Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/11/2015Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 December 10, 2014 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Maren Bzdek City Hall West Meg Dunn 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting February 11, 2015 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: Bzdek STAFF: McWilliams, Weinberg, Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None Chair Sladek asked whether agenda item #4, the Design Assistance Program policy clarifications, could be moved to the end of the agenda. Ms. McWilliams stated that would be fine. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their March 11, 2015 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Lingle mentioned that in the section about the Utilities Administration Building, there was no mention of the trellis element, pylon wall, asymmetry and façade of the building topics that were discussed. He would like to have that added. Chair Sladek also mentioned that there was also a statement that the building was 20 square feet, which should have been 20 feet square. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes for the regular meeting of January 14, 2015 with the corrections as stated. Mr. Lingle seconded. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.] 2. 618 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT FINAL REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Built in 1906-07, the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 018, 2013, adopted on February 19, 2013. The property was found to qualify for landmark status for both its association with Newton and Louise (Avery) Crose, and as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture. The building had been renovated several times during its more than 100-year history, before being purchased in 2012 by William and Kathleen Whitley. The Whitley’s have done extensive work to restore and rehabilitate the home to its current showcase condition. APPLICANT: William and Kathleen Whitley Ms. Dunn recused herself at 5:36 p.m. due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Whitley explained that when he and his wife bought the property, it had been used as a rooming house and was stripped of most of the interior details and had some structural issues. They tried to restore what could be restored, and rehabilitate what they could in a period-sensitive manner. He referred the Commission to the presentation included in the agenda packet. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked Staff for guidance on how the Commission should evaluate this project. He noted, for example, that in the living and dining area, there was a need for beams and columns for structural support, which created a coffered ceiling where there was not one historically. He wondered whether that was a historically appropriate thing to do, and therefore whether the tax credits were applicable to that. Ms. McWilliams stated that the Commission will use the Rehabilitation Standards from the Secretary of Interior to evaluate this project, and those standards allow for alterations and additions to accommodate new needs, technology and changing use. The Commission would decide whether the purpose behind the addition of the coffered ceiling met the criteria or not. City of Fort Collins Page 3 Mr. Lingle pointed to Standard 3, with regard to creating a false sense of historical development, as his cause for concern. He wanted to clarify that if there was a functional and structural reason why the ceiling needed to be done, and the way it was done was in keeping with the period of the house even though it wasn’t there historically, whether that made the addition okay under the Rehabilitation Standards. Ms. McWilliams noted that there weren’t any historic interior photos, so there is really no way to know whether there may have been coffered ceilings. The Applicant mentioned that the beams shown in the pictures were decorative and were put in by the owner between 1960 and 2008. They are below a false ceiling, which was below the original ceiling, which was sagging. He felt he needed to raise the ceiling to be in keeping with the feel of the house, and that the coffered ceiling would be period appropriate. Mr. Hogestad suggested a better approach might have been to use Gypboard so it wouldn’t look like historic decoration. The Applicant said he also added bookcases and wooden trim. Mr. Lingle said he thought those were fine, but when elements are added that give a sense of historical character, it could be misleading. Chair Sladek mentioned that the decorative items added were Craftsman style and were in keeping with the period. He pointed out that since the materials are modern, and the records are on file with the City, anyone doing research on the home in the future would see that those items were added during this rehabilitation process. Mr. Lingle said that was a strong point. Chair Sladek noted that developers push the boundaries on tax credit projects by restoring or rehabilitating the exterior closely, but adapt the interior for a new use. The Applicant stated that everything they had done to the exterior was strictly restoration and repair. Chair Sladek asked the Applicant to give a rundown of what had been done to the exterior, and the Applicant noted the following:  There was a solar collector added in the 1980’s which they removed and repaired the siding.  The windows flanking the fireplace, which are exterior to the inside of the porch, were restored using three of the four original window casements. One was missing, but was remade to mimic the other sashes. The Applicant said he understood why Standard 3 could be problematic if they were strict about it. Chair Sladek cautioned against rejecting an entire tax credit because of one element that wasn’t done as closely as they might have liked. Mr. Lingle agreed, and complimented the work the Applicant had done, particularly noting the radiators. Ms. Zink commented about the modern kitchen, which was not from the Craftsman era. She noted that was a positive thing that speaks to Rehabilitation Standard 3 as a product of modern times. She thought the materials would make it clear that it wasn’t historic. Chair Sladek asked the Commission whether they could support this tax credit. For reference, Ms. McWilliams read the Secretary of Interior definition of rehabilitation. Chair Sladek stated the Applicant had achieved it. Mr. Hogestad said the fact that the work is recognizable as being newer resolves the concerns about Standard 3. He then asked how much work they plan on doing to the exterior in the future, particularly whether they intend to restore the Craftsman style gable ends. The Applicant hopes to do that, as well replace screens and brackets, repair rafter tails, and put authentic storms on the front. He is uncertain about going back to a screened porch due to a security issue. The tax credit will help fund the additional work. Most of the work so far has been to stabilize the structure and extend the life of structure as a single family house. They have not yet done any painting or repair to the siding yet, as they need to have a unified plan approved by the Commission to move forward. Mr. Ernest mentioned he was impressed with the floor plans, and asked if they found them or reconstructed them. The Applicant said that because he had to disassemble the walls, he was able to see evidence around the frame of what had been there and should have been there. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission, as a reviewing entity under Colorado Revised Statute Section 39-22-514, grant Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation approval of the rehabilitation and restoration work on the Crose-Scott-Dickey House at 618 West Mountain Avenue, finding that the work meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 8-0. City of Fort Collins Page 4 Ms. Dunn rejoined the Commission at 6:05 p.m. [Timestamp: 6:05 p.m.] 3. FINAL REVIEW — PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT REVIEW FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REHABILITATION OF THE BUILDING AT 320 WALNUT STREET PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final Review — Part 2 State Tax Credit Review for Interior and Exterior Rehabilitation of the Building at 320 Walnut Street APPLICANT: Craig Hahn and Pete Turner, Owners Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report, noting that Staff was presenting the item on behalf of the property owners who were unable to be present. He pointed out an error on page 77 of the packet where it states, “The items below were part of the rehabilitation project, but are submitted as ‘qualified costs’ for the tax credit application”. This should have said the items are NOT submitted as “qualified costs” for the tax credit application. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member pointed out the photo of the door the Commission had approved being changed from a window, and asked why there was paint on the brick on either side of the door. Mr. Weinberg was unsure, but suggested it may have been done to cover recent graffiti. Members commented that graffiti should be removed, not painted over, and asked Staff to mention that to the owner. Members also commented that the garage door and kick plate were well done, and that the Applicant did pretty much what was approved previously, and said it seems to comply. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission, as a reviewing entity under Colorado Revised Statute Section 39-22-514, grant Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation approval of the rehabilitation and restoration work on the building at 320 Walnut Street, finding that the work meets the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 6:16 p.m.] Item #4 was moved to the end of the agenda. 5. LOOMIS ADDITION PROJECT: CONTEXT FINAL PRESENTATION AND LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SURVEY GRANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final Report of the Loomis Addition Context Certified Local Government Grant Project; Request for Letter of Support for a State Historical Fund Grant for Survey of the Loomis Addition APPLICANT: Humstone Consulting, Mary Humstone, Project Director; Karen McWilliams, Preservation Division Manager Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. She explained that no vote was needed on the final report, but the Commission would need to vote on the letter of support. Applicant Presentation Ms. Humstone gave the Applicant presentation. Public Input None City of Fort Collins Page 5 Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Dunn recused herself from the discussion due to a conflict regarding the survey. Chair Sladek complimented the Applicant’s work on a phenomenal project in terms of its quality and what was achieved. He then asked about garages and outbuildings in the area. The Applicant said they conducted a walking survey, not a windshield survey, but there are a range of garages from early single-car garages, two-car garages and carriage houses that have been converted to garages. They got a lot of photos of different kinds of garages, but not an accurate count. A Member also complimented the quality and approachability of the report. Chair Sladek suggested this area is a strong candidate for a historic district nomination, based on the results of the study. The Applicant said the mini-survey did not assess each house to see what changes have made. Based on the architecture, social history and contextual history, there is a strong case, but the integrity has not been verified. If the integrity is there, it may qualify under Standards A and C, but probably not B. The survey they are proposing would be for 312 buildings, which would require 280 reconnaissance survey forms and 32 intensive survey forms. Chair Sladek asked whether they can make sure the reconnaissance level survey will provide enough information to determine integrity. Ms. McWilliams it would be possible, but would impact costs due to spending more time at each property. Chair Sladek said that with pressure for changes in the area, a district establishment adds an additional layer of protection. Hopefully, the survey can answer the question of architectural integrity. The Applicant noted that the education can be done now, and would hopefully garner more interest in preservation of the area homes. Chair Sladek encouraged the Applicant to keep moving that forward while the survey is being applied for and completed. A Member asked how the context is made available to the public. Ms. McWilliams said that typically the survey and the context occur simultaneously, and the results of both are then mailed to the homeowners. In this case, there may be two mailings, although she wasn’t sure if that would be cost effective. Publications can also be made available on the City website, through Next Door, and via other City outreach methods such as “This Week in Development Review”. Chair Sladek encouraged Staff to make sure the report gets out to the public. Chair Sladek asked the Commission about the letter of support for the grant application, noting that a draft of the letter is in the packet. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a letter of support for a State Historical Fund grant for a survey of the Loomis Addition. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 6:51 p.m.] Ms. Dunn rejoined the Commission at 6:51 p.m. 6. 1ST BANK, 100 S. COLLEGE AVE., LPC DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Following their December 10, 2014 meeting with the LPC’s Design Review Subcommittee (DRS), the applicants have requested another DRS meeting to discuss modifications to the large window panes. APPLICANT: Adam Snyder, 1st Bank; Jim Cox and Don Bernholtz, Architecture Plus Staff Report Ms. McWilliams gave the staff report. She recommended that the Design Review Subcommittee take a role call to determine whether each Member is in support of the project or not. Applicant Presentation Mr. Cox spoke briefly and introduced Mr. Bernholtz, who gave the Applicant presentation. He explained that they are no longer seeking to change the configurations of the existing glass, or change any of the smaller glass pieces. The current proposal only deals with the main, large panels of glass. City of Fort Collins Page 6 Rather than replacing the existing glass panels and adding exposed mullions on the outside of the glass, they propose to apply two horizontal lines of structural silicone bracing behind the existing glass. They believe this is the most elegant solution to satisfy the code requirements and meet wind load standards. Daytime reflections should obscure the structural treatment, although they will be seen at night if the interior is illuminated. The original proposal utilized only one mullion, but they have since learned that the maximum panel size a glass manufacturer will warrant is 55 square feet. The squares in the proposed design are subdivided to about that size. If one panel broke, you could retrofit new panels of glass using a silicone connection with minimal impact on visual appearance. The existing glass panels are laminated, which does qualify as safety glass, and will meet code. To provide the necessary support, structural bracing is placed behind the glass with a silicone connection, and it would be attached to the existing structure with bolted-in clips, which may be possible to remove in the future. They also propose to apply a removable, thin aluminum finish material, like a break-metal product, around the existing mullion structure which is damaged. This will provide a sharp, fresh appearance, to match the existing appearance, but it could be removed in the future. With this design, they have taken the Commission’s suggestions and concerns from the last meeting and have tried to preserve the aesthetic of the structure as much as possible. This glass treatment will protect the building from a high wind event. Mr. Bernholtz introduced Patrick Kervin, a Structural Engineer with Anchor Engineering, Inc. in Denver. Mr. Kervin described his credentials, explaining that he was previously a glazer, and specializes in glass and aluminum engineering. He was asked by the Applicant to assess whether the glass is safe, and determined that the existing glass system was overstressed. He said the existing glass is in pretty good shape, and the proposed scenario meets the allowable glass limits for possibilities of breakage per the GANA (Glass Association of North America) manual. He then provided an overview of his technical analysis, explaining that the glass needs the proposed supports to redistribute the load. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member asked if the existing structure was a steel frame or a curtain wall. Mr. Kervin stated it was comprised of 6” x 6” steel columns with a u-channel. Members clarified that the Applicant plans to cover all of the existing break metal with new break metal. The Applicant pointed out the damage to the existing break metal. The Applicant clarified that the large system is structural steel columns and the plate of glass is held in with stops that are installed to the side of the structural vertical steel columns. There is no window frame, just stick-built component stops. The dented break metal is original to the building. Members asked whether the current break metal could be removed. The kick plate could be removed, and the panel under the storefront frame may be able to be removed, but the verticals are structural and can’t be removed. They plan to cover all of it with new break metal to give a uniform appearance. Mr. Cox said at one point, they had started to re-clad the windows, but stopped to see what would happen with this design review. He stated that he assumed the existing components are original, but doesn’t really know. Members said it looked like the galvanized components were replacements of the original, and asked if the original material was stainless or something else. Mr. Kervin explained that there are two systems. The one pictured on page 118 of the packet is a typical extruded aluminum 4½ x 2 storefront system with a kick panel. The one at the entry vestibule pictured on page 117 is a hybrid with a big tube steel frame and a beam for lateral support that was cladded with material that is most likely stainless, but it is hard to know if it is the original. A break metal with a bright finish would be the best match, like clear anodized aluminum. City of Fort Collins Page 7 A Member asked how the new break metal would be attached where it butts into the glass. They would likely put a half inch hem on the break metal, put it in, and then wet seal it all the way around. Members asked whether the jointing and seaming will match what the existing was. Mr. Kervin said the storefront should be clear anodized and can be matched. If the material at the front entry is stainless steel, it could be easily matched, but if is some “oddball” material that isn’t made anymore, they don’t know if it could be matched. Members inquired about the specific locations of the damage, to which Mr. Bernholtz replied that he didn’t catalog all of the damage, just provided general examples. However, he said it is pretty consistently marred up to about 3 ft. Members asked whether the damaged portions can be repaired rather than cladded. Mr. Kervin said that the aluminum store front cannot be repaired, adding that it would cause more damage and would end up looking worse. Members asked if the vertical atrium cladding will add additional joints that were not there historically. Mr. Bernholtz said they plan to do continuous cladding. A Member stated that he would like to see as much of original material preserved as possible. Mr. Bernholtz said they want a uniform look, explaining that the new cladding would be removable, and the original material would still be underneath. He also noted that 60-70% of the original material is damaged. In response to a question, Mr. Bernholtz explained that the glass line would be broken into thirds, with the bottom two sections evenly spaced, and the top section a little more squat. If one of the panels were to break in the future, the new glass panels would be glass-to-glass joints, as continuous as possible. Members commented that the design of the glass panels fits with asymmetry of the building overall. A Member questioned whether the new horizontal support needed to be deeper than the column. Mr. Kervin said they may be able to use a 2” x 3” or 2” x 4”, rather than the 2” x 6” depicted in the drawing. Chair Sladek asked the Commission whether they saw anything problematic related to the review criteria items A-E. One Member said it was not problematic as long as they follow the guidance offered tonight in terms of the materials, dimensions, finishes, seaming, joints, attachments, etc. He went on to say this structural solution is far more elegant than the previous proposal, having fairly minimal visual impact on the exterior. Chair Sladek asked the Commission about the cladding on the metal work. One Member said that while he realized the original material would be preserved underneath, he still would prefer as much of it as possible to be restored as original fabric, to which another Member agreed. Mr. Cox interjected that he thought cladding had previously been approved for another owner. Ms. McWilliams said that to the best of her knowledge, during an earlier Staff Review process, it had been specified that the original materials should be retained and left exposed. To her recollection, the issue of cladding had not previously come before the Commission. The gold-colored tile under the stucco-like material was allowed to be recovered because it had been covered already before the building was 50 years old. Chair Sladek asked the Commission if they object to the cladding as a whole, or if it’s a question of how it would be done. Some members felt there should be a more specific assessment of how much of the original material could be preserved, noting that they do not have enough information to make a decision. One Member wanted to see the different conditions of the existing material, and solutions for each, suggesting a good elevation drawing showing existing conditions and proposed alterations. Chair Sladek referred to review criteria item C with regard to obscuring exterior characteristics, and asked whether covering over historic fabric would qualify as obscuring. Member would like a more detailed presentation. While the horizontal bracing works well, the break metal is the concern. Commission Deliberation Chair Sladek noted that they would not be voting on this item, but suggested a roll call on the two elements of the proposal, the horizontal window bracing, and the cladding. The Members unanimously agreed that the horizontal window bracing was acceptable. City of Fort Collins Page 8 With regard to the cladding, Mr. Hogestad would like a more detailed assessment and proposal. Ms. Dunn agreed. Mr. Lingle was not as concerned about analysis and repair of the original material, but felt it was more important how the new material is attached, and that the finish more closely matches the original. Ms. Wallace agreed with what Mr. Lingle said about the finish, but was concerned about continuity if only portions are covered. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Ms. Wallace. Ms. Zink agreed with Mr. Hogestad. Mr. Ernest stated he agreed with the earlier comments. Chair Sladek agreed with Mr. Hogestad. Chair Sladek summarized the Commission’s feedback by saying that they unanimously support the window bracing, but have relatively unanimous concerns about the details of the cladding that need to be addressed before they could support it. [Timestamp: 7:56 p.m.] 7. 222 LAPORTE AVENUE - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR RELOCATION OF HISTORIC CREAMERY LABORATORY (BUTTERFLY BUILDING) AND CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Fort Collins, is requesting a Final Recommendation to Decision Maker on its project to relocate the historic creamery laboratory (Butterfly Building) and construct a new Utility Customer Service Building at 222 Laporte Avenue. APPLICANT: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager, City of Fort Collins Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Attorney, City of Fort Collins Staff Report None. Applicant Presentation Jeff Mihelich gave the Applicant presentation. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member pointed out that the content of the presentation was completely different from what was submitted for the packet. Mr. Mihelich apologized for the last minute changes, explaining that they were working on improvements to the window design that they felt were more representative of what they thought the Commission wanted to see. In response to a question, he said they changed the canopy in the back because they didn’t feel it would really be used. He also noted that the angle of the canopy was not changed, and matches the angle of the monument sign. Members asked about the block structure in back, and Mr. Mihelich explained it was a brick wall enclosure for the mechanical system with no roof structure. Chair Sladek emphasized that the drawings in the presentation are the current ones that should be considered. Members inquired about the signage at the footprint of the original location. Mr. Mihelich stated that they plan to include two signs, one at the footprint, and one at the laboratory building to explain the history of the building. Members suggested a flat marker could be used in the ground at the footprint. A Member asked about the fencing separating the raised area from the lower area. Mr. Mihelich said it was necessary for safety, but was designed to be transparent as possible, so as not to obstruct the view of the building. Several Members praised the design, and the changes that were made. They specifically mentioned liking that the stairs were closer to the building, the change in the color of brick and that the setback was a nice detail. City of Fort Collins Page 9 Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval of the designs for the Utility Customer Service Building at 222 Laporte Avenue as presented at tonight’s meeting, finding that it complies with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Mr. Lingle seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Mr. Mihelich expressed his appreciation to the Commission for their guidance and suggestions, and thanked the Architect, Dominic Weilminster. [Timestamp: 8:19 p.m.] 4. DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY CLARIFICATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to take action on aspects of the Design Assistance Program discussed at the Commission’s January 28, 2015 Work Session. Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Public Input No members of the public were present to comment, but a letter was submitted by Kevin Murray of Empire Carpentry which was provided to the Commission just prior to the meeting. Commission Questions and Discussion Following a question from a Member, Mr. Weinberg clarified that a property owner could get reimbursement for each project once. A second revision could be a separate project. A suggestion was made to add couple of sentences defining what constitutes a project. Mr. Weinberg said he could do that loosely in order to be more accommodating. Another Member recommended adding a statement that the applicant must agree to meet the Standards in order to receive funding. In response to another question, Mr. Weinberg stated that after the changes are finalized, he would e-mail the changes to those on the list. Members commented on Mr. Murray’s letter. It was noted that because structural engineering and maintenance aren’t specifically excluded, applicants could be confused as to what kind of projects qualify, possibly resulting in rejection of an application that could have been avoided. Members would like to see additional clarity in the document. A Member also pointed out that there are alternative means of funding if one goes through the landmark process. Mr. Weinberg suggested an FAQ on the website, as well as on the application, that provides examples of the types of projects that would not qualify and explains that this program is for conceptual designs rather than fully engineered drawings, may help to manage expectations. Commission Deliberation No voting occurred on this item. The Commission asked Staff to come back to the next meeting with the additional language they discussed. [Timestamp: 8:33 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lingle suggested that when last minute changes come in, the Commission should feel comfortable tabling the discussion and postponing the decision. Chair Sladek agreed, noting that Staff should also inform the Applicant that additional information submitted late may not be considered. Ms. Dunn asked for update on Button House plaque. Ms. McWilliams said a neighborhood meeting was held, which Ms. Wallace and Mr. Ernest attended. Ms. Wallace said approximately five homeowners attended, none of whom had attended the previous meeting as far as they could tell. Attendees were open to commemorating what had been there. They were also open to looking at other options like a marker placed in the concrete for the Button House and other homes in the District, or even commemorating the neighborhood in general with signs for the District at major City of Fort Collins Page 10 intersections or street signs. Mr. Ernest said that Sarah Burnett was also at the meeting, and said no one had e-mailed any comments. He didn’t see a meeting of the minds among attendees. Some said their neighbors didn’t even know they were in the Laurel Historic District. He said he would like to see signage for historic districts in general. Mr. Hogestad thought Neighborhood Services had looked into for signage for neighborhoods. Chair Sladek asked whether someone from an appropriate office within the City could come to a meeting to talk about signage. Ms. McWilliams said she would pull together some people for a work session. There was discussion that the low attendance at the meeting seemed to indicate that the people who had been so upset about the Button House only a year ago, had already forgotten it. Mr. Hogestad asked how people were notified of the meeting. Ms. McWilliams said a mailing was sent to the entire Laurel Historic District of 700 some homes, and was included in the City’s electronic notifications. Ms. Zink said the fact that people have short memories may actually demonstrate the need for a plaque. Chair Sladek mentioned that the CSU Medical Center will be built at the northwest corner of College & Prospect, and expressed concern about the historic homes in the area. Mr. Hogestad said he had a conflict of interest on that topic due to his employment at CSU, but noted that Cameron Gloss is the CSU contact for City business and may have an update. Mr. Lingle pointed out that the Planning & Zoning Board would have purview over that, and the LPC could give P&Z a recommendation. Ms. McWilliams said she would be happy to facilitate a meeting with CSU on that topic. Chair Sladek mentioned the upcoming election for Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission. Both he and Mr. Ernest expressed willingness to continue in their respective roles, but also encouraged others with an interest to throw their hats into the ring.  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.