cabin and Cherokee Trail. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.