Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/13/2016City of Fort Collins Page 1 April 13, 2016 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 880 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system in HD Belinda Zink 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 April 13, 2016 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager, Shepard • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 10, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 9, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by the Commission at their April 27, 2016 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 April 13, 2016 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 9, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 3. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 31, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 31, 2016 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda for the regular meeting of April 13, 2016 as presented. Ms. Wallace seconded. Motion passed 9-0. • PULLED FROM CONSENT None • DISCUSSION AGENDA Chair Sladek, Ms. Gensmer and Mr. Lingle recused themselves from this item, having missed the previous meeting where this item was discussed. Vice Chair Ernest acted as Chair for this item. 4. 2016 LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM DESIGN REVIEW AND RANKING This purpose of this item is to conduct a design review and subsequent ranking of the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program applications received for 2016. Staff has received application for a variety of projects from the owners of eight landmark properties. The LPC conducted final design reviews for five of those properties at the March 31, 2016 meeting and at this meeting will continue the design review for the remaining three. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek gave a brief presentation, explaining the loan program, the review process and the ranking. 160 Yale Ave. – Applicant: Judith Goeke, Owner Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, including a description of the proposed work. Applicant Presentation Ms. Goeke addressed the Commission. She clarified that the gutter would be a K-style. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad asked about the material and profile for the fascia. Ms. Goeke said it was metal, and explained the shape of it. It will be reused if possible, or replaced in kind, so the material will be the same. Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and move to final review for the proposed project at 160 Yale Avenue. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-0. City of Fort Collins Page 3 April 13, 2016 Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the proposed plans and specifications for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project at 160 Yale Avenue, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria of Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48, and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 6-0 239 North Grant Avenue – Applicant: Erin Morgan, Owner Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, describing the proposed work. She explained the changes to the application since the last meeting. Applicant Presentation The Applicant was not present, and the Commission members decided to skip this item and come back to it after the next one, in case the Applicant arrived. *** Following the 719 Remington Street item, the Commission resumed this discussion. The Applicant was still not present, but the Commission decided to proceed. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Zink asked if there was any more detail available about the work to repair the decking, and Ms. Bzdek directed the Commission’s attention to the estimates provided in the packet. Vice Chair Ernest asked about the porch, and Ms. Bzdek said the new porch has been removed from the application at this time. Staff would have to approve the design before the work is done. In response to a question from Mr. Hogestad, Ms. Bzdek confirmed that this was a temporary removable interim solution to address immediate safety concerns. Vice Chair Ernest asked whether the details on the stucco and windowsill repair could be handled with a condition of approval that the Applicant work with Staff to approve the design. Ms. Bzdek confirmed that could be done. Mr. Frick commented on the handrail being installed between posts at 30”. He said while the handrail isn’t required at all by code based on the height of the porch, if there is a handrail, code requires 36” posts. He also asked whether it would be better not to have a “period” handrail, but instead set it back behind the columns. There was discussion about whether the porch was historic, and to what period. Ms. Zink suggested a simple functional handrail. Mr. Hogestad said since this is temporary, it probably would be simple. Ms. Bzdek said they could impose conditions to clarify the unanswered questions. Vice Chair Ernest clarified that this would be removable. Mr. Frick suggested a condition that the Applicant use the Design Assistance Program for the handrail. Ms. Bzdek knew of no reason they couldn’t impose such a condition. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and move to final review for the proposed project at 239 North Grant. Ms. Wallace seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Sample motion for approval: Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the final design review for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project at 239 North Grant Avenue, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria of Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48, ‘Approval of Proposed Work,’ and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. A condition for approval is that the design aspects and details of the porch handrails and guardrails go through the Design Assistance Program and Design Review. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Motion passed 6-0. City of Fort Collins Page 4 April 13, 2016 719 Remington Street – Applicant: James Danella, Owner Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, describing the proposed work. Applicant Presentation Adam Hamilton stated he was representing the owner and was available to answer any questions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad asked whether there would be a cap on the parapet. Mr. Hamilton explained an alternative treatment that they plan to use rather than capping the parapet, provided the Commission didn’t require it to be capped. Mr. Hogestad said he wasn’t sure they had solved the water intrusion issue. Mr. Hamilton explained that there wasn’t any water intrusion. They discussed the reglet flashing, and Mr. Hogestad said he had expected to see a termination bar or counterflashing so that it will weather longer, but accepted the explanation. Mr. Hamilton said he was open to an alternative. Ms. Wallace asked about whether the work would weaken the stucco wall. Mr. Hamilton stated he did not believe that it would. Ms. Zink asked about the roofing material for the eyebrow. Mr. Hamilton said that decision hadn’t been made, and commented that it would be interesting to bring back the historic scalloped shingles, but that it would be up to the owner. He also clarified that the shingles on the eyebrow are straight brick-style asphalt shingles. Ms. Zink asked if they were cutting a reglet for the curved parapet, why they would not cut one for all three sides. Mr. Hamilton explained the placement of the rubber and flashing. She also asked whether the copper gutters would be only on the front with galvanized on the back. Mr. Hamilton said he wasn’t sure if that would be the final decision, but that was the current thinking of the owner. Ms. Zink expressed concern as to the remaining uncertainties about the project. Mr. Hogestad recommended that they try to match the shingle on the historic photo. Ms. Zink agreed. Mr. Hamilton added that he had done some research and was able to find some shingles that match that profile, so they shouldn’t be hard to locate. Mr. Hogestad is still concerned about the durability, and Mr. Hamilton confirmed that the work would be warranted. Mr. Hogestad had a question about the sloped piece against the sidewall, and Mr. Hamilton said they could terminate and adapt the rubber to that. Mr. Hogestad accepted that explanation. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the conceptual review and move to final review for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project at 719 Remington Street. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the final design review for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan project at 719 Remington Street, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria of Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48, ‘Approval of Proposed Work,’ and the Secretary of the Interior Standards in general. Ms. Dunn seconded. Mr. Frink requested a friendly amendment to add a condition that the Applicant use scalloped shingles as depicted in the historic photo. Ms. Zink and Ms. Dunn both accepted the amendment. Motion passed 6-0. City of Fort Collins Page 5 April 13, 2016 Commission Scoring of Loan Applications Vice Chair Ernest called for a ten minute break to allow the Commission to complete the scoring of the applications. Chair Sladek, Ms. Gensmer and Mr. Lingle rejoined the Commission. 5. RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (OLD ELK DISTILLERY) – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (PDP140016) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Development (formerly known as Old Elk Distillery for the Preliminary Design Review) is located on 1.2 acres at 360 Linden Street on the southwest corner of Linden Street and Willow Street. The property is located in the core of the River Downtown Redevelopment (R- D-R) Zone District; the portion of the site facing Linden is within the Old Town National Register Historic District. The proposed mixed use development includes a distillery production facility (33,448 square feet) along Willow Street that is 51 foot tall at the main roof with a 68 foot tall tower. The mixed use building (9,900 square feet) at the Linden and Willow intersection includes a retail space (2,180 square feet), pub (1,800 square feet), and shared restrooms (600 square feet) at level 1 with office space (4,460 square feet) at level 2 and a total building height of 37 feet tall. APPLICANT: Brandon Grebe, Blue Ocean, Inc. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, describing the project and the area of adjacency. Applicant Presentation Mr. Grebe briefly addressed the Commission. He clarified that their hope is to have a final decision for a recommendation. Eduardo Illanes, Oz Architecture, gave a presentation, describing the changes made since the prior meeting in more detail. [NOTE: The Applicant’s presentation has been added to the packet.] Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked about the reason for the increased height of the water tower from the last design. Mr. Illanes said the height has to do with the structure needed to support it. Mr. Lingle is concerned that it is too tall, stating that he preferred the lower, squatter tower in the last design. He said it is now quite dominant, and he wondered if it is for a functional or aesthetic reason. Ms. Zink asked whether the size is a function of the equipment that is available. Mr. Illanes said that they are getting a historic tower, and he is not sure if it could be shorter, in terms of hydraulics. Chair Sladek expressed concern about the height and scale of the tower compared to the rest of the project and would like some information from a hydraulic engineer to justify the height. He added that he too preferred the earlier version. Ms. Gensmer asked whether an existing “historical tower” would be brought in, or if it is just meant to be historic in character. Mr. Illanes said they are buying an old tower, and that it comes with the legs like that. Chair Sladek said they could probably be lowered. Mr. Hogestad agreed with the concerns about the scale of the tower. He expressed doubt that the engineering has been done on it to determine the hydraulic needs. Chair Sladek referenced the River District Design Guidelines regarding exterior equipment, particularly noting that the visual impact should be minimized. He added that it should keep to a reasonable scale, and not stick out like a sore thumb. Mr. Lingle suspected the height was simply based on the availability of a tower, rather than any engineering need. Chair Sladek agreed that they would need an engineering justification to approve that height, and again stated that the legs could be cut down. City of Fort Collins Page 6 April 13, 2016 Mr. Grebe interjected that the size of the water tower tank has grown as they determined their needs, but he thought the legs could probably be shortened. He asked whether the Commission had a height threshold with which they would be comfortable. Chair Sladek said the closer they can bring the water tower to the height of the other tower, the better it would be. Mr. Hogestad asked whether they really intend to use the legs that come with the water tank, or whether they will be manufacturing legs engineered for the specific considerations. Mr. Illanes said they had hoped to use all of it, but the legs would have to be modified. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern that there was no effort to screen or integrate the mechanical equipment on the south side. Mr. Illanes disagreed, saying that they had integrated it. Mr. Hogestad also said there had been no effort to reduce the amount metal material since the last meeting. Mr. Illanes stated that the use of metal was partly due to budget and partly to fit into the River District, pointing out that the depot also had a metal structure at the end. Mr. Hogestad noted the hierarchy of materials with masonry over metal in the buildings identified as adjacent. He said there should be some attempt to bring the masonry through to the south side. Mr. Illanes pointed out that they brought the brick to the middle of the building, and that the wall facing Willow is all brick. He said the equipment is a composite metal panel with detailing. Mr. Hogestad asked for an example of that in the River District. Mr. Illanes said the hierarchy is being played in the public realm in the right- of-ways. Mr. Hogestad said the building was a fine design and responds well to the historic district, other than the south elevation. He pointed out that the depot is a masonry building with a small shed addition in metal. Chair Sladek asked if others on the Commission shared Mr. Hogestad’s concerns about the materials. Mr. Lingle asked if there was an image available that looked at the building coming from Linden with the depot in the foreground to show how much of the south elevation would be screened. He pointed out that if you are just looking at the south elevation as if there is nothing in front of it, then he would share the same concern, but if there were evidence that a lot of that would be blocked from view by other structures, it might alleviate some concerns. Chair Sladek said his concerns are mitigated by the fact that that from Jefferson, you would only see the top of the building coming up from behind the Quonset huts, and from Linden street the depot will block most of the view until you get very close to the pub building. He said he didn’t share the concern about that side of the building because of the other visual clutter around it. Mr. Hogestad said the building is huge and will dwarf the depot. He said if he could see perspectives of what the depot does to mitigate the amount of metal, it may help. Mr. Hogestad emphasized that it is a four-sided building. Mr. Illanes displayed a photo depicting the view from Jefferson looking toward the north, showing what would be in front of the south side of the building. Mr. Hogestad was not convinced that the building would be sufficiently screened from view and again requested perspectives from that vantage point. Mr. Hogestad asked whether the Applicant had reconsidered the window patterning and window size on the distillery tower since the last meeting. Mr. Illanes said they choose to leave it as is, noting that it meets all of the guidelines and standards. Mr. Hogestad said they had done a beautiful job with the window proportion and patterning and solid-to-void that speaks to the historic buildings without copying them, with the exception of that top portion of the tower. Chair Sladek said the tower was a good modern interpretation, but suggested there might be an opportunity to do something more inspired at the top of the tower. Mr. Lingle said it has a lantern feel to it with the windows and proportions and he doesn’t have a problem with it. Mr. Frick agreed with Mr. Hogestad, and suggested taking the brick off the top, putting that on the back, and putting metal at the top. He agreed with Mr. Hogestad’s thoughts about the windows in the tower. Chair Sladek agreed, but emphasized that they don’t want to push them toward replicating a historic tower. Mr. Lingle pointed out that the Applicant said it meets the standards of the River District Guidelines, and that he didn’t believe they have a code-based rationale to expect a different design. Mr. Hogestad said that Land Use Code 3.4.7 speaks to window patterns and provides that basis. Mr. Ernest agreed with Mr. Lingle that he was not too concerned about the distillery tower. He also didn’t have too much concern about screening the back. He said he shares the concerns of the other members about the size of the water tower, commenting that is seemed disproportionate and draws the eye away from the detailing in the building. City of Fort Collins Page 7 April 13, 2016 Ms. Dunn said she thinks the metal on the back is fine and will be mostly screened from Jefferson. She pointed out there are a lot of metal buildings along Jefferson and it would not impact the depot. She thought the window patterns in the distillery tower were fine and fit in well with the district. She said while the water tower would look better if it could be lowered, she is not bothered by the height of the tower if it’s necessary, adding that it fits in well with the tall equipment at Ranchway Feeds. Ms. Zink said the massing and roof structure of the brick portion of the building serves to separate it from the metal portion that houses the mechanical equipment. She added that the industrial processes require mechanical equipment which makes it acceptable. Ms. Wallace said her only concern was the height of the water tower, and she would like to see evidence that it is required. Chair Sladek said the tall equipment at Ranchway Feeds is a series of interconnected structures, whereas the water tower on its own will stand out more. There was some discussion about when the Ranchway equipment was added. Mr. Hogestad added that the water tower was on the edge of the site, whereas the Ranchway equipment is in the middle. He pointed out that Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code states that taller structures should be placed in the interior of the site. This incredibly large tower is at the street edge. Ms. Gensmer brought up the archeological considerations in relation to the Fort site and area of adjacency. She asked about having an archeological evaluation of the site in preparation for the ground disturbances. Mr. Illanes said that hasn’t happened yet but is part of the plan. Chair Sladek referred to page 62 of the River District Design Guidelines which discusses accent features, noting that the language in that section may support Mr. Lingle’s position as well as the Applicant’s contention that they have complied with the guidelines. Mr. Hogestad disagreed, again referencing the Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 with regard to windows and window patterns. Mr. Lingle pointed out that could force inappropriate faux historic detail into a design. Mr. Hogestad pointed out that the north elevation is a great example of how it can be applied to result in great design. Mr. Lingle said it would be difficult to support forcing the Applicant to do something different with the tower in a recommendation to P&Z. Mr. Hogestad said that while a building may be obscured by other structures or landscaping the design still needs to stand on its own. Mr. Lingle pointed out there are many places in the Land Use Code that talk about the use of landscape features to mitigate mass and scale and bulk. Mr. Hogestad said those were not in the context of one building obscuring another. Chair Sladek asked whether the Commission was ready to proceed to final review, or whether they need additional information to be able to do so. Mr. Hogestad asked for perspectives of the building from Jefferson, and perhaps other key vantage points, that would convince him that metal siding is appropriate. Ms. Gensmer would like to see the engineering rationale for the height of the water tower. Ms. Wallace would like more information about the specific tower they plan to use, such as origin and use, expressing concern that it could create a false sense of history. Mr. Lingle would like to see a comparison of the hydraulic design and other components of a custom designed tower and how that would differ from the historic tower they would like to purchase, in terms of size and height. Ms. Zink said if there is a specific tower they intend to buy, she would like to see a photo. Mr. Illanes commented that changing the south side of the building would be difficult for them, as they believe they have met the code and guidelines, despite some opinions to the contrary. As far as the water tower, they have more flexibility. He acknowledged that the hydraulics haven’t been done yet, and asked whether the Commission could specify a height that would be acceptable. Chair Sladek suggested it should be as low as it can be to work with the hydraulic engineering, and asked the Applicant to bring that information back to the Commission. Commission members discussed the distillery tower. Chair Sladek said while some of them might want some design improvements he didn’t think they could require it. Mr. Frick agreed with Mr. Hogestad’s earlier assessment, but no other members expressed concern with the current design. Chair Sladek said the Commission is considering this a conceptual review. Mr. Grebe asked if there might be a way to get a motion and vote with a condition on the height of the water tower, in order to avoid delaying their schedule. City of Fort Collins Page 8 April 13, 2016 Mr. Lingle asked what the actual height of the water tower is in the current design, as that information was not in the packet. Mr. Illanes said the tower is 120’. There was some discussion about whether they could approve the project with the exception of the tower for now, but there was agreement among the members that it would be better to provide one complete recommendation to the P&Z. Chair Sladek also said that while the Applicant may not intend to change the design on the south side, the Commission would still like to see the perspectives from that view. Chair Sladek asked the Commission if they agreed with asking the Applicant to come back in two weeks with the height of the tower and additional renderings from the south. The members agreed. Ms. McWilliams reminded Chair Sladek of the request for information the origin of the historic tower, which he acknowledged and added to the list of requests for the Applicant. Ms. McWilliams also noted that with regard to archeological considerations, the Applicant would have to provide a plan of protection before they break ground. Mr. Hogestad asked Staff to also provide the comments from the first round of planning review for the next meeting. [Timestamp: 8:08 p.m.] Mr. Lingle and Mr. Frick recused themselves from this item due to conflicts of interest. 6. 625 PETERSON MULTI-FAMILY - PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to build a three-unit addition to the rear of the existing 2- story house at 625 Peterson Street. The existing house, which currently has two 2-bedroom units, would be configured to contain one 3-bedroom unit. The addition would contain two 2-bedroom units, and one 1-bedroom unit. The front porch of the existing house would be rebuilt in the same basic configuration as it currently exists. This proposal will be subject to Planning & Zoning Board (Type II) review. The project is currently in the first round of development review, and will require a second round of review by the Planning Division prior to the Planning & Zoning Board hearing. APPLICANT: Brad Massey, alm2s Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, describing the project and reviewing possible adjacencies. Applicant Presentation Mr. Massey addressed the Commission, noting that another team member and the owners were also present. Mr. Massey gave a presentation with additional details about the proposal. [NOTE: The Applicant’s presentation is included the packet.] Public Input None City of Fort Collins Page 9 April 13, 2016 Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad commented that it was a very well done project. He complimented the proportions, massing, scale and window patterning, and particularly liked the south elevation. While he would have liked it to be three to four feet lower, he understood the constraints and did not feel the small amount of extra height was an issue. Ms. Dunn asked if the zoning was NCM (Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District), which Mr. Massey confirmed. He went on to explain the guidelines on total finished square footage within the zone district, noting that the project was below the allowable threshold. Chair Sladek asked about the dates of the historic photos in the packet. Mr. Massey said they don’t have a good history, but noted that you can see the Chateau Apartments in one of the photos, and those were built in 1970. Chair Sladek asked whether they had researched old assessor’s cards. Mr. Massey said they had worked with Staff on that, but didn’t find any. Chair Sladek encouraged them to check the archives at the Museum of Discovery. Mr. Ernest agreed with Mr. Hogestad that the project was well done. He asked for clarification on what action was expected from the Commission, to which Chair Sladek responded that they need to establish the area of adjacency. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt the area of adjacency for the 625 Peterson Multi-Family project located at 625 Peterson Street to be the subject property and the two single-family houses adjacent to the south at 631 and 635 Peterson Street. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad again praised the design. No members expressed any concerns. Chair Sladek stated that when the Applicant comes back, he’d like them to report on any historic information they have been able to uncover. Ms. Dunn suggested adding some kind of separation between the original and the new addition at the roofline. Chair Sladek asked whether the Applicant could drop the new roof by a foot to offset it from the original. The Applicant thought they could do that, but Mr. Hogestad did not think that was necessary. Ms. Zink agreed with Mr. Hogestad that the design is good as is, and pointed out that it’s the back of the building. Chair Sladek pointed out it would just serve the purpose of delineating where the new room was added and make clear where the original house ended. Mr. Hogestad suggested a vertical baton on the siding to separate the old from the new where the lean-to starts to satisfy those concerns, although he didn’t think it was necessary. Ms. Gensmer asked if there was a difference in the foundation between the enclosed porch at the rear and the main house. Mr. Massey said there was a low-ceiling basement that probably started as a crawl space and was dug out later, and there is a break line there, which indicated the porch was an addition. Mr. Massey said rather than a step down at the roofline, they might be able to delineate between the old and new with a change of materials, without changing the massing. Ms. Dunn and Mr. Hogestad agreed. Mr. Lingle and Mr. Frick rejoined the Commission. 7. LOOMIS ADDITION HISTORIC SURVEY - PROJECT INTRODUCTION The purpose of this item is to provide the Commission and citizens with information regarding the Loomis Addition Historic Survey Project. The historic preservation firm Humstone Consulting (Mary Humstone and Rheba Massey) has been selected to undertake this survey project. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams introduced Ms. Humstone and the purpose of the project. City of Fort Collins Page 10 April 13, 2016 Applicant Presentation Ms. Humstone gave a presentation. She provided details about the project. She discussed the research that was done for the Loomis Addition Context. She identified the key staff who would be working on the project and the four components to the process. Public Input Kevin Murray said he was a member of the Whitcomb Historic District, which is half in the Loomis Addition. He said he was looking forward to raising awareness of the district and hoped to expand it. Myrne Watrous, a resident of the district whose home has been designated, said it was important to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and thanked the Commission for their support. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek thanked Ms. Humstone for the presentation and said he was thrilled she was doing the work. Ms. Gensmer commented that the brochure was fantastic. Ms. McWilliams gave credit to Kevin Murray for the design of the brochure. Mr. Ernest said it was an excellent project and added that gathering all of this historic information on this neighborhood is a step forward. • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hogestad reported that he had spoken with Fred Haberecht at CSU about the historic aerial photos discussed at the last meeting. They located the photos, as well as a map and plat, and have made arrangements with the archivist at the library to receive the material. Ms. McWilliams said that the Neighborhood Services staff had asked for a letter from the Commission in support of a grant for a playground at the Streets facility. Chair Sladek asked if there was, or could be, signage at the site. Ms. McWilliams said that part of the purpose was to recognize what the site once was. The Commission was in agreement to provide the letter of support. Ms. McWilliams said the Neighborhood Services staff could do a first draft for Chair Sladek to edit and sign. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.