HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2021 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPage 1
Meg Dunn, Chair Location:
Michael Bello
Walter Dunn This meeting will be held
Kurt Knierim remotely via Zoom
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison:
Jim Rose Karen McWilliams
Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
April 21, 2021
5:30 PM
Landmark Preservation Commission
AGENDA
Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation
with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent.
This remote Landmark Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No one will
be allowed to attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to
join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom
at https://zoom.us/j/94284162189. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep
yourself on muted status.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to
speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 942 8416 2189. Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone
participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an
opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself.
Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission
for its consideration must be emailed to abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or
participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours
prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that
in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission.
Packet Pg. 1
Page 2
Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its
compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark
Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional
experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history,
archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
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.
Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881
(HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on
demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
o Staff Review of Agenda
o Consent Agenda Review
This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and
considered separately.
Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.
Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items.
STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2021.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 17, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark
Preservation Commission.
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the
important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may
request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately with Commission-pulled
items considered before the Discussion items and Citizen-pulled items after the Discussion items.
Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent
Agenda consists of:
● Approval of Minutes
● Items of no perceived controversy
● Routine administrative actions
Packet Pg. 2
Page 3
AGENDA ITEMS 2-3 ARE SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATIONS
Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their
neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant
to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code.
2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 528 W. MOUNTAIN AVE
3. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 501 EDWARDS ST
CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP
This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Agenda.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time.
DISCUSSION AGENDA
4. REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to
the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under
Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since
the last regular meeting of the Commission.
5. ITEM CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021 LPC REGULAR HEARING
1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, REHABILITATION, ADDITION, AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a conceptual review of the applicants’ project, identify
key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation,
and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will
better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the
side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of all accessory
structures, and construction of a new garage building.
APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners)
6. 336 E. MAGNOLIA ST, NATIONAL REGISTER DESIGN REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a National Register Design Review of the applicant’s
project, identify key conflicts with the Secretary of Interior’s Design Standards
for Rehabilitation, and make recommendations as to whether the property
would remain historic at the conclusion of the project. The applicant is
proposing an addition onto the building’s North/rear elevation, including
necessary demolition, as well as a full-width, partially covered replacement
porch, including necessary demolition.
APPLICANT: Ian Danielson
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at this time.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 3
1
Gretchen Schiager
From:meg dunn <barefootmeg@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:54 PM
To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Extending our virtual meeting period
Hi Karen,
Given our ongoing COVID‐19 “Safer at Home” recommendation from the State, I think it would be prudent for us to
continue to hold meetings virtually for the foreseeable future. Why don’t we set June 2021 as a cut off point to revisit
this, with the option to revisit the issue sooner if somehow a vaccine is found and quickly disseminated early next year,
and the Safer at Home recommendation is lifted. I know that P&Z is holding a mixed meeting soon, so I think we should
be open to that should the need arise.
So, to summarize: Let’s plan to continue our virtual LPC meetings until June 2021 with the understanding that, should
the need arise, we would be willing to consider an alternative option on a one‐off basis. Given that the members of the
LPC seem to feel that our virtual meetings have been going well, I don’t foresee this happening. But I would like to be
flexible should an applicant or appellant feel the need for an in‐person setting.
Thanks!
‐ Meg
Packet Pg. 4
Date:Roll CallMike BelloWalter DunnKurt KnierimEizabeth MichellKevin MurrayAnne NelsenJim RoseVacant SeatMeg DunnVotexxxxxxx x8 presentConsent Agenda: 1) MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2021 2) SF DEMO NOTIFICATION - 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE - moved to Discussion Agenda by Staff 3) SF DEMO NOTIFICATION - 501 EDWARDS STKurt KnierimWalter DunnVacant SeatAnne NelsenKevin MurrayEizabeth MichellMike Bello Jim RoseMeg DunnYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes8-05) 1306 W MOUNTAIN AVE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (Pulled)Walter DunnVacant SeatAnne NelsenKevin MurrayEizabeth MichellMike Bello Jim RoseKurt KnierimMeg Dunn6) 336 E MAGNOLIA ST, NATIONAL REGISTER REVIEW - APPROVAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT TO INCLUDE STANDARD LANGUAGE REGARDING LOSS OF GOVERNMENTAL INCENTIVESVacant SeatAnne NelsenKevin MurrayEizabeth MichellMike Bello Jim RoseKurt KnierimWalter DunnMeg DunnYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes8-0Roll Call & Voting RecordLandmark Preservation Commission4/21/2021
Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing
Date: 4-21-21
Document Log
(Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.)
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Draft Minutes for the LPC March 17, 2021 Hearing
2. SF Demo – 528 W. Mountain Ave – moved to Discussion Agenda by Staff
Staff Presentation given at 4-21-21 Hearing and added to packet after
Hearing
3. SF Demo – 501 Edwards St
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
4. Staff Design Review Decision Report
No updates
5. 1306 W Mountain Conceptual Review – continued to LPC May 19, 2021
6. 336 E Magnolia St National Register Design Review
LPC Final Report of Alterations to Designated Resource – Updated April
21, 2021 and added to packet after Hearing
GENERAL CITIZEN EMAILS/LETTERS: None
EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING:
Item # Exhibit # Description:
2 A Staff Presentation regarding Landmark Nomination Process
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD
Please contact Aubrie Brennan at 970-416-4390 or abrennan@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you!
Visitor Log
[This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.]
DATE: 04/21/21
Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance
Ian Danielson 336 E Magnolia Ave 336 E Magnolia Homeowner
Gustave “Bud” Danielson Bud.danielson@comcast.net Father of 336 E Magnolia
homeowner/Project Lead
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 21, 2021
Landmark Preservation Commission
STAFF
Aubrielle Brennan, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2021 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 17, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LPC March 17, 2021 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 March 17, 2021
Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was conducted
Michael Bello remotely via Zoom
Walter Dunn
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen
Jim Rose
Vacant Seat
Regular Meeting
March 17, 2021
Minutes
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
•ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne
Nelsen, Jim Rose
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Gretchen Schiager, Rich
Anderson
Chair Dunn read the following legal statement:
“We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the
sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination
to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.”
•AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Bertolini stated that item #2 had been pulled from the agenda.
•CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW
No items were pulled from consent.
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 2 March 17, 2021
• STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
• PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17. 2021
3. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 511 N GRANT
4. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 420 WEST ST
Mr. Rose moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of
the February 17, 2021 regular meeting as presented.
Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 8-0.
Chair Dunn commented on the environmental and affordable housing cost of losing the two properties
at 511 North Grant and 420 West Street.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
5. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without
submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or
a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all
such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission.
The Commission did not request a presentation or have a discussion on this item.
6. 247-249 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW (REHABILITATION AND ADDITION)
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark
Preservation Commission for a mixed-use project at 247-249 Linden Street in
the Old Town Historic District, to identify any key conflicts with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Old Town District Design
Standards.
APPLICANT: Randy Shortridge, [au] workshop (architect); Drew Fink (owner)
Ms. Nelsen and Mr. Murray recused themselves due to conflicts.
Staff Report
Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting the applicant is seeking the Commission’s input regarding
the design’s compliance with the adopted Old Town design standards and the Secretary of the Interior
standards for rehabilitation. She detailed the architecture and history of the building and showed
several photos of the building and surrounding properties. She noted there was a previous project
presented for conceptual review that was approved by the Commission in 2019; however, that project
did not proceed, and this project is entirely new.
Ms. Bzdek mentioned certain aspects of the proposal and noted staff’s recommendations are included
in the staff report and they have particularly highlighted the rear sunroom addition and hipped roof
proposal. She discussed the proposed rehabilitation work as well.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Shortridge introduced the owner of the property, Drew Fink, who addressed the Commission briefly
about the project.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 3 March 17, 2021
Mr. Shortridge gave the Applicant presentation. He explained the design goals for the project, which
include rehabilitation of the front and rear façades and adding a rooftop and rear addition. He
commented on the importance of providing safe nearby parking in an apartment environment.
Mr. Shortridge provided details on the proposed design, color palette, and materials and showed
several photos of the property. He discussed the proposed roll-up door replacement and plan to
salvage the Joe’s Upholstery sign. He detailed the proposed roof design and noted there are examples
of other non-flat roofs in the area.
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Dunn explained how the discussion would flow with topics covered to be windows and door
openings, the rooftop addition and roof line, and the rear addition.
Openings
Mr. Rose commented asked about the function of the garage door on the Linden Street side that is
proposed to be replaced. He noted he did not see a clear photo of the door at 253 Linden looked like
in the 1940s. Ms. Bzdek replied there is not a better photographic record of the configuration during
that era, and she noted there were previous discussions about the possibility that the door could have
been replaced several times during the Joe’s Upholstery tenure in the building.
Mr. Rose suggested the applicant consider giving a more authentic interpretation of the opening since
the door is planned to be replaced.
Chair Dunn stated there may not be enough historical evidence to ask the applicant to do that.
Chair Dunn asked about the age of the transom. Mr. Shortridge replied the transom would have
provided context for a double-opening door.
Chair Dunn suggested leaving the transom as a four-window transom as it is likely older than the doors.
Mr. Rose concurred.
Mr. Shortridge commented on the roll-up doors at Illegal Pete’s and stated those doors have an
overwhelming number of mullions. He suggested the possibility of using a two light door which would
recall the earlier swinging doors and afford more transparency.
Ms. Michell stated things do not always need to be symmetrical and stated she likes the 3x5
arrangement. Mr. Dunn concurred.
Chair Dunn asked if the applicant would be willing to keep the three panels. Mr. Shortridge replied in
the affirmative.
Mr. Knierim stated he likes the double doors.
Chair Dunn asked when the door had been changed. Ms. Bzdek replied it was after 1983 and it is not
historic.
Mr. Shortridge commented on the man door into the commercial space and noted the head height was
adjusted to make it compatible with the roll-up doors. Chair Dunn supported that change and stated it
meets the Secretary of Interior standards.
Mr. Fink asked about the Commission’s position on the vertical composition of the roll-up garage door.
Ms. Michell and Mr. Bello supported the idea of all glass. Chair Dunn noted the door is not historic;
therefore, nothing about it needs to be emulated specifically as long as the four transom windows
remain.
Regarding the second story windows, Mr. Rose supported the proposal.
Regarding the proposed changes on the back side, Chair Dunn asked if the header above the current
garage door will be replaced. Mr. Shortridge replied the opening was likely modified at some point and
the header was perhaps added to strengthen the wider opening.
Chair Dunn requested the applicants take photos during deconstruction if there is any evidence of the
previous status.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 4 March 17, 2021
Chair Dunn asked if there is no door going into this once the addition is completed. Mr. Shortridge
replied the door is six feet closer to the alley and cars will need to extend the majority of their mass into
the existing building.
Chair Dunn asked how the brick will be protected from drivers nicking the edge of the building. Mr.
Shortridge replied an edge protection could be provided. Chair Dunn noted the attachment to the brick
of a protective device would be of importance.
Chair Dunn asked if there are reuse plans for the brick that will be removed. Mr. Shortridge replied in
the negative but noted there is a plan to use the existing floor structure inside, particularly the roof
sheathing perhaps as interior wall paneling. He stated the brick could be used for any repair and will
certainly not be sent to the landfill. Chair Dunn supported reusing any of the materials in the new
building.
Chair Dunn asked if there is currently a transom on the man door on the left. Mr. Shortridge replied in
the affirmative and stated it is similar to the transoms above the other doors. No members expressed
concerns with removing the man door.
Regarding the rear windows, Chair Dunn requested input regarding extending one window into a
doorway. No members expressed concern.
Mr. Shortridge noted the windows that are being replaced could be single-pane wood windows as they
are only separating two interior spaces.
Rooftop Addition and Roof Line
Chair Dunn commented on the two center windows and corner windows distinguishing themselves from
the rest of the building which helps identify the addition as not being original.
Mr. Rose commended the choice of weathering steel noting it provides a distinct material departure
from brick.
Chair Dunn asked if there are chimneys in the design. Mr. Shortridge replied in the affirmative noting
there will be ceiling-hung fireplaces in each unit.
Chair Dunn asked if there will be planters around the terrace. Mr. Shortridge replied in the affirmative.
Chair Dunn asked if the entire roof is going to be supported by the new structural system. Mr. Shortridge
replied in the affirmative.
Regarding the hipped roof, Mr. Bello stated the design works. Chair Dunn agreed and stated it is
nominal and inconsequential compared to a flat roof.
Chair Dunn noted the addition is on its own structural support and could therefore be removed without
damaging the historic structure.
Rear Addition
Chair Dunn supported the sunroom idea.
Ms. Michell agreed and complimented the planter boxes. She asked if the sunroom terrace is a shared
amenity or just for one apartment. Mr. Shortridge replied it is just for one apartment and noted each
apartment has its own unique features.
Chair Dunn commended the setback from the edge wall and top.
Chair Dunn asked how the rear addition is going to be attached. Mr. Shortridge replied that has yet to
be determined but there should be fairly light attachment points and no brick should need to be
removed.
Mr. Shortridge thanked the Commission members for their input.
Mr. Bello asked about the back garage door being five windows high. Chair Dunn noted it is not historic
therefore there is no historic precedent that must be followed.
Mr. Fink thanked the Commission members for their input.
Chair Dunn thanked the applicants for seeing the value in historic buildings and she commended the
use of retail on the first floor.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 5 March 17, 2021
Ms. Nelsen and Mr. Murray returned to the meeting.
[Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break at this time.]
7. 220 EAST LAUREL STREET, LONG APARTMENTS – AFTER-THE-FACT DESIGN REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for final design review of work to the Landmark-designated
Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, that was undertaken without
approval and has already occurred.
APPLICANT: Jordan Obermann, Forge and Bow Dwellings, on behalf of Kent Obermann,
Rarem LLC.
Staff Report
Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. She reviewed the history of designation, ownership and
previously approved work. She noted staff recently noticed the revisions to the applicant plans showed
work that had not been reviewed, and when contacted the applicants, discovered the work had already
occurred. She stated the applicant has requested final design review and the Commission’s role is to
apply the Secretary of the Interior rehabilitation standards to the work to determine compliance and any
work that is found to not comply will need to be reversed.
Ms. McWilliams commented on the building’s form and key features and outlined the alterations. She
summarized the staff findings and specified which parts of the work staff has found do not comply with
the standards. She stated staff is recommending denial of a certificate of appropriateness for the work
that does not meet standards.
Applicant Presentation
Jordan Obermann introduced his father, the owner, Kent Obermann, who briefly addressed the
Commission about his history owning the property. He stated he was unaware the building was historic
until 2019. Jordan Obermann stated many of these changes were done prior to his father taking
ownership of the building and discussed the reasons for the changes stating things have to be updated
to maintain the building. He noted he received his permit without question and assumed Historic
Preservation had reviewed and approved the permit and changes. He stated there was no ill intent on
his part.
Ms. McWilliams discussed the previous meeting during which this project was reviewed and noted the
applicant was told multiple times at that meeting that all work would need to be reviewed by the
Commission. Regarding the rear door that was filled in, she stated Historic Preservation cleared the
permit because staff was told there would be no exterior work by the applicant. She noted the
requirement for any reversals will be dealt with through staff.
Jordan Obermann replied he was not planning on doing any exterior work initially; however, those items
were discussed at the Historic Preservation meeting. He disagreed with Ms. McWilliams’ timeline.
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Dunn stated she would like this meeting to focus only on the issues with which the Committee
can deal. She acknowledged this building was purchased by the Obermann’s prior to staff taking more
effective steps to ensure owners are aware of the historic status of buildings.
Chair Dunn asked if any Commission members disagree with staff’s finding that the alterations to paint
color, driveway elevation, rear entry step, and hardware on the entry door are not significant character-
defining features. No Commission members disagreed.
Mr. Rose commented that changing the trim color from white to black made a significant difference;
however, he agreed it is a reversable change. Chair Dunn agreed.
Chair Dunn requested input on the three lower-level wood windows that were replaced.
Mr. Bello stated there is justification to replace them if they were in poor condition.
Mr. Murray stated it is somewhat of a moot point; however, he would like to ensure there is some
investigation into whether windows could be repaired for any future replacements.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 6 March 17, 2021
Chair Dunn stated the windows have already been changed and it not likely possible to restore them.
She stated the replacement is acceptable if the windows were truly irreparable.
Remaining work
Regarding the gutters, Ms. Nelsen commented on the changing downspout configuration and end
profile. Ms. McWilliams reiterated the Commission’s role is to comment on whether replacing the
gutters would meet the standards and it would be staff’s role to determine when the work occurred and
the details relating to replacement.
Chair Dunn asked if the Commission would have approved the change. Ms. Nelsen replied water is
one of the biggest enemies to the building and the gutter replacement appears to be more or less in-
kind and does not have a detrimental effect on the building. Chair Dunn agreed the type of gutter does
not seem like a character-defining feature.
Ms. Nelsen commented on whether some type of water diversion feature was present at the time the
building was constructed. Mr. Murray stated there was likely some type of water diversion that was
integral with the original design.
Chair Dunn stated it seems the Commission would have agreed to a replacement in -kind if this work
had not yet been completed. Ms. Nelsen stated her only comment would be related to the termination
of the new downspout. Jordan Obermann replied the property manager took care of the gutter
replacement and there was an issue with water coming back into garages; therefore, he believed the
solution was to terminate the gutter into the grass yard.
Ms. Nelsen stated she would have recommended a civil engineer or structural engineer review of water
diversion if this work had not already been completed. She asked if there are resources available for
the property owner for a drainage management plan to help preserve the structure. Ms. McWilliams
replied the City has different programs that could be utilized and the owners were made aware of those
during the 2019 review. She noted staff will work with contractors and engineers to ensure the property
remedy for any of the work not approved by the Commission. She stated staff will work with the owners
to ensure proper drainage. Jordan Obermann stated part of the 2019 landscape plan did address
grading and drainage; however, the landscaping was not all approved and they are somewhat uncertain
about how to move forward at this point.
Chair Dunn stated she believes the Commission wanted the landscaping to be simple. Ms. McWilliams
stated the resources of the design assistance program were offered to the owners to allow them to hire
a specialist in historic landscaping; however, they have not utilized that service. She provided additional
details on the program and noted funds have currently been reduced due to the pandemic.
Chair Dunn noted what was discussed in the 2019 meeting regarding the landscaping and design
assistance program. She commented on the discussion around the pavers which the Commission did
not believe fit with the character of the building.
Jordan Obermann requested additional detail on whether the Commission wants to see a landscape
that matches the historic nature of the building or one that reflects a different era. Ms. McWilliams
replied that when staff reviews a project with that type of issue, typically the existing landscape has
relevancy in its own right; therefore, it is better to leave the existing landscape than to create something
that is false for this property.
Chair Dunn recommended the applicants utilize the design assistance program for the landscaping.
Mr. Murry asked if the two storm doors were stored so they could be replaced. Jordan Obermann
replied the storm door from the 1951 addition may have been removed when the building was painted
prior to his ownership. He stated it may be in storage. Regarding the other storm door, he stated he
had no recollection of it being there. Kent Obermann stated he did not recall a storm door being on the
north door and he does not believe it is in storage.
Mr. Murray asked about the infilled courtyard door and stated it should be replaced. He commented
on the 2019 minutes indicating the applicants stated it would remain. He stated the basement egress
is quite close to where the door was and is close to the traffic pattern. Chair Dunn stated the
Commission has previously suggested leaving a presence of a door, but it does not have to be
operable. Jordan Obermann replied that could have been done; however, there was a concern about
security. He stated he did not recall if this door infill was part of the LPC 2019 review.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 7 March 17, 2021
Chair Dunn stated a door replacement was discussed, but not an infill. She noted a solid wall could
still be placed behind the door as long as the sense of an opening remained to retain the historic sense
of the building while still allowing for a change of use. Jordan Obermann reiterated his belief that this
was not discussed in 2019 and noted it was on the 2020 permit and he was under the assumption the
infill was therefore acceptable.
Ms. McWilliams stated she can get that type of door and asked if the Commission would like it to be
restored. Jordan Obermann noted that type of door is too short and would not likely be allowed from a
permit. Ms. McWilliams stated the door would be inoperable; therefore, building code should not be an
issue.
Ms. McWilliams noted the Commission will need to decide if the door infill meets the Secretary of Interior
standards and if not, it will be up to staff to determine the solution.
Ms. Nelsen stated she would not have voted to infill the door. Mr. Murray agreed but stated it would be
up to staff to determine whether the door should remain operable, and the Commission must only
determine if the work that was done meets the standards. Mr. Yatabe confirmed that interpretation is
correct.
Chair Dunn asked if the Commission would have approved the tile in the front entryway. Ms. Nelsen
replied in the negative.
Mr. Rose asked if it is known what the tile replaced. Chair Dunn replied there is a photo in the packet
that shows it was in poor repair; however, it was not replaced in-kind per the Secretary of the Interior
standards.
Mr. Rose commented on the damage already having been done with the door infill and paver removal
and stated neither of those conform to the standards.
Mr. Murray commented on the hardware boxes and noted there is one that is required to be by the front
door per the fire department. Jordan Obermann noted that was installed when the fire department
installed smoke detectors prior to their ownership.
Regarding the tile, Jordan Obermann stated another material would have been used if he had known
the building was historic. Chair Dunn replied this project has been a lesson for staff regarding informing
property managers of historic status and opportunities.
Regarding the mechanical equipment and conduit, Jordan Obermann commented on the contractor
pulling their own permit. He noted a substantial amount of the equipment is on the roof.
Ms. Michell asked why two of the units had to be placed on the wall thereby disrupting masonry. Jordan
Obermann replied he was unsure, but it may have had to do with the commercial nature of the units.
Chair Dunn stated the Commission would have likely asked for the units to be placed on the floor.
Ms. McWilliams reiterated the Commission is only to decide whether the work meets standards and it
will be up to staff to determine whether it will cause more damage to the building to remove and replace
conduit or if it should be left as is. Ms. Nelsen stated this change would not meet standard 9.
Ms. Nelsen asked if there is a Code reason the condensers would need to be mounted above the
ground. Mr. Anderson, Chief Building Official, replied there must be at least 3.5 inches of ground
clearance, but there is no requirement for a wall mounting; however, more distance may be required
per manufacturer instructions.
Ms. Nelsen asked if there was some City Utility requirement to move from a single electric meter to
individual meters for each unit. Mr. Anderson replied the permit for the new electric meters was issued
in 2010 and was part of the Fort Collins Light and Power Project. He assumed the conduit was run
outside due to cost.
Jordan Obermann asked if the Code requires electric meters to be a certain distance from doors and
access points. Mr. Anderson replied they need to be a certain distance from vents or any source of
combustion.
Chair Dunn asked the Commission for input on what it would approve in this instance. Ms. Michell
replied she would expect the Commission to discuss minimizing the damage to masonry and visual
impacts.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 8 March 17, 2021
Chair Dunn noted part of the Secretary of the Interior standards is that buildings should still be usable
without damage to materials being caused. She noted these changes are on the rear of the building,
which is recommended by the standards. She stated she was unsure what should have been done
that would have met the standards. Ms. McWilliams replied the Commission should examine whether
it would approve these changes if they were to come before the Commission right now.
Chair Dunn stated she would have a difficult time voting as she does not know if there are alternative
ways to accomplish this. Ms. McWilliams noted Mr. Anderson told her the conduit could be interior to
the building; however, the meters and disconnect need to be on the exterior.
Ms. Nelsen stated it is clear that there is not enough information for this part of the project to issue a
certificate of appropriateness.
Chair Dunn suggested discussing the removal of the sconce light on the addition.
Mr. Murray stated the sconce appears to have been the same in 2019. Ms. McWilliams replied staff
would need to do some more research; however, her speculation based on the d ate of the addition is
that the sconces were similar to the front building sconces. Jordan Obermann commented on his belief
the sconce is original but the globe was likely broken.
Ms. Nelsen thanked the Obermann’s for their patience and stated she does not see a lot of good
evidence for what was there originally in terms of the sconce. Chair Dunn noted it appears to have
been there in 1997 and the issue would only come before the Commission if there was going to be a
change.
Chair Dunn asked about the removal and replacement of wood screens with aluminum on the front of
the building. Ms. McWilliams stated the original screens in the photos appear to be wood due to their
thickness. Mr. Murray stated the photos are not detailed enough to decipher the material and he
commented on what materials have been used over time.
Commission members discussed which items they believe meet the Secretary of the Interior standards.
[Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break at this time to allow Mr. Bello to craft a motion.
A roll call was conducted upon reconvening to confirm all members were present.]
Commission Deliberation
Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness for paint color, driveway elevation, rear entry step, hardware removed from
the apartment building’s front entry, gutter on the garage structure, and removal of three
lower-level historic windows and replacement with fiberglass windows to the Long
Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as required under Article IV,
Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. This decision is based upon the materials and
information provided to the Commission for this item and the Commission discussion. The
Commission adopts the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report provided for
this hearing.
Mr. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 8-0.
Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the items listed below to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street,
finding that the proposal does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties as required under Article IV, Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins
Municipal Code, specifically:
• The entry tile does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2, 5 and 6.
• The mechanical and electrical equipment placement does not meet the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards 2 and 9.
• The courtyard door and infill openings do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards 2, 4, 5 and 6.
• The Commission does not have enough information to ascertain whether the Scotch
sconce meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
• The Commission does not have enough information to ascertain whether the
aluminum screening meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 9 March 17, 2021
This decision is based upon the materials and information provided to the Commission for
this item and the Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the findings and
conclusions contained in the staff report provided for this hearing.
Mr. Rose seconded. The motion passed 8-0.
8. 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, REHABILITATION, ADDITION, AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a conceptual review of the applicants’ project, identify
key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation,
and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will
better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the
side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of all accessory
structures, and construction of a new garage building.
APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Rick Zier (legal counsel)
Chair Dunn disclosed knowing Bob Bailey but stated it would not bias her decision in any way.
Mr. Murray also disclosed having known Bob Bailey, but since it is no longer his house, he stated there
was no conflict.
Mr. Bertolini stated that due to the lateness of the hour, the Applicant requested that this item be
continued to the next meeting. Mr. Berkhausen confirmed this was his request.
Mr. Yatabe explained the noticing requirements.
Mr. Knierim moved for a continuance of agenda item 8, 1306 W. Mountain Ave, Conceptual
Review, Rehabilitation, Addition, And Accessory Structures, to the next regular meeting of the
LPC on April 21, 2021. Mr. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 8-0.
Chair Dunn agreed that the applicant should be first on the next agenda.
• OTHER BUSINESS
o Election of Officers (Chair and Vice Chair)
▪ Ms. Michell nominated Ms. Dunn to serve as Chair. Mr. Bello seconded. The motion
passed 8-0.
▪ Mr. Murray nominated Mr. Knierim to serve as Vice Chair. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The
motion passed 8-0.
o Chair Dunn reported the Loveland delisting meeting on Timberlane Farm has been postponed.
o Ms. McWiliams commented on the recently adopted changes to Boards and Commissions adopted
by Council. She noted the name of the Landmark Preservation Commission has been changed to
the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Bertolini commented on the benefits of that name
change. Chair Dunn also noted not all landmarks are historic.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 10 March 17, 2021
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.
Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.
_____________________________________
Meg Dunn, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT April 21, 2021
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood
and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of
Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age
proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that
demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City
Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification
process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request
with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the LPC meeting
either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the
provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code.
Historical Background
The single-family property at 528 W. Mountain Ave was surveyed in 2020 and determined eligible as a City
Landmark for its significance as the home of Ms. Jessie R. Moore, a career teacher in Fort Collins from 1902
to 1949, and as a significant example of the Folk Victorian architectural style built on the west extreme of the
1873 Avery Plat. The findings for that evaluation have been attached.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Historic Survey Form, 528 W. Mountain Ave.
2. Public comments received prior to meeting
3. Approval for virtual hearing
Packet Pg. 16
++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
FIELD EVALUATION OF FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
☒Individually Eligible ܈ Contributing to District ☐Not Eligible
☐Likely Eligible for State/National Register
General Recommendations:
I. IDENTIFICATION
1. Resource number: 5LR.8026
2. Temporary resource number: N/A
3. County: Larimer
4. City:Fort Collins
5. Historic building name: Samuel E. Moore House; Jessie R. Moore House
6. Current building name: None
Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only)
Date ____________ Initials
________________
______ Determined Eligible- NR
______ Determined Not Eligible- NR
______ Determined Eligible- SR
______ Determined Not Eligible- SR
______ Need Data
______ Contributes to eligible NR District
______ Noncontributing to eligible NR District
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 17
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
7. Building address: 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
8. Owner name and address: Jason and Misha Green
5820 Fossil Creek Parkway
For Collins, CO 80525-7114
II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W
SW ¼ of SW ¼ of NE ¼ of section 11
10. UTM reference
Zone 13; 4492952 m E; 492743 m N
11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO
Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15'
12. Lot(s): West 90 feet of Lot 10
Block: 61
Plat: Original Fort Collins town plat Platted: 1874
Parcel Number: 97114-09-022
13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal
description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97114-09-022, which consists of the west
90 feet of Lot 10 in Block 61 of the original Fort Collins town plat. The rectangular lot is 90 feet
wide and 115 feet deep, encompassing 10,350 ft² (0.24 acre) of land. The parcel is bounded on
the south by the sidewalk paralleling West Mountain Avenue; on the west by the sidewalk
paralleling North Whitcomb Street; on the east by 524 West Mountain Avenue (Parcel No.
97114-09-024); and on the north by 110 North Whitcomb Street (Parcel No. 97114-09-021). The
subject parcel contains the single-family dwelling at 528 West Mountain Avenue as well as an
associated two-car wood frame detached garage, a small sheet-metal clad storage shed, and
what appears to be a long unused cylindrical concrete cistern, as well the surrounding yards and
landscaping. The site boundary encompasses the area associated with its historic residential
use beginning in 1885.
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular
15. Dimensions in feet: House: Length: 36 ft. x Width: 41 ft.
Garage : Length: Approximately 26 ft. x Width: 20 ft.
16. Number of stories: 1.0
17. Primary external wall material(s): Wood-horizontal clapboard siding
18. Roof configuration: Gabled - Intersecting gables
19. Primary external roof material: Composition shingles
20. Special features: Porch, canted bay window
21. General architectural description: (Note: Please refer to the attached captioned photographs).
The primary architectural feature on this parcel is a one-story, wood frame, Folk Victorian-style
single-family dwelling that lacks a basement and rests on a concrete foundation. It encompasses
1,258 ft² of living space. The original portion of the clapboard-clad building consists of two
perpendicular wings forming an T-shaped footprint, and the house is covered with a
moderately-pitched intersecting gable roof. A shed-roofed open front porch extends across the
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 18
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
façade from the junction of the two wings. The building’s fenestration consists primarily of tall,
narrow double-hung windows commonly found on houses erected in the late nineteenth
century. All of the windows and doors placed on the original portion of the house – all but the
full-width, shed-roofed rear porch, built in 1919 - have wide painted wood surrounds with
decorative crowns typical of late 19th Century domestic architecture. Having been built later
(1919), the full-width, shed-roofed rear addition is fenestrated differently with three windows,
each a different size and type, including a small, fixed Craftsman-type window containing three
narrow, vertically-oriented panes separated by thin muntins.
The façade is composed of the prominent projecting, front-gabled west wing, to the right of
which are the recessed side-gabled wing and attached full-width open front porch. The long
front porch is covered by a shed extension of the side gabled roof, that is supported by plain,
painted, squared wooden posts. A low wooden closed rail partially encloses the porch.
The front-gabled portion of the façade, to the left (west) of the open front porch, has a
moderately-pitched roof with a distinctive wooden triangular decorative element placed at the
gable’s apex. A wide and tall canted bay window on the gabled portion of the façade is perhaps
the dwelling’s most visually impressive element. The bay window is equipped with tall, narrow
1-over-1 double-hung wood frame windows framed by decorative wood moldings with
recessed rectangular panels and paired decorative brackets placed beneath its crown.
The front porch has a wooden deck (now temporarily covered by plywood), and the original
porch ceiling material (probably beadboard) has been replaced by what appears to be narrow
synthetic tongue-in-groove siding material attached to exposed rafters. The porch is partially
enclosed by a low closed rail consisting of solid stretches of painted vertical wooden slats (not
balusters) with top and bottom rails, and is attached to the roof support posts. Near its
left/west end is an opening that allows access to the main entry/front door and to another,
adjacent east-facing door on the side of the projecting west wing. The latter door provides
access to the living room or parlor. Both entries are equipped with old, solid (no glazing), plain
stained wooden doors and old painted wood frame screen doors that may be original features.
Each door has a wide, painted board surround with a narrow, single pane transom light, and a
decorative crown. To the right/east of the main entry are two windows, including a tandem set
of double-hung, 2-over-2 sash windows separated by a wide mullion. Near the right/east end
of the façade is a similar, solitary window.
The house’s west elevation faces North Whitcomb Street. The elevation includes the original
portion of the house as well as the west side of the attached shed-roofed rear addition. Two
windows are placed on the original portion of the house, including one single and one tandem
set of narrow, tall, 2-over-2 double-hung windows with original period surrounds. Near the
north/rear end of the west elevation, on the side of the rear addition, is an entry within a very
small, shed-roofed open porch. The porch measures approximately 6 feet wide by 4 feet deep.
The porch’s roof is supported by plain triangular wooden knee braces, and the small deck is
semi-enclosed by small lengths of low painted wooden closed rail. The entry within the west
side porch is equipped with an unglazed and stained wooden door that is covered by a modern
glazed metal storm door.
The east elevation also includes the east end of shed-roofed, enclosed porch addition at the
building’s northeast rear corner, which is attached to of the nearly full-width rear addition. The
east side of the enclosed rear corner porch is clad with painted plywood and/or wood paneling.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 19
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
At its north end is an entry sealed by an unknown type of door covered by a modern glazed
metal storm door. A rectangular dressed pale sandstone step is installed in front of the entry.
The east elevation of the original east wing is covered by a fairly low-pitched gable roof and is
fenestrated with two evenly spaced identical tall and narrow 2-over-2 double-hung windows.
The rear elevation consists of the north side of the attached, full-width, shed-roofed rear
addition and of the northeast corner enclosed porch addition. The clapboard-clad, north-facing
gable on the back side of the home’s original west wing can be seen above the west end of the
rear addition. Unlike the rest of the rear elevation (as well as the façade and side elevations)
that are clad with clapboard, the north side of the northeast corner porch is covered with three
painted plywood panels separated by vertical painted batten boards. Three dissimilar windows
with plain painted wood surrounds are placed on this elevation; these include one large double-
hung window; a tandem set of small double-hung windows, and between them, a small square
fixed Craftsman-type window with three narrow vertically oriented glass panes separated by
thin muntins. The east end of the rear elevation consists of the enclosed porch addition’s north
wall.
22. Architectural style/building type: Folk Victorian/ single family dwelling
23. Landscaping or special setting features: The parcel is located on the northeast corner of West
Mountain Avenue and North Whitcomb Street. It faces wide Mountain Avenue and its wide
park-like median that carries the tracks of Fort Collins’ first streetcar (trolley) line, built in 1907,
connecting downtown with Grandview Cemetery and City Park. Concrete sidewalks extend
along the front and west sides of the property, and a path of wide cut flagstone slabs leads from
the sidewalk to the front porch entry. While not verified, this flagstone path may be an original
or early feature of the property. Unlike most of the other parcels on the block, the subject parcel
is nearly square, measuring 115 feet N-S by 90 feet E-W. Being on a corner lot, the home’s façade
is oriented south toward Mountain Avenue, while the garage faces, and is accessed from, North
Whitcomb Street. The front yard and broad west side yard are not enclosed by a fence, and are
attractively landscaped with a cropped grass lawn and a number of medium and large-sized
deciduous trees which shade and partially obscure the house from view when bearing leaves.
Abundant large deciduous (and some evergreen) trees are established all along the West
Mountain Avenue corridor in residential lots and on the grass-covered strips between the
sidewalk and the street, as well as in the wide median.
The backyard is enclosed by a modern cedar picket privacy fence, with gates installed on the
right/east side of the house, and another north of the house adjacent to the southwest corner
of the detached garage. While in a state of deterioration when observed in June 2020, the
backyard was partially paved with flagstone, although the eastern end of the yard is covered
with grass and shaded by large deciduous trees.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Two outbuildings and one historic feature (a cistern)
are located on the property behind (north of) the house:
Garage: Located near the north end of the property and built in 1937, this building is a single-
story, wood-frame, two-car detached garage with a full-width shed-roofed rear addition. The
original portion of the garage measures 20 feet wide by 20 feet long and is covered by a
moderately-pitched front gable roof. The building’s exterior walls are clad with horizontal wood
drop siding. Two large wooden (sliding?) vehicular access doors are placed on the building’s
west elevation. Above the doors and beneath the gable peak is a large 1-over-1, double-hung
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 20
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
wood frame window. The garage’s south side, which faces the backyard, contains an entry near
the front of the building that is now sealed with what appears to be a salvaged painted metal
door from a school or other facility. The garage’s south elevation also contains a large, fixed,
horizontally-oriented 12-light window. At the rear end of the garage is the attached, full-width,
wood frame, shed-roofed addition; it is clad with synthetic horizontal drop siding and has
hinged double wooden doors with cross-bracing boards that provide access from the backyard.
This addition, which appears to have been constructed after 2006, was likely designed and used
as a storage shed.
Shed: Situated near the east end of the backyard, this small (approx. 8 ft wide by 6 ft deep) free-
standing structure is clad with painted corrugated galvanized sheet metal, as is the extremely
low-pitched shed roof. A weathered plywood door is attached with hinges to its front/west
side. It was evidently built and used for storage. Its date of construction was not determined,
but it likely is less than 50 years old.
Cistern: This old concrete feature is located behind the dwelling in the backyard, adjacent to
the modern privacy fence. The feature is a large concrete cylinder embedded in the ground; it
measures approximately 4 ft in diameter and stands about three-feet tall. It is presumably
hollow and had a lid, although now there is only an irregular hole from which opportunistic
plants grow. It appears to be an abandoned/disused cistern for storing water for household
use when Fort Collins did not have a fully developed municipal water system in the early years
after the town’s founding.
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25. Date of Construction (Dwelling): Estimate: Actual: 1885
Source(s) of information: Larimer County Assessor’s property records for 528 West Mountain
(Parcel No. 97114-09-022); W.C. Willits’ map of Fort Collins, dated May 1894; 1884 Bird’s-eye
view map of Fort Collins by Pierre Dastarac
26. Architect: Unknown
Source(s) of information: No information found
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown (possibly Samuel E. Moore)
Source(s) of information: No information found
28. Original owner: Unknown (possibly Samuel E. Moore)
Source(s) of information: Insufficient information
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): The single-family dwelling at 528 West Mountain Avenue in Fort Collins was
reportedly constructed in 1885, which fits with the available evidence. Comparison of the 1884
bird’s-eye view map of Fort Collins created by Pierre Dastarac and the May 1894 large-scale
map produced by Denver-based civil engineer W.C. Willits indicates that the Moore House was
built sometime after 1884 and before May 1894. The building footprint shown on the Willits
map matches the shape and placement of the extant dwelling. The Willits map indicates that
there were a total of four building on the lot, including the house with an T-shaped plan in the
same location as the extant house; a very small structure located adjacent to the rear elevation
of the dwelling’s east wing; and two rectangular-plan buildings to the east and northeast of the
house.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 21
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map coverage of Fort Collins began in 1886 but was very
limited in scope until the first decade of the twentieth century, when a population influx and
building boom occurred following construction of the beet sugar processing factory. The first
Sanborn map edition to cover the 500 block of West Mountain Avenue was issued in March
1906, and was repeated and updated in successive editions, including September 1909,
December 1917, December 1925, and the October 1948 (updated December 1925) edition.
Unfortunately, the 1925 and 1948 Sanborn maps could not be obtained or viewed online for
this investigation due to access limitations.
The 1906 Sanborn map reveals that major changes occurred to 528 West Mountain Avenue
between May 1894 (when the Willits map was published), and March 1906. Sometime during
this 12-year period a large, full-width rear addition was attached to the rear/north end of the
original T-shaped dwelling. In order to enlarge the house it was necessary for the owner to
remove the very small unidentified building shown on the 1894 Willits map located directly
adjacent to the house’s original rear/north elevation. Also during the period between mid-1894
and early 1906 a new small stone or concrete building with a full-width wood frame shed or
porch addition was erected near the northeast corner of the enlarged home. The function of
the stone and wood frame building is unknown. The two outlying wood frame buildings located
in the eastern portion of the lot, which were depicted on the 1894 Willits map, were still
standing in 1906. The Sanborn map from that year revealed that the northern outlying building
was a 1½ story structure labeled with an address of 528 1/2, whereas the southern outlying
building to the south was a single-story structure which was labeled as having a [peculiar]
address of 528 1/3, suggesting they were being used as secondary residences or rentals.
Sometime between March 1906 and September 1909, the southernmost of the wood frame
buildings located on the eastern portion of the lot (528 1/3), was torn down. No changes to the
property were noted on the Sanborn map edition published 8 years later, in December 1917,
although on the latter map the address number 528 1/2 was removed. It is likely that the
building that had been labeled 528 1/2 remained standing until c. 1939-1940, when Lot 10 was
subdivided for sale and residential development, with the western 90 feet containing the extant
1885 dwelling and two-car garage and retaining the address number 528. The remainder of Lot
10 was divided into two dissimilar-sized residential lots; the larger easternmost of these new
lots included half the width of a vacated alley that bisects Block 61 from north to south. In the
1940s, new houses were erected on these lots east of 528 West Mountain Avenue: the House
at 520 West Mountain was built in 1940, while another at 524 West Mountain was erected in
1948 (razed and replaced in 2016 with a new 1.5-story house).
The City of Fort Collins’ building permit log book entries identify other improvements to the
property between c. 1919 and 1952. These improvements, in chronological order, include:
1919 - Owner and builder Samuel E. Moore obtained a building permit from the City of Ft.
Collins (Permit No. 258, dated April 2, 1919); the description of the proposed work in
the logbook states “porch on frame house, 6x24 [feet], Ruberoid roof”; this refers to the
open front porch which was already in existence at that time. The 1919 building permit
was likely for re-roofing this porch for an estimated cost of $60. Mr. Moore would do
the work himself.
1928 - Owner Jessie Moore obtained a building permit from the City of Ft. Collins (Permit No.
2153, dated August 8, 1928), for unspecified remodeling, for an estimated cost of $700.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 22
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
1937 - Owner Jessie Moore obtained a building permit from the City of Ft. Collins (Permit No.
5083, dated December 6, 1937), to “Build new two car garage of frame, 20x20 [feet],
cement foundation, wood shingle roof, paint exterior, to be on rear [north] half of lot,”
for an estimated cost of $250.
1943 - Owner Jessie Moore obtained a building permit from the City of Ft. Collins (Permit No.
7548, dated October 1, 1943), to “Reroof stone cellar,” for an estimated cost of $160.
This is curious, because the dwelling rests on a concrete foundation, and no exterior
cellar stairwell entry was observed when the property was surveyed in June 2020.
1952 - Owner Jessie R. Moore obtained a building permit from the Ft. Collins city government
(Permit No. 12899, dated August 19, 1952), to install a “New comp[osition] roof on
residence,” for an estimated cost of $236.
Of the recorded improvements to 528 West Mountain Avenue from 1919 to 1952, only one was
for new construction: the building, in 1937, of a new two-car garage near the parcel’s northern
boundary. This detached garage is still extant, but a shed-roofed addition was placed on the
rear/east end of the garage sometime after 2006 (based upon the garage footprint sketches on
the Larimer County Assessor’s 1968, 1979 and 2006 property cards for this parcel).
The northeast corner addition is an enigma. All of the Sanborn maps as well as the 1968 and
1979 Assessor’s property records present building footprints indicating that the extant full-
width rear addition to the house (41 feet long x 10 feet wide) was constructed sometime
between 1895 and 1906, and consistently show that the rear addition extended the full-width
of original 1885 house. However, the 1968, 1979 and 2006 Assessor’s card sketches indicate
that a 9 foot-long section of the east end of the rear addition area is an enclosed porch. This
was verified by visual inspection in June 2020 (see attached photographs), but is confusing,
since its construction materials differ from the rest of the façade (e.g., it lacks clapboard siding),
and there is a clear break in the foundation. Visually this corner porch presents a more modern
appearance than the rest of the house. Perhaps the rear addition was remodeled sometime
between 1952 (last building permit entry) and 1968 (earliest Assessor’s property card available)
to convert the northeast corner into an enclosed porch.
Finally, the age of the small, plain, shed-roofed open porch on the dwelling’s west elevation
(west side of rear addition) is undetermined, but its materials and simple design suggest it may
have replaced an earlier, original porch, or that it may have been built sometime post-1952 to
improve a pre-existing side entry that lacked a porch. Curiously, the small porch is not depicted
on building footprint sketches included with Assessor’s property cards from 1968, 1979, or
2006. However, it is not clear if the porch was built after 2006 or if it was considered too minor
a feature (dimensions are approximately 6 feet wide by 4 feet deep) to be included on these
older, retired property cards.
30. Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31. Original use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling
32. Intermediate use(s): None
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 23
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
33. Current use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling
34. Site type(s): House
35. Historical background: This modest historic residence was reportedly constructed in 1885, a
little more than a decade after the platting of the Fort Collins town site. The house was erected
near the corner of West Mountain Avenue and North Whitcomb Street, although at that time it
occupied all of Lot 10 in Block 61 of the Fort Collins original town plat. The house’s 1885
construction date appears to be correct based upon its architectural design as well as
comparison of historic hand-drawn maps of Fort Collins. It is not depicted on the detailed and
accurate bird’s-eye view map of the city produced in 1884 by Pierre Dastarac. However, the
building’s footprint is clearly shown on the detailed large-scale May 1894 map of Fort Collins
produced by Denver-based civil engineer W.W. Willits. At the opposite, east end of the 500
block (north side) of the block another single family dwelling was reportedly also built in 1885
on the corner of West Mountain Avenue and North Sherwood Street, and has an address of 103
North Sherwood Street. Like 528 West Mountain Avenue, the 1885 house at 103 North
Sherwood Street is still extant.
The 1894 Willits map as well as 1906 and later Sanborn fire insurance maps show the “Fort
Collins Irrigation Canal” following a sinuous course through the City’s northwestern quadrant,
and cutting through the northwestern corner of Lot 10 in Block 61 and crossing West Mountain
Avenue beneath a bridge. This canal is either no longer extant or has been replaced with a
buried pipeline.
The house at 528 West Mountain Avenue was constructed during the 1880s – a period of early
settlement and urban development of Fort Collins - when its population grew by nearly 50%
from 1,356 residents in 1880, reaching a total head count of 2,011 by 1890. According to the
City of Fort Collins’ Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture Historic
Contexts (1992), considerable real estate subdivision activity occurred during the 1880s, when
no fewer than seven new residential subdivisions were platted, including four on the City’s west
side (west of College Avenue). 528 West Mountain Avenue is not located within any of these
1880s subdivisions, but they reflect the population influx and prospects of the town soon after
it was connected to other Front Range communities and Denver by the Colorado Central
Railroad in 1877. Still, by 1894, when the Willits map was published, there were very few
dwellings standing west of Whitcomb Street. Bounded on the west by Whitcomb Street, the
home at 528 West Mountain Avenue was at this western edge of residential development in
the mid-1890s.
Construction of a massive sugar beet processing factory in 1903 on the northeastern outskirts
of Fort Collins resulted in an unprecedented population influx and building boom. As the city
grew outward to the south and west, and residents lived farther and farther away from the
urban core, streetcar lines were constructed to provide access to/from down and surrounding
residential areas, the cemetery, and recreational sites like City Park and Lindenmeier Lake. The
first streetcar line to be built was the Mountain Avenue Line, which extended west from
downtown (“Old Town”) Fort Collins along the centerline of the street all the way to City Park
and Grandview Cemetery which were then on the western outskirts of town. For most of its
length the Mountain Avenue Line passed through wide, attractively landscaped medians,
including along the 500 block of West Mountain Avenue. While the home at 528 West Mountain
Avenue was constructed more than 20 years prior to its installation, it provided a very useful
and convenient means of local transportation for the residents who lived there prior to the
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 24
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
demise of the streetcar system in the 1950s. Ironically, the streetcar system was still in
operation in 1937 when the home’s owner had a two-car garage built on the parcel.
As of 1902 (when the earliest available Ft. Collins city directory was published), there were only
four houses on both sides of the 500 block of West Mountain Avenue. On the north side were
528 West Mountain Avenue and 103 North Sherwood Street. On the opposite, south side of the
avenue were pre-1902 houses with addresses of 519 and 529 West Mountain Avenue.
Unfortunately, the original owner of the house at 528 West Mountain Avenue was not
identified, nor was the home’s builder, due to time constraints for conducting archival research.
The earliest known occupants, based on the 1902 Fort Collins city directory, were building
contractor Samuel E. Moore, his wife Edith, and their grown unmarried daughters Pearl L.
Moore and Jessie R. Moore. A building contractor by trade who was 30 years old in 1885, it is
unverified but possible that Samuel Moore built the West Mountain Avenue house that his
family would live in for many years. The Moore family owned and occupied the home from at
least as early as 1902 until c. 1968-69, when the last Moore family member to occupy the house
passed away.
Samuel Moore was born in 1855, and had married Edith Tedmon, who was the sister of
prominent early Fort Collins resident and businessman Bolivar "Bob" Seward Tedmon. Like
other prominent and successful people profiled in Ansel Watrous’ 1911 book, History of Larimer
County Colorado (Fort Collins: Courier Printing and Publishing Co.). As a testimonial to his
prominence, Bob Tedmon’s biography and photo appears in Watrous’ encyclopedic book
among those of other noteworthy and influential residents of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
While living at 528 West Mountain Avenue, Samuel and Edith’s daughter Pearl was employed
in various capacities for the City of Fort Collins school system. She was a teacher and evidently
served a brief stint as Superintendent of Schools c. 1909-10. It appears that in the early 1920s
she worked as a special education teacher. Exactly which Fort Collins school(s) she taught at
during her career could not be readily determined. Pearl lived in the Moore family’s West
Mountain Avenue home from at least as early as 1902 until c. 1923-24, when she either married,
moved away from Fort Collins, or died.
Sadly, Mrs. Edith Moore passed away in 1904 at the young age of 47; she is buried in Fort Collins’
Grandview Cemetery. She was outlived by 23 years by her husband, Samuel E. Moore. He
continued to live at 528 West Mountain Avenue with his daughters until his death in 1927 at 72
years of age. He was interred alongside his wife in Grandview Cemetery.
The home was occupied by Miss Jessie R. Moore from at least as early as 1902 until her death
c. 1968-1969. She spent most, if not all her life living at 528 West Mountain Avenue. Jessie was
employed for at least 65 years as a teacher for the City of Fort Collins’ school system and spent
most of her teaching career several blocks from home at Laporte Avenue School. The
monumental Laporte Avenue School building (700 Laporte Avenue; razed in 1975) was designed
by noteworthy early Fort Collins architect Montezuma Fuller and built in 1907. In addition to
her teaching role at the Laporte Avenue School, Jessie Moore was reportedly a beloved teacher
at the Rockwood School (also known as “Andersonville School”), which was built c. 1908 to
serve the children of German-Russian sugar factory workers near the small, relatively isolated
ethnic residential enclave of Andersonville. Further historical information about both the
Laporte Avenue and Rockwood schools and the wider history of the Poudre R1 School District
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 25
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
are presented in a City-sponsored historic context document titled In the Hallowed Halls of
Learning, The History and Architecture of the Poudre R1 School District Historical Context (2004).
The number of Moore family members dwindled in the 1920s. Sometime between 1922 and
1925, Pearl Moore either got married, moved away, or died. Then, in 1927, 72-year-old patriarch
and early Fort Collins resident Samuel E. Moore passed away. He was interred alongside his
wife in Grandview Cemetery. From that time forward, the only Moore family member
occupying the house was Jessie Moore. Within a year or two of her father’s death (c. 1928-
1929), Jessie Moore was sharing the West Mountain Avenue home with fellow Laporte Avenue
School teacher Eva L. Armour and her mother Mrs. Louisa J. Armo ur (widow of William Armour).
Originally from Illinois, Eva moved to Fort Collins in 1921, where she taught school for 56 years,
until her retirement in 1952. Sometime around 1933-34, it appears that her mother, Louisa
Armour, either passed away or moved away from Fort Collins. Eva Armour continued to live
with Jessie Moore at 528 West Mountain Avenue until 1936, when she married Fort Collins
optometrist Dr. Fred Evans and left to live with her husband in a residence located at 228 West
Magnolia Street. Dr. Evans passed away in either 1951 or 1952. By the latter year, his widow,
Eva, returned to 528 West Mountain Avenue to live again with her friend and fellow teacher
Jessie Moore.
Jessie Moore retired from teaching c. 1949, and about the same time Mrs. Evans moved to
another residence at 319 South College Avenue. Following Jessie Moore’s death in 1968 or 1969
the house remained under the ownership of the Moore’s extended family, specifically Thelma
M. and Duane C. Bartels who were relatives of Pearl L. Moore’s husband, Clyde Bartels. The
Bartels owned it at least until 1979 (based on 1968 and 1979 Assessor’s property cards). City
directories indicate that it sat vacant for several years, until 1976. Reflecting a city-wide trend,
from 1976 until 1987, 528 West Mountain Avenue was used as a multi-tenant rental property
primarily occupied by students attending Colorado State University. The property was sold to
current owners Jason and Misha Green in May 2020.
At an undetermined date in the late 20th Century, three Fort Collins elementary schools built
in the mid-1950s were renamed in honor of beloved educators, including Jessie R. Moore.
Formerly called Western Elementary School, Moore Elementary School at 1905 Orchard Place
serves as a memorial to her many decades of dedication and service to public education and
the community of Fort Collins.
36. Sources of information:
Beier, Harold
1958 Fort Collins, History and General Character. Research and Survey Report, Part 1.
Prepared by Harold Beier, Community Development Consultant, Fort Collins,
Colorado, for the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, April 1958.
City of Fort Collins
Building Permit information for 528 West Mountain Avenue, derived from Log of
Building Permits, c. 1919 – c. early 1950s, in collection of the Fort Collins Discovery
Museum Local History Archive. Available through the Fort Collins History Connection
website.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 26
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1925 through 2018 (with gaps). From the collection
of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
Fort Collins Coloradoan
1978 Obituary of Eva Armour Evans, dated January 29, 1978. From the obituaries collection
of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
Larimer County Assessor
2020 Property information record for 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No.
97104-14-022). Larimer County Assessor’s website, accessed online, May 3, 2020.
Larimer County Assessor
2006 Property record card for 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97104-
14-022). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History
Archive.
Larimer County Assessor
1978 Property record card for 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97104-
14-022). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History
Archive.
Larimer County Assessor
1969 Property record card for 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97104-
14-022). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History
Archive.
Simmons, R. Laurie and Thomas H. Simmons
1992 City of Fort Collins Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture
Historic Contexts. Prepared by Front Range Research Associates, Inc. for the City of
Fort Collins Panning Department, November 1992.
Watrous, Ansel
1911 History of Larimer County, Colorado. Fort Collins: Courier Printing and Publishing
Company
Willits, W.C.
1894 [Map of] Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Prepared in May 1894 by Civil
Engineer W.C. Willits of Denver. From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery
Museum Local History Archive.
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37. Local landmark designation: Yes ____ No __X__ Date of designation: Not Applicable
Designating authority: Not Applicable
38. Applicable Eligibility Criteria:
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 27
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
National
Register
Fort Collins
Register
☐A.܆ 1.Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad pattern of our history;
☐B.܈ 2.Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
☐C.܈ 3.Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
☐D.☐4.Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.
☐Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
☐Does not meet any of the above criteria
Needs additional research under standards:☐ A/1 ☐ B/2 ☐ C/3 ☐ D/4
39. Area(s) of significance: Education, Architecture
40. Period of significance: 1885 – c. 1968-69
41. Level of significance: National _____ State ______ Local __X___
42. Statement of significance:
Previous Evaluation: The Moore House (528 West Mountain Avenue) was included in a 1998-
1999 City of Fort Collins-sponsored reconnaissance survey of all historic age (≥ 50 years old)
properties in the “Westside neighborhood area” which extended west from Mason Street and
north of Prospect Road. Abbreviated documentation and preliminary significance evaluations
(for both NRHP and Local Landmark eligibility) were made of each property. 528 West Mountain
Avenue was assigned site number 5LR.8026 and was evaluated in June 1998 by historian Jason
Marmor as potentially individually eligible for Local Landmarking and as contributing to a
potential but undefined historic residential district.
Current Evaluation: The Moore House embodies both historical and architectural significance in
accordance with Fort Collins Register Criterion 2 for association with a person of importance in
our past, and with Criterion 3 for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a Late 19th
Century Folk Victorian single-family dwelling in Fort Collins. The property is not associated with
a significant trend in Fort Collins history per Fort Collins Register Criterion 1; for example, it was
built during a decade of growth (the 1880s) that was large in terms of the percentage increase
(48%), but consisted of only 655 newcomers. Fort Collins Register Criterion 4 is irrelevant with
respect to this property.
In terms of Fort Collins Register Criterion 2, the residential property at 528 West Mountain
Avenue was the long-term, if not life-long, home of Miss Jessie R. Moore, who spent a long
career as a teacher in Fort Collins. Her career spanned many decades, from at least as early as
1902 and almost certainly earlier, until c. 1949, when she retired. Miss Moore spent an
undetermined amount of time teaching at the Rockwood School, educating the children of
German-Russian farm laborers living at the ethnic enclave of Andersonville. However, Jessie
spent most of her teaching career at the Laporte Avenue School in the westside residential area
of Fort Collins, not far from her home on West Mountain Avenue. In addition to having her long
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 28
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
career as an educator of young people in Fort Collins during th e late 19th and early 20th centuries,
Jessie Moore was beloved by students and teachers alike. In recognition of her contributions to
the school district and community, the City of Fort Collins renamed the West Side School (built
in 1956) in her honor as Moore Elementary School. Although the significant work (teaching) that
Jessie Moore performed took place in schools including the Rockwood School and the Laporte
Avenue School, her West Mountain Avenue home was the long-time residence of a locally
significant and beloved person in Fort Collins history. Additionally, Jessie Moore’s home ,is
situated in the neighborhood that was populated with a succession of her pupils at the Laporte
Avenue School.
In terms of Fort Collins Register Criterion 3, the residence at 528 West Mountain Avenue is a
relatively well-preserved and locally rare example of a modest, wood frame Folk Victorian
house built in the mid-1880s. While not architecturally elaborate, it exhibits clear traits of the
style including a prominent and ornate canted bay window on the façade; a gable with
decorative apex elements; and tall but narrow double-hung wood sash windows. The garage,
built in 1937, is unusual as a two-car type built in the 1930s during the Great Depression in a
modest residential area.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The Moore House exhibits a high
level of architectural integrity, including the original core of the building as well as exterior
modifications that are ≥50 years old. It was originally built as a T-shaped structure in 1885, but
by 1906 it had been enlarged with a full-width or nearly full-width rear addition that resulted
in its current shape. Non-historic (post-1970) changes to the house include replacement of the
original front porch ceiling and closed rail, and dismantling of the wood porch deck. The other
major change concerns the northeast corner enclosed porch which appears to have been added
or altered substantially. This corner porch is sided crudely with painted plywood, and has a
modern door and storm door on its east end. Nevertheless, this rear corner porch is barely
visible from the street and does not detract from the property’s historic appearance and
character.
VII. NATIONAL AND FORT COLLINS REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
44. Eligibility field assessment:
National:
Eligible ☐Not Eligible ܈ Need Data ☐
Fort Collins:
Eligible ܈ Not Eligible ☐Need Data ☐
45. Is there district potential? Yes ܈ No ☐
Discuss:A potential historic district analysis was beyond the scope of the investigation.
If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ܈ Non-contributing ☐
46. If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ܆ Non-contributing ☐
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 29
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION
48. Photograph numbers: 5LR.8026-#1-74
Negatives or digital photo files curated at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center
(Current Planning) - Historic Preservation Department, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO
80524
49. Report title: No report produced
50. Date(s): June 28, 2020
51. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor
52. Organization: RETROSPECT
53. Address: 332 East Second Street, Loveland, CO 80537
54. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 30
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
+Location of 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.8026), shown on a portion of the U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984).
▪
528 W. Mountain Avenue
5LR.8026
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 31
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Portion of 1884 Bird’s-eye view map of Fort Collins produced by Pierre Dastarac. Arrow points to
location where 528 Mountain Avenue was built not long after the map was completed.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 32
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Portion of large-scale map of Fort Collins created in May 1894 by Civil Engineer W.C. Willits of Denver.
Arrow points to the dwelling at 528 West Mountain Avenue.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 33
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Closer view of portion of large-scale map of Fort Collins, created in May 1894 by Civil Engineer
W.C. Willits of Denver. Arrow points to the dwelling at 528 West Mountain Avenue. Note three other
structures depicted on parcel (Lot 10) prior to Lot 10 being split into three contiguous but dissimilar-
sized parcels now occupied by houses at 520 and 524, as well as the earlier home
at 528 West Mountain Avenue.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 34
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Portion of Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of Fort Collins (Sheet 6), March 1906, showing the 500 block of
West Mountain Avenue including the property at 528 West Mountain Avenue (arrow added). The 1906 Sanborn
map edition is the earliest edition to include coverage of the 500 block of West Mountain Avenue.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 35
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Close-up of 528 West Mountain Avenue as shown on March 1906 Sanborn fire insurance map of
Fort Collins (Sheet 6). Note: yellow colored structures are wood-frame construction while blue indicates stone
construction. All of the buildings are single story except for the northernmost, which is a 1.5-story structure.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 36
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Portion of Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of Fort Collins (Sheet 6), September 1909, showing the 500 block
of West Mountain Avenue including the property at 528 West Mountain Avenue (arrow added). Curiously, this
1909 map was not updated to show the new Mountain Avenue streetcar line built in 1907 along the street’s
centerline.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 37
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Close-up of 528 West Mountain Avenue as shown on September 1909 Sanborn fire insurance map
Of Fort Collins (Sheet 6). Note the disappearance of a small wood frame building shown and
labeled “528 1/3” on the March 1906 Sanborn map edition.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 38
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Portion of Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of Fort Collins (Sheet 6), December 1917, showing the 500 block
of West Mountain Avenue, including the property at 528 West Mountain Avenue (arrow added).
Despite its existence for a decade by December 1917, this Sanborn map edition still omits
the Mountain Avenue streetcar line.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 39
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Close-up of 528 West Mountain Avenue as shown on December 1917 Sanborn fire insurance map of Fort Collins
(Sheet 6). No building removals or new construction have occurred on the lot in the 8-year time span following
publication of the previous (September 1909) edition of Sanborn’s fire insurance atlas for Fort Collins.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 40
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Sketch map of 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.8026), based on field examination
in June 2020. Trees not shown.
N
90 feet
Backyard
Unpaved driveway
Corner addition
Shed-roofed addition
Porch/Entry
Bay Window
Detached garage 115 feet WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE NORTH WHITCOMB STREET Storage shed
Concrete cistern
Front Porch
Addition Privacy fence
Sidewalk
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 41
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
1968 Larimer County Assessor property card photograph of 528 West Mountain Avenue,
Ft. Collins, looking northeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 42
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
1979 Larimer County Assessor property card photograph of 528 West Mountain Avenue,
Ft. Collins, looking northeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 43
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Recent undated photo of property when trees are dormant, provided by the City of Fort Collins Historic
Preservation Department. View looking northwest. Note the low white picket fence extending from the
house’s east elevation, that was replaced by a 6 ft-tall cedar picket privacy fence.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 44
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, looking northeast.
528 West Mountain Avenue, looking northwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 45
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, façade, looking north.
528 West Mountain Avenue, left/west portion of façade, looking northwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 46
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, bay window on west side of façade, looking northwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 47
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, close-up of ornate brackets on bay window.
528 West Mountain Avenue, front porch, looking west-northwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 48
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, front porch entry, looking north.
528 West Mountain Avenue, front porch, looking northeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 49
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, original front door, looking north.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 50
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, tandem window on façade, to right of main entry to dwelling.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 51
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, solitary window on façade, within front porch.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 52
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, second, east-facing entry within front porch, looking west.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 53
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, synthetic tongue-in-groove ceiling of front porch.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 54
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, interior of front porch, looking west.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 55
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, flagstone walkway and dressed stone steps to front porch entry,
looking north.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 56
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, close-up of front porch steps.
528 West Mountain Avenue, rear and west elevations, looking southeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 57
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, entry with porch near rear end of west elevation, looking east.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 58
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, west entry and porch, looking northeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 59
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, tandem windows on west elevation.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 60
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, single original window on west elevation.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 61
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue east elevation, looking west-southwest.
528 West Mountain Avenue, original windows on east elevation.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 62
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, single original window on east elevation.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 63
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, northeast corner addition, looking southwest.
528 West Mountain Avenue, northeast addition and east elevation, looking south-southwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 64
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, northeast addition with east-facing entry, looking west.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 65
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, carved sandstone step at entry to northeast addition.
`
528 West Mountain Avenue, juncture of rear elevation and northeast elevation.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 66
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, rear view, looking south-southeast.
528 West Mountain Avenue, rear/north elevation, looking southwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 67
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, rear/north elevation, looking southwest.
528 West Mountain Avenue, eastern portion of rear/north elevation, looking south.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 68
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, western portion of rear/north elevation, looking SSW.
528 West Mountain Avenue, rear/north elevation, looking southeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 69
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, west end of rear/north elevation, looking south.
528 West Mountain Avenue, gable on rear/north elevation, looking south.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 70
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, tandem windows at west end of rear/north elevation looking south.
528 West Mountain Avenue, small fixed window on rear/north elevation looking south.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 71
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, large window near east end of rear/north elevation, looking south.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 72
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, large window near east end of rear/north elevation, looking south.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 73
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, detached two-car garage, looking east.
528 West Mountain Avenue, detached garage, looking east.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 74
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, detached garage, looking east.
528 West Mountain Avenue, detached garage, looking east.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 75
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, gable on front/west elevation of garage, looking ENE.
528 West Mountain Avenue, one of two garage doors on west elevation, looking east.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 76
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, south side of detached garage, looking north.
528 West Mountain Avenue, wide window on south side of garage, looking northeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 77
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, north side entry to detached garage, looking south. Door is non-original.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 78
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, close-up of wide fixed window on south side of garage, looking north.
528 West Mountain Avenue, SE corner of detached garage, looking northwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 79
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, sheet metal-clad shed in backyard, looking northeast.
528 West Mountain Avenue, sheet metal-clad shed in backyard, looking southeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 80
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, sheet metal-clad shed in backyard, looking east.
528 West Mountain Avenue, backyard, looking southwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 81
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, backyard, looking southwest.
528 West Mountain Avenue, looking northeast (garage in distance).
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 82
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, rustic fire ring and flagstone paving in backyard.
528 West Mountain Avenue, northwest corner of backyard with modern deck, looking NW.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 83
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
528 West Mountain Avenue, old concrete cistern in backyard, looking west-northwest.
528 West Mountain Avenue, close-up of concrete cistern. In backyard.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 84
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Undated (late 19th-early 20th Century) image of women, possibly teachers in Fort Collins schools.
Provided by the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department.
-------
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 85
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Laporte Avenue School, 700 Laporte Avenue, where Jessie R. Moore was employed from at least as early
as c. 1915 until the mid-1930s. The building was designed by prominent Fort Collins architect
Montezuma Fuller and built in 1907. It was razed in 1975.
Rockwood (Andersonville) School, which was located on the east side of Lemay Avenue
between Lincoln Street and Vine Drive.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 86
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Appendix:
Analysis of the Architectural Character of the 500 Block of West Mountain Avenue
The following is a brief discussion of the architectural character of the north side of the 500 block of West
Mountain Avenue. The word “block” is used here in a non-legal sense, and refers to the row of properties
along one side or end of a platted block adjacent to a roadway. Due to the wide paved travel lanes and a
wide, crowned/slightly elevated and thoroughly landscaped median forming the West Mountain Avenue
corridor, 528 West Mountain Avenue is primarily visible to pedestrians from short stretches of the
sidewalks along the north side of West Mountain Avenue and North Whitcomb Street, and to motorists
and bicyclists traveling westbound on West Mountain Avenue. The property’s visibility is improved greatly
during the late fall and winter, when deciduous trees that partially obscure the house from view have
shed their foliage. Because of its relative visual isolation, this analysis will focus entirely on the north side
of the 500 block of West Mountain Avenue.
Block 61 of the 1874 Fort Collins town site plat was originally bisected by a north-south oriented alley, and
divided into ten large, rectangular parcels arranged with five contiguous lots on each side of the central
alley. The north side of the 500 Block of West Mountain Avenue was composed of two of these lots: Lot
1 east of the alley, and Lot 10 west of the alley (note: Lot 10 contains 528 West Mountain Avenue). Circa
the late 1930s, Lots 1 and 10 were subdivided and the southern portion of the alley was vacated and
incorporated into two of the newly defined residential lots. It is likely that at that time the “Fort Collins
Irrigation Canal” was also abandoned or piped underground to accommodate home construction.
The block contains six (6) contiguous residential properties containing single-family houses and duplexes
built from 1885 to 2016. All of these dwellings are of wood frame construction, and include three 1-story,
one 1.5-story, and two 2-story buildings. The following table provides information about the residential
properties in the north side of the 500 block of West Mountain Avenue, based on field observations as
well as Larimer County Assessor’s online property records.
Residential properties in the 500 Block (north side) of West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Address Stories Roof
Type
Wall Material Year built/
Remodeled
Architectural Style and/or
Form
103 N. Sherwood St. 2.0 Hip Wood Frame 1885/No Foursquare variant/Side-
by-Side Duplex
508 W. Mountain Ave. 2.0 Hip Wood Frame 2000/No No style; pseudo-Victorian
516 W. Mountain Ave. 1.0 Hip Wood Frame 1951/No Ranch/Over-Under-Duplex
520 W. Mountain Ave. 1.0 Gable-side
gable
Wood Frame 1940/No Minimal Traditional
524 W. Mountain Ave. 1.5 Gable-front
gable
Wood frame 2016/No No Style
528 W. Mountain Ave. 1.0 Gable-
intersecting
gable
Wood frame 1885/No Folk Victorian
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 87
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
As shown in the table above, four of the six residences on the north side of the 500 block of West
Mountain, including one with the primary elevation facing North Whitcomb Street, are more than 50 years
old at this time (June 2020), while the other two are modern, 21st Century buildings. The dwellings reflect
the block’s pattern of development. At the east and west ends of the block are residences (103 North
Sherwood Street and 528 West Mountain Avenue, respectively) built in 1885, both of which retain very
good to excellent architectural integrity. In the central portion of the block are two contiguous properties
with very well-preserved historic homes constructed in 1940 and 1951. Both of these 20th Century houses
are excellent examples of modest Minimal Traditional and immediate Post-World War II Ranch-style
domestic architecture. Located between the 1885 residences and the 20th Century homes discussed above
are fairly large (1.5 and 2-story) dwellings built in 2000 and 2016. The large 2-story house at 506/508 West
Mountain Avenue was designed as a faux-19th Century house with numerous period decorative details
and a very prominent two-story turret with a steep conical roof.
Despite the presence of two modern residences on the block, the remaining buildings clearly show the
episodic history of homebuilding and architectural stylistic differences from different time periods in the
City’s history. It contains two very well-preserved but architecturally dissimilar Late 19th Century (1885)
wood frame houses, including the single-story subject property at 528 West Mountain Avenue and a two-
story duplex at 103 North Sherwood Street. While not verified for this analysis, both houses likely are rare
surviving examples of residential architecture from the time period 1877 to 1900, which is defined in the
City of Fort Collins’ Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture Historic Contexts
(1992), as “The Railroad Era, Colorado Agricultural College, and the Growth of the City.”
The block’s historic buildings all retain very good to excellent architectural integrity, and convey historical
and architectural character that is both consistent with the surrounding Westside residential area of Fort
Collins and contains two surviving very early Fort Collins residences.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 88
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STREETSCAPE AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES OF THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE 500 BLOCK OF WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE
IN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Images Are Arranged from West to East Beginning with Streetscape Views
Followed by Photos of Individual Properties
North Whitcomb Street North Sherwood Street West Mountain Avenue
103
528 508 516 520 524
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 89
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
West end of 500 Block of W. Mountain Ave., with 528 W. Mountain Ave. in center, looking north.
West end of 500 Block of W. Mountain Ave., with 528 W. Mountain Ave. at left, looking ENE.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 90
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
West end of 500 Block of W. Mountain Ave., with 528 W. Mountain Ave. at left, looking NE.
West end of 500 Block of West Mountain Avenue, looking northwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 91
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
Middle of 500 Block of W. Mountain Ave., looking west-northwest.
524 West Mountain Avenue, looking north.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 92
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
520 West Mountain Avenue, looking northwest.
516 West Mountain Avenue, looking northeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 93
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
508 (or 506) West Mountain Avenue, looking northeast.
103 North Sherwood Street showing south elevation facing West Mountain Avenue, looking northeast.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 94
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.8026 – 528 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins
103 North Sherwood Street, looking northwest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 95
1
From: Mark Greenwald <mark_greenwald@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 9:56 PM
To: BuildingServices <buildingservices@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528 W. Mountain Avenue
I spoke by phone this morning with a gentleman from your office whose name I didn’t catch, about the property
at 528 W. Mountain now undergoing historic review.
My understanding is that the current owner wishes to demolish the existing structures at this address and build
anew, unless a decision is made that they must be preserved because of historic significance.
I currently live at 1030 W. Mountain, and have become very familiar with the overall character and individual
appeal of the West Mountain Avenue housing. I think it would be very unfortunate to lose one of the oldest
extant homes on the street, especially at such a key location as Mountain and Whitcomb. The 500 block of
Mountain, north side, is particularly appealing in its current state, given that it is bookended by late 19th
century buildings, with two typical if rather undistinguished mid-20th century houses in the center, bracketed by
early 21st century structures that harmonize nicely with the older housing stock.
I have reviewed the very informative document concerning the property in question at
https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/files/site-form-528-west-mtn-ave-06-29-2020.pdf , which I think
nicely makes the case for historic preservation; I have nothing to add personally to this assessment. I do,
however, wish to register my preference that demolition not take place, and expect that at least two of my
neighbors will join me in this. We will of course accept and respect any official determination made at or after
the scheduled community hearing on the matter, which I was informed would take place on April 21.
If the house is given status that will prevent its destruction, and if the current owners do not wish to proceed
with restoration, I am interested in acquiring it for that purpose if possible. I have a relative who is an architect
specializing in restoration of historic homes (mainly in the Northeastern US) with whom I would develop a
rehab plan, and would turn to Alan Strope of Savant Homes in Fort Collins, who constructed the townhouse in
which I now live, for general contracting services. My daughter, currently employed by the city of Fort Collins,
would occupy and maintain the restored house.
I was not able to identify an online source for forms to officially recommend landmark status, nor a calendar
listing for the April 21 meeting time and location. Will appreciate your directing me to those resources.
One final request: How might I arrange to view the interior of the house?
Thanks for your attention!
Mark Greenwald
Mobile phone 312-576-1981
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 96
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Historic Preservation
Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 7:26 PM
To:Vicky McLane
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Preservation of 528 West Mountain
Vicky,
Thank you for your email. This information will be shared with the Landmark Preservation Commission ahead of their
regular meeting Wednesday evening. Additionally, if you would like to attend Wednesday’s meeting, a link to the
agenda is located on this webpage: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php Instructions for
joining the virtual meeting are on the first page of the agenda.
As a point of clarification, City Code grants limited authority to the Commission in this matter. The LPC cannot approve
or deny the demolition of the property since the property is a single-family home and not designated as historic. The
notification of proposed demolition is meant to inform members of the public about pending changes in their
neighborhood, and to inform both members of the public and the Commission about the options they have under
Municipal Code (Chapter 14, Article III), to nominate historically significant properties for protection prior to issuance of
a demolition permit. Such a nomination requires the written request of any Councilmember, motion of the Landmark
Preservation Commission, or the written request of any three or more residents of the City. If such nomination is
received prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, preferably in advance of the April 21 LPC meeting, than no permits
can be issued for the property consistent with Municipal Code 14-32 until the matter is resolved.
If you have other questions or would like to offer further comment, please feel free to contact this office.
JIM BERTOLINI
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
Visit our website!
“The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of
local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those same
systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.”
From: Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 4:02 PM
To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Preservation of 528 West Mountain
Commission members - I am writing to ask you to turn down the demolition request for
528 West Mountain. While the home is in very poor shape, it remains an important part
of Fort Collins history. And perhaps more importantly, it remains an integral part of the
appealing character of Mountain Avenue.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 97
2
Its 1885 construction in a folk Victorian style makes it a rarity among Mountain Avenue's
many historic structures. Its association with Jessie Moore, after whom Moore school is
named, adds to its luster. While it will take a lot of money to rehabilitate the home, it is
worth every penny in terms of landmark preservation.
Please turn down the demolition request.
Vicky Mclane
1607 Ticonderoga Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 98
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Historic Preservation
Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:39 PM
To:Robert Viscount
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] 528 West Mountain -- Historically Significant Property
Attachments:FILLABLE FORM Landmark Designation Form- Revised 2-5-20.pdf; FILLABLE FORM
Landmark Designation Form- Revised 5-28-20.dotx
Robert,
Thank you for your email. This information will be shared with the Landmark Preservation Commission ahead of their
regular meeting Wednesday evening. Additionally, if you would like to attend Wednesday’s meeting, a link to the
agenda is located on this webpage: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php Instructions for
joining the virtual meeting are on the first page of the agenda.
As a point of clarification, City Code Chapter 14, Article III allows for residents to nominate a property without the
written consent of the property owner, but places some requirements on how that nomination must be made. Such a
nomination requires the written request of any Councilmember, motion of the Landmark Preservation Commission, or
the written request of any three or more residents of the City . If such nomination is received prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit, preferably in advance of the April 21 LPC meeting, than no permits can be issued for the property
consistent with Municipal Code 14-32 until the matter is resolved. Please note the following requirements for
applications for historic designation from City residents:
Sec. 14-31 (a)(1)
-All applications for designation submitted by the owner(s) or City residents shall include: (1) A
comprehensive architectural or archeological description of each resource proposed for designation or as
contributing to a proposed district; (2) A detailed statement of how each resource or district meets the
criteria for eligibility for designation in § 14-22; and (3) An explanation why the boundaries of each
resource or district proposed for designation should be determined as described in the application. Staff
shall reject incomplete applications and provide a description of the information necessary to complete
such application and any such rejection is not subject to appeal. Upon receipt of a complete application,
staff may require a current intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form. The applicant shall
reimburse the City for the cost of having such a survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the
City.
Regarding the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form, this form was already generated in 2020 and is online, here:
https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review .
Since you have expressed interest in nominating the property, I’ve attached the form that is typically completed for
Landmark nominations in both Word template and PDF formats. If you have other questions or would like to offer
further comment, please feel free to contact this office.
JIM BERTOLINI
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
Visit our website!
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 99
2
“The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of
local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those same
systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.”
From: Robert Viscount <rrviscount@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:11 PM
To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528 West Mountain -- Historically Significant Property
Landmark Preservation Commissioners -- I nominate 520 West Mountain Avenue be designated a
Historically Significant Property.
I am writing you to ask you to preserve 528 West Mountain Avenue, the Moore House. We should preserve
buildings that have been part of the historic fabric of Fort Collins for more than 130 years.
For several years I was a motorman on the Fort Collins Municipal Railway, running car number 21 along
Mountain Avenue from City Park to Howes. For the passengers, seeing the historic homes along Mountain
Avenue adds significantly to the experience on the trolley. The character of the street is diminished each time
one of the old buildings is replaced by something larger and “more modern.”
Speaking to that point, in 1977 my wife and I bought a brownstore home in Brooklyn, New York. It had been
built in 1873 on a plot of land 20 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The house was in terrible shape, having been
used as a rooming house for decades and no major maintenance done. We recognized early that we did not
“own” the building. Rather, we were guardians and caretakers. We spent 13 years living in the house, first
replacing all the plumbing, heating and electrical systems, the windows, the doors, and much more. We also
installed new bathrooms, kitchens, closets, cabinets, and a rear deck. But we honored the history of the building
by preserving or restoring as many of the original interior features as we could.
A similar process could be followed with 528 West Mountain Avenue, keeping the original building but adding
an addition in the rear. It is a more expensive option, but it would help preserve the historic cityscape that we
now have.
Bob Viscount
Fort Collins, CO 80525
rrviscount@yahoo.com
970-223-5975
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 100
1
Jim Bertolini
From:John Spurgin <johnspurgin@me.com>
Sent:Friday, April 16, 2021 9:08 AM
To:Jim Bertolini
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: HP-20 - 528 W Mountain Ave
Jim,
Thank you so much for the wealth of information you have provided. We are next door neighbors & have watched the
degradation of the property. We are hopeful that, after the appropriate process is completed, demolition will be
approved.
Best to you,
John Spurgin
524 W Mountain Ave.
On Apr 16, 2021, at 8:52 AM, Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote:
Mr. Spurgin,
Thanks for contacting us about the property at 528 W. Mountain Avenue. That property is posted
because the owner has indicated they plan to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct
a new single-family dwelling. They’ve submitted preliminary plans consistent with the City’s
requirements for demolition notification on properties over fifty years of age. The demolition
notification process, and information about this property in particular, are available on our website,
here: https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review
This property is on the consent agenda for the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) at their
upcoming April 21st meeting (virtual via Zoom, starting at 5:30 pm). The agenda is posted here:
https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php
If you would want to speak on the item, the chair of the Commission will ask if anyone wants an item
pulled from the consent calendar so it can be discussed. You would raise your hand in Zoom or hit *9 on
your phone to indicate that and request the item be pulled for discussion. Once the Commission reaches
that item, you’d have an opportunity to provide any comment.
Please note that the Commission is not approving or denying the demolition or the proposed new
construction. The notification period is provided so that a member of City Council, the LPC via motion, or
three or more residents of Fort Collins, can choose to exercise the option in Municipal Code Chapter 14,
Article III to nominate the property if they feel that the property is eligible as a City Landmark and
should be preserved. If any of those parties were to request designation at or before the meeting,
permits would be held until the matter is resolved as outlined in Code.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
JIM BERTOLINI
Historic Preservation Planner
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 101
2
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
Visit ourwebsite! <image001.png>
“The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are
committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.”
-----Original Message-----
From: BuildingServices <buildingservices@fcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 6:03 AM
To: John Spurgin <johnspurgin@me.com>; Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] HP-20
Good morning Jim,
Can you help Josh with the status of the project mentioned below? Thank you!
Best Regards,
Kiana Carter
Lead Building & Development Review Technician Planning & Development Services
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970.416.2886 |kcarter@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
Starting Monday, August 31, 2020, the 281 N. College Ave. building will be closed between 12:00PM –
1:00PM.
Building hours will be: Monday – Thursday, 9:00AM – 12:00PM and 1:00PM – 4:00PM.
“The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are
committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.”
-----Original Message-----
From: John Spurgin <johnspurgin@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 1:19 PM
To: BuildingServices <buildingservices@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] HP-20
I am inquiring as to the status of HP-20 528 W. Mountain Ave.
John Spurgin
524 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 102
Carol P. Tunner
1400 Wimbledon Court
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 484-3957
caroltunner@msn.com
4/19/2021
Landmark Preservation Commission
City of Fort Collins
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is with great sadness that I learn of the proposed demolition of 528 W. Mountain
Avenue. Estimated built date of 1885 makes it one of the oldest houses on W.
Mountain, the Avery House being built in 1879. It is associated with Jesse R. Moore,
educator, whom Moore Elementary School is named after. Its Folk Victorian
Architecture is significant because, believe me, so little is left in Fort Collins. It’s
condition as a rental has taken a toll, but it is totally restorable from available historic
photographs. I’ve been involved with worse, for instance, the abandoned Linden Hotel
once had four inches of pigeon dung on each floor. 528 W. Mountain is a contemporary
and similar age and architecture to the Linden Hotel.
I support the non-consensual designation. I would have signed until one person put
fear in our heads of a possible lawsuit. Many more backed down. I feel this is a
disservice to historic preservation and goes against everything we work for. Saving
significant historic properties is our legal right and our Landmark Code is the legal
means to historic preservation. Without it we would have no Historic Old Town, and
remember how bad that was in the 1970s. Courageous and accurate restoration of Old
Town has been an accomplishment that has put us on the tourist map. I’m proud to
have had a part. Historic house restoration and re-installation of the 1907 trolley line
have caused property values on W. Mountain to skyrocket beyond the rest of the city.
I’m proud of that too, but it wasn’t easy. I was sued for compensatory and punitive
damages for restoring the trolley; I and my family could have lost everything and been
out on the street. Fortunately, we won and this didn’t happen.
After 20 years’ experience as the City’s Historic Preservation Planner, I believe 528 W.
Mountain contributes to the historic character of the street, and with a sensitive owner
dedicated to restoration, it would be a gem. I understand there are people willing and
waiting to do just that.
Sincerely,
Packet Pg. 103
1
Jim Bertolini
From:jason green <jasongreendo@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 4:35 PM
To:Jim Bertolini
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: 528 W. Mountain - demolition notification
Jim,
We are comfortable with the Quasi-Judicial Hearing format and proceeding with the meeting April 21st.
Thank you,
Jason
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote:
Thanks Jason – I’ll provide your info to Cameron.
On a related note, I neglected this item but we should have it on file prior to April 21. Please note the following
regarding virtual hearings under our pandemic protocol:
Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or commission or
an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use Code, shall be notified in
writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi-Judicial Hearing using Remote Technology. Such
person or applicant shall be entitled to request that the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as
the Hearing can be conducted in person.
Would you mind replying to this email confirming whether you’re okay proceeding with the virtual hearing on April 21
or if you’d like to wait until an in-person meeting can be safely conducted? Thanks!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
From: jason green <jasongreendo@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 4:27 PM
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 104
Single Family Demolition Notification &
Landmark Nominations
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
Background
• Demolition notification is a continued CDNS process consistent with
Municipal Code 14-6 that provides for:
• Public awareness of changes to the neighborhood
• Opportunity to request designation of important properties under
Municipal Code 14, Article III
• Nomination process established in Municipal Code 14, Article III
• Nominating authorities include:
• A City Council member – by written request
• The LPC – by motion
• The owner(s)
• Three or more residents of the city
2
Packet Pg. 104-1
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT A
Commission’s Role
• (Optional) Act to nominate a property via motion
• Conduct Code-required hearings for Landmark nomination
3
Process
When the owner is not requesting/supporting the nomination:
1. Nominating party requests nomination in writing or via motion
2. If from owner/residents, staff confirms nomination is complete
• If from Council/LPC, staff prepares
3. Staff contacts owner requesting consent for designation within 10 days
4. Interim control of permits initiated
5. If owner does not consent, LPC hearing is scheduled
4
Packet Pg. 104-2
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT A
Process (cont)
6. LPC Hearing – determination if property meets requirements of Chapter 14, Article II
• If no, process terminated and decision is final
• If yes, process continues to 2
nd hearing; decision is not final
• Resolution transmitted to Council within 15 days
7. LPC Hearing (2
nd) – does designation uphold Sec. 14-1 & 14-2 “in a manner sufficient
to justify the requested designation without the consent of one (1) or more of the
owners…”
• If no, process terminated; decision is not final
• If yes, process continues; decision is not final
• Resolution transmitted to Council within 15 days
• Council hearing scheduled
5
Process (cont)
8. Council hearing (within 75 days)
• Quasi-judicial; new evidence allowed
• Council determines if both criteria are met:
-Property is eligible for designation
-Nomination would advance Sec. 14-1 & 14-2
6
Packet Pg. 104-3
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT April 21, 2021
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 501 EDWARDS ST
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood
and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of
Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age
proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that
demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City
Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification
process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request
with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the LPC meeting
either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the
provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code.
Historical Background
The single-family property at 501 Edwards Street does not have up-to-date historical survey. It was
constructed in approximately 1908 in the 1890 Crafts re-subdivision of the Lake Park Addition, south of the
original 1873 townsite. The property is Lot 1, Block 14, and while the Larimer County Assessor estimated its
construction 1902, the home does not appear in city directories until 1908. It appears to have been a fairly
simple Queen Anne cottage with a T-shaped plan and cross-gabled roof, with decorative shingling in the gable
ends and eave returns. It currently has both replacement siding and windows, and an addition at the north
entry added sometime after 1943 (it does not appear on the 1943 Sanborn Fire Insurance map. Notes below
have been compiled by staff from a cursory record search:
Construction History
• 1908 (circa) – home constructed on the southeast corner of Whedbee and Edwards Streets.
• 1925 – remodel (no details) for owner A.W. Smith
• 1935 – barn demolished and replaced with a 14’x18’ 1-car garage; roof replaced (wood shingle),
exterior painted, rear lot fenced, chicken house built, and other repairs. Owner is Fred Stalder.
• 1943 – Property appears in Sanborn Insurance map series for the first time. It has its current
configuration, minus the front porch addition, and shows two accessory structures on the lot,
presumably the chicken house at the south end of the lot, and a garage between that and the main
house.
• 1950 – chicken house reshingled (wood shingles); other repairs
o Possible that the porch entry on the northwest corner was added at this time.
Residents
• 1908 (circa) – The first occupants are Thomas Turpin, a laborer, and his wife Daisy.
• 1909 – Alex Hilderman, a laborer for Great Western Sugar.
Packet Pg. 105
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 2
• 1910 – vacant
• 1913 – vacant
• 1917-1919 – David and Sarah Kealiher are residents. In 1919, David is listed as a laborer.
• 1922 – not listed in directory
• 1925-1931 – Arthur W. Smith, a painter, and wife Ethel.
• 1933 – Lorne & Bessie Smith.
• 1936-1952 – Fred, Mollie, and Alice Stalder. By 1940, Fred is listed as unemployed but noted as
raising chickens at the property. By 1952, Fred Stalder is listed as retired.
• 1954 – Kenneth Otzenberger, a superintendent at the Pennington Construction Company, and wife
Florence.
• 1956 – Carl & Alma Storhaug are residents along with Leslie Storhaug, a mechanic at United TV.
• 1957 – Ralph C. Brady
• 1959-1960 – Donald G. Johnston, repairman at Coca Cola Bottling Company (143 Remington), and
wife Ruth.
• 1964 – Lawrence Seib, FCPD officer, and wife Bernice.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Approval of virtual hearing
Packet Pg. 106
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Adam Jaspers <adam@hwgcolorado.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 5:16 PM
To:Jim Bertolini
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 501 Edwards - SF Demo request
Jim
I am certainly happy to do the virtual meeting we have all done lots of those by now. What time would this meeting be
on the 21st I have a number of scheduling conflicts.
Adam Jaspers
970-231-8632
On Apr 8, 2021, at 4:33 PM, Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote:
Adam,
I am confirming that the 501 Edwards property in Fort Collins is on the consent calendar for April 21 st.
Please note the following regarding virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or
commission or an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use
Code, shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi-Judicial
Hearing using Remote Technology. Such person or applicant shall be entitled to request that
the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be conducted in
person.
Would you mind replying to this email confirming whether you’re okay having this item reviewed at a
virtual meeting on April 21 or if you’d like to wait until an in-person meeting can be safely conducted?
Thanks!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
From: Historic Preservation
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 9:33 AM
To: 'Adam Jaspers' <adam@hwgcolorado.com>
Subject: RE: 501 Edwards - SF Demo request
Adam,
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 107
2
Thank you for submitting your plans for demolition of the single family dwelling at 501 Edwards Street in
Fort Collins for a new single-family dwelling. I’ve reviewed your attached preliminary plans and
confirmed the new build would be a single-family dwelling. I will post the property for notification and
inclusion on the consent agenda at the April 21 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation
Commission. For a full description of the notification process and the potential actions on the part of the
public and/or Commission regarding the property, go here:
https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review
On a related note, I would encourage you to connect with Zoning regarding the 501 Edwards
construction. The home seems fairly large for the lot (and somewhat out of scale with the
neighborhood, which is predominantly smaller, 1.5 story homes at a more affordable price-point). I
would recommend you confirm with zoning what your maximum buildable floor area is in relation to the
lot size (zoning@fcgov.com or 970-416-2745). You can check the zone district for the property here:
https://gisweb.fcgov.com/HTML5Viewer/Index.html?Viewer=FCMaps&layerTheme=Zoning%20Districts
I’ll send a separate note regarding the Pitkin property with my colleague, Maren Bzdek copied. Thanks!
JIM BERTOLINI
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
Visit our website!
<image001.png>
“The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are
committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.”
From: Adam Jaspers <adam@hwgcolorado.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:47 PM
To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 501 Edwards
Please find the attached preliminary plans for 501 Edwards. The new home sits approximately
within the existing homes east west boundry and shares the same north boundry.
Adam Jaspers
970-231-8632
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 108
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
STAFF REPORT April 21, 2021
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, MARCH 4, 2021 TO APRIL 7, 2021
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to
the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under
Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on
the HPS’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and LPC for
their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an
applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that
event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the LPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within two
weeks of staff denial. The report below covers the period between March 4, 2021 to April 7, 2021.
There is no staff presentation this month.
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of
Decision
424 W. Olive Street
Landmark Loan award for $5,969.45 – rehab of
basement windows including new window wells.
City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved project
& loans
March 12,
2021
111 S. Meldrum
Street
Landmark-eligible property – exterior
modifications for full property rehab. Reviewed
by staff under Land Use Code 3.4.7.
Approved
permitted
items/encouraged
sensitive treatment
on non-permitted
items.
March 12,
2021
122 Jackson
Avenue
Landmark Loan award for $7,500 – window
rehabilitation following DAP report from 2019.
City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved project
& loans
March 12,
2021
323 E. Magnolia
Street
Landmark Loan award for $7,500 – Repair of
concrete front steps, repointing of masonry,
repainting wood exterior elements. City
Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved project
& loans
March 12,
2021
206 E. Elizabeth
Street
Demolition of garage (appeared to be non-
historic). Contributing property to Laurel School
Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved (report
issued)
March 22,
2021
Packet Pg. 109
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 2
122 N. College
Avenue
Avery Block. Contributing property to Old Town
Landmark District. Window sign permit and
awning re-lettering. City Landmark. Reviewed by
staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved March 22,
2021
806 Peterson Street
In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing property to Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved (report
issued) April 2, 2021
5529 S. Timberline
Road
In-kind roof replacement on main house (asphalt
shingles & membrane on flat portions of main
house roof). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved April 5, 2021
Packet Pg. 110
Item 5, 1306 W Mountain Conceptual
Review has been continued to the
Landmark Preservation Committee
Regular Hearing on May 19, 2021.
Packet Pg. 111
Agenda Item 6
Item 6, Page 1
STAFF REPORT April 21, 2021
Landmark Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
336 EAST MAGNOLIA STREET (CHRIS HORST PROPERTY) – NRHP DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two-story rear addition onto one-story historic property, including exterior upper
floor deck and spiral staircase, and replacement of the existing front-gabled
porch with a hipped-roof version with an expanded deck.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Ian Danielson
336 E. Magnolia Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RECOMMENDATION: Proposal does not meet Standards – Property will no longer contribute to Laurel
School Historic District.
ROLE OF LPC:
National Register Design Review of single-family properties is an advisory review to encourage use of the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards) and retain a property’s historic
designation. Neither staff or the LPC are decision-makers on this review. The LPC’s role is to review the
project, approve the report (including requesting any modifications), and to make a recommendation on
whether the property would remain historic after the project is completed. The LPC may make
recommendations for improvement as part of its discussion. The report issued by the LPC is issued to the
owner, who may respond and modify the project to improve its consistency with the Standards before applying
for a building permit. The report is kept on file with the City’s Historic Preservation Services division and may
be transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Chris Horst Property was constructed in 1938 by builder H.A. Deiner for Horst, a shoe repairman. Horst lived
in the property briefly, later transferring it to Mrs. Ella/Amy L. Lamb, a widow who lived at the property into the
1950s. The property was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 as part of the Laurel School
Historic District. It is not a City Landmark.
The project proposes to construct a two-story addition onto the rear two-thirds of the dwelling, including a rear
upper floor deck with spiral staircase. It also proposes to replace the front-gabled front porch with a hipped roof
configuration and expand the front porch deck. It is also modifying the front gable of the historic house from its
existing dropboard siding to a gable-on-hip design with decorative shingles.
The 1980 nomination of the Laurel School Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places incorrectly
identified this property as the Brown Thompson House, constructed in c.1900. While the Thompsons did live in a
small home of roughly this size on this lot in 1902, that building did not survive until 1925, as Sanborn maps
indicate the property was vacant. Building permit records from 1938 and Sanborn maps from 1925 and 1943
Packet Pg. 112
Agenda Item 6
Item 6, Page 2
confirm that the existing house was built later in 1938 for Chris Horst. The nomination for the Laurel School Historic
District does not specify a period of significance. However, the statement of significance strongly suggests that
developments from the 1870s through the 1930s (i.e., until 1940) are part of the historic development pattern
southeast of downtown that the district sought to recognize. Therefore, despite the discrepancies in research, the
1938 Horst property should still be considered as a contributing property in the district.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
The Chris Horst Property is a simple Minimal Traditional-type home with a rectangular footprint, front-gabled roof
with minimal eaves, wood dropboard siding, and a simple front-gabled porch over the entry with dropboard half
walls, squared posts, and a stoop off the west side (the property faces south onto Magnolia Street). It has wood
one-over-one windows of varying sizes throughout with non-historic aluminum storm covers, and has a small
chimney along the roof crest. In 1992, an addition was constructed onto the rear of the building. The addition’s
roofline and footprint are set slightly below/back from the historic building to help it remain compatible and
subordinate to the historic house.
ALTERATION HISTORY:
Known alterations of the property to date include:
• 1900 (circa) – construction of the first home at 336 E Magnolia, the Brown Thompson House.
• 1925 (circa) – the Brown Thompson house no longer appears on the lot, with 336 E. Magnolia shown
on Sanborn maps as vacant. It is unclear if the house was moved to a new location, demolished, or
burned down.
• 1938 – H.A. Deiner constructs the current building at 336 E. Magnolia for Chris Horst.
• 1992 – rear addition constructed onto building
• 2011 – roof replacement (asphalt shingle)
This property does not appear to have undergone any significant Design Review in past.
HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW:
N/A
HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES:
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report regarding the following items:
1. Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation, including necessary demolition. Addition
includes the modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-hip configuration, the addition of
decorative shingling in the gable ends, and a rear second-story deck with a spiral stair.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement with a full-width, partially covered porch
with a hipped roof.
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Upon review of the original application, staff has worked with the applicant to provide the following
modifications and information:
• Photographs of the existing property exterior
• Clarification on treatment of existing siding and windows on the historic portion of the building.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY
No public comment about this project has been received at this time.
Packet Pg. 113
Agenda Item 6
Item 6, Page 3
EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Staff has provided an analysis of the Standards in the attached report due for issuance from the LPC. Staff
considers the following Standards to be of primary concern for this project:
• Standard 2 – Preserve historic character
• Standard 3 – Avoid false sense of history
• Standard 5 – Preserve historic features and materials
• Standard 9 – Additions should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate
• Standard 10 – Additions should be reversible
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY:
N/A
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In evaluating the proposed rehabilitation of 336 E. Magnolia Street under Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal
Code, staff makes the following findings of fact:
• The Chris Horst Property is a contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District, listed
in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980.
• The proposed rehabilitation of 336 E. Magnolia Street, overall, does not meet the Standards for
Rehabilitation.
• The rehabilitation, as proposed, will likely render the property non-contributing to the Laurel
School Historic District due to loss of historic integrity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the attached report be issued to the owner, finding that the project does not meet the
Standards, and that the property will likely no longer retain historic status.
SAMPLE MOTIONS
SAMPLE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPORT: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission issue
the report as drafted by staff, finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the
Chris Horst Property at 336 E. Magnolia Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and that our findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado
State Historic Preservation Officer to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPORT WITH MODIFICATIONS: I move that the Landmark
Preservation Commission issue the report as drafted by staff, with the following modifications:
• [list modifications to be made by staff to the report]
finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Chris Horst Property at 336 E.
Magnolia Street as presented, DO/DO NOT meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, and that our findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer
to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission continue this
item to its regular meeting on [date and time of meeting] at which time the Commission can consider additional
information as follows:
• [list specific information needed to make a decision on the project]
and make a decision regarding the report for this project.
.
Packet Pg. 114
Agenda Item 6
Item 6, Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft LPC Report for issuance
2. Plans and supplementary existing condition photos from the property owner
3. Correspondence w/ applicant to amend packet
4. Staff Presentation
5. Approval for virtual hearing
Packet Pg. 115
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.4250
preservation@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/historicpreservation
Historic Preservation Services
REPORT OF ALTERATIONS TO DESIGNATED RESOURCE
Site Number/Address: 336 E. Magnolia Street
Laurel School National Register Historic District
ISSUED: April 21, 2021
Ian Danielson
336 E. Magnolia Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Danielson:
This report is to document the summary of effects from proposed alterations to the Chris Horst
House at 336 East Magnolia Street, pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article
IV, made by the Landmark Preservation Commission at their April 21, 2021 meeting. A copy of
this report may be forwarded to the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
More specifically, the Commission commented on the following work items:
1.Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation, including necessary
demolition. Addition includes the modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-
hip configuration, the addition of decorative shingling in the gable ends, and a rear
second-story deck with a spiral stair.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement with a full-width, partially
covered porch with a hipped roof.
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis (Rehabilitation) Standard
Met
(Y/N)
SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use
that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features,
spaces, and spatial relationships;
The property will remain in residential use.
Y
SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features,
spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be
avoided.
The building currently on the site at 336 E. Magnolia is the
second residence to be constructed on the site. A similar, small,
one-story dwelling was on the site as late as 1917, known in
records as the Brown Thompson House. This is in reference to
N
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 116
- 2 -
Brown and Jessie Thompson, the couple who appears in the
1902 city directory as the first occupants of the house (Brown
was listed as a laborer). However, by 1925, the lot was vacant
with only a shed at the rear of the lot.
The existing structure was built in 1938 for owner Chris Horst
and his wife Mary by builder H.A. Deiner. Horst was a shoe
repairman. By 1948, Ella/Amy L. Lamb, a widow, lived on the
property by herself and remained there into the 1950s
The property is a Minimal Traditional type home typical of the
small number of homes constructed in Fort Collins during the
Great Depression. It has a simple front-gabled configuration
with a small, front-gabled porch cover over the entry.
Ornamental details are few, and siding is a simple lapboard with
basic one-over-one wood windows.
1. Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation,
including necessary demolition. Addition includes the
modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-hip
configuration, the addition of decorative shingling in the gable
ends, and a rear second-story deck with a spiral stair.
x Like most Minimal Traditional dwellings, the
property is defined by its simple, one-story
configuration and lack of ornamentation. The two-
story addition is not compatible with the overall
character of the property due to its incompatible size
and massing, the introduction of the gable-on-hip
configuration on the historic front gable, and the
addition of decorative features like shingling in the
gable ends that were rare on Minimal Traditional
homes and not used on this property. The Standards
would call for a single-story addition compatible with
the historic massing and scale of the house, the use of
basement-level excavation to capture more space if
needed, and avoiding conjectural decorative features
not characteristic of this type of home such as the
decorative shingling or exterior spiral stair. This item
does not meet this Standard.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement
with a full-width, partially covered porch with a hipped roof.
x Where they were built on Minimal Traditional homes,
porches like that existing on this property were
typically designed in the manner present, simple and
front-gabled. While the proposed expansion of the
porch deck beyond the porch cover is likely
acceptable under the Standards, the demolition of the
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 117
- 3 -
existing porch framing and replacement with a
hipped roof cover does not meet this Standard.
x
SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from
other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
1. Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation,
including necessary demolition. Addition includes the
modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-hip
configuration, the addition of decorative shingling in the gable
ends, and a rear second-story deck with a spiral stair.
x The addition of features such as the decorative
gabling create a false sense of history, suggesting this
property was built during the late Victorian era as
opposed to its 1938 Depression-era construction. The
addition of an exterior spiral staircase on a residential
property is not only highly irregular for historic
properties in the United States, but is inappropriate
considering that Minimal Traditional homes lacked
ornamentation. This item does not meet this
Standard.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement
with a full-width, partially covered porch with a hipped roof.
x Although demolition of historic features does not meet
other Standards, the design of the new porch does not
appear to create a false sense of history, although it
should be noted that hipped roofs were rare on
porches built onto Minimal Traditional homes in the
1930s and 1940s, and modification of this feature
appears unnecessary considering the scope of the
project.
N
SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in
their own right will be retained and preserved.
Permit records indicate the following history of alterations:
x 1938 – construction of the existing home as a four bedroom
house, including the following details:
o “Four room residence of frame, 24x32, cement
foundation, full basement, front porch, paint exterior,
wood shingle roof, fir floors: floor joist 2x8 oc 16, rafters
2x, studding 2x4 oc 16, roof sheathing 1x8, paper and
lath, ceiling joists 2x4, double plates and headers.”
x 1992 – rear addition to building
x 2011 – roof replacement (asphalt shingle)
N/A
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 118
- 4 -
The property appears to have undergone very few changes since
construction in 1938, until the construction of an addition onto
the rear of the property in 1992. The addition is not historic, but
is sensitively designed in relation to the property’s historic
character. This Standard does not appear to apply.
SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques
or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be
preserved.
1. Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation,
including necessary demolition. Addition includes the
modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-hip
configuration, the addition of decorative shingling in the gable
ends, and a rear second-story deck with a spiral stair.
x While this Standard generally does not apply to this
work item, the simple-front gabled nature of the
property is arguably a distinctive feature and is being
disrupted by the addition of two-stories onto the rear
of the one-story home.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement
with a full-width, partially covered porch with a hipped roof.
x The demolition of the small historic, gable front porch
and its replacement with a hipped-roof feature is not
appropriate for this type of historic residence.
Historic porches, simple or ornate, typically are
character-defining features and should be retained
rather than replaced. This item does not meet this
Standard.
N
SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design,
color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
1. Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation,
including necessary demolition. Addition includes the
modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-hip
configuration, the addition of decorative shingling in the gable
ends, and a rear second-story deck with a spiral stair.
x This Standard does not appear to apply to this work
item.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement
with a full-width, partially covered porch with a hipped roof.
x The front porch does not appear to be in a state of
disrepair to warrant replacement, and even if its
N
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 119
- 5 -
condition had deteriorated, the replacement does not
match it in design or texture. The existing porch
would need to be retained with its current roof
configuration. This item does not meet this Standard.
SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken
using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials will not be used.
N/A
SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
Based on the already-disturbed nature of the property, the
likelihood of significant archaeological discoveries being made
during the project is low.
N/A
SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
1. Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation,
including necessary demolition. Addition includes the
modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-hip
configuration, the addition of decorative shingling in the gable
ends, and a rear second-story deck with a spiral stair.
x The construction of the rear addition will result in a
significant amount of demolition of historic material,
in particular the rear two-thirds of the roof framing
and an undetermined amount of historic siding and
trim features. The addition is not differentiated from
the old and is not compatible with the one-story
massing, size, and scale of the historic property. This
Standard would call for a single-story addition and/or
a basement level project in order to be compatible,
distinguishable, reversible, and subordinate to the
historic property. This would also allow for a
differentiation in the cladding materials between the
historic and non-historic portions of the house. The
1992 addition provides a good example of a
compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate addition
to the property. This item does not meet this
Standard.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement
with a full-width, partially covered porch with a hipped roof.
x This alteration disrupts the primary elevation of the
historic home and alters the roof configuration of the
residence. To meet this Standard, the existing porch
N
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 120
- 6 -
should be retained as constructed. This item does not
meet this Standard.
x
SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
1. Two-story addition onto the building’s north/rear elevation,
including necessary demolition. Addition includes the
modification of the historic front-gable into a gable-on-hip
configuration, the addition of decorative shingling in the gable
ends, and a rear second-story deck with a spiral stair.
x Due to the level of demolition necessary to construct
the addition, this project is not reversible and will
result in permanent damage to the historic integrity
of this property. For this reason, additions onto,
rather than overtop of, side or rear elevations are
recommended under the Standards, similar to the
existing 1992 addition on this property. This item does
not meet this Standard.
2. Demolition of the existing front-gabled porch and replacement
with a full-width, partially covered porch with a hipped roof.
x While demolition of historic features is not
recommended, the porch could be reconstructed to
return the feature to its historic, front-gabled form.
N
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 121
- 7 -
The Commission found that the proposed work, overall, does not meet the criteria and standards
in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notice of the completion of this
report has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits
that are needed for the work.
The Commission also finds that as a result of the project, the building will likely no longer
qualify as an historic resource due to significant disruption of the property’s character-defining
features as a Minimal Traditional residence and a late, Great Depression-era addition to the
residential neighborhood south and east of downtown Fort Collins.
Please note that all ensuing work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming
alterations are subject to stop-work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration
requirements and penalties.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of any assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact staff at (970) 416-4250 or preservation@fcgov.com.
Sincerely,
Meg Dunn, Chair
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 122
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 123
FOUNDATION PLANDANIELSON RESIDENCEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO336 EAST MAGNOLIA STREETS1.1FOUNDATION PLAN& GENERAL NOTESSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERSITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 124
existingchimneyHVAC units in attic spacevault lineROOF FRAMING PLANSECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLANDANIELSON RESIDENCEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO336 EAST MAGNOLIA STREETS2.1ROOF & SECONDFLOOR FRAMINGPLANSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERSITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 125
DANIELSON RESIDENCEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO336 EAST MAGNOLIA STREETS3.1DETAILSSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERSITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 126
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 127
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 128
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 129
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 130
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 131
. ..
-�.,..
-�· �
...
.../
..
. .
.
:-7 ·. ...
·:;1;
•..
.. � ..
,-.
-:r. :;,,-_.�·
;" ";..··· .
.
·•. � ;r' •
-
.
,.
.-
· . ; .. ';l
-�., ..
•·-• , .
.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 132
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 133
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 134
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 135
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 136
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 137
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Danielson <bud.danielson@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 7:28 PM
To:Jim Bertolini
Cc:Deb Danielson; Ian Danielson; Stewart King
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: B2101308 - Addition to 336 E Magnolia - historic review required
Dear Mr. Bertolini;
We appreciate your thought review of our project.
We have discussed your information request between Ian Danielson, Owner, and Stewart King, Architect of Record,
and myself. Please find the responses and photos below. If your email rejects to photos due to file sizes, I will send
them in several emails.
Please notify us Friday morning confirming that you have received this email .
We believe the design is in keeping with the neighborhood norms and remains true to the humble nature of the
original house.
Your requests more info (blue italics) and the responses (black):
"Clarification on treatment of the siding – will you be retaining the historic dropboard siding on the remaining portions
of the historic building? What type of wall cladding will be added to the new portions of the building and/or the
historic portions if proposed for replacement?”
o The design calls for the addition siding to match the existing siding.
"Clarification on window and door treatments – will you be retaining/upgrading the existing windows or replacing
them? If replacing, please provide information and photographs of existing windows and details on proposed
replacements."
o The design calls for the existing windows and doors to remain.
"Photographs of the property exterior – this should include all four elevations, the landscape, and the garage at the
NW corner of the lot.”
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3
o Please note that there is no garage on the property. The survey does indicate a storage shed.
o Photographs are attached. Note: the West & East Elevations are partially obstructed by fencing.
Packet Pg. 138
4/8/2021
1
1Design Review (NRHP) –Alterations to 336 E. Magnolia
Landmark Preservation Commission –Item #6
April 21, 2021
Commission’s Role
•Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide
additional comments as necessary
•Approve or modify findings in draft report
•Staff issues report on behalf of LPC
2
1
2
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 139
4/8/2021
2
Background
•1900 (circa) –first home
constructed on the lot for
Brown Thompson & family
(house removed by 1925)
•1938 –H.A. Deiner constructs
existing house for Chris Horst
•1980 –Property listed in
National Register (contributing
to Laurel School Historic
District)
•1992 –Rear addition
constructed onto house.
3
Proposed Alterations
1.Two story addition onto the rear of the existing building, including upper floor
deck and spiral staircase.
2.Alteration of the front porch to include removal of front-gabled porch roof and
replacement with a hipped roof, expansion of the patio deck, and
modification of the house front-gable from a dropboard gable end to a gable-
on-hip design with decorative shingling
4
3
4
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 140
4/8/2021
3
Relevant Rehabilitation Standards
•Standard 2 –Preserve historic character
•Standard 3 –Avoid false sense of history
•Standard 5 –Preserve historic features and materials
•Standard 9 –Additions should be compatible, distinguishable, and
subordinate
•Standard 10 –Additions should be reversible
5
Proposed Alterations –South facade
6
•Alteration of historic massing as
viewed from Magnolia and
Peterson Streets
•Modification of front gable-end
from dropboard to gable-on-hip
with decorative shingles
•Modification of roof porch from
front-gabled to hipped
•Expansion of porch deck
including dropboard half-wall.
5
6
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 141
4/8/2021
4
Proposed Alterations –East Elevation
7
Proposed Alterations –North Elevation
8
7
8
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 142
4/8/2021
5
Proposed Alterations –West Elevation
9
Staff Findings of Fact
•The Chris Horst Property is a contributing property to the Laurel School
Historic District,listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980.
•The proposed rehabilitation of 336 E.Magnolia Street,overall,does not
meet the Standards for Rehabilitation.
•The rehabilitation,as proposed,will likely render the property non-
contributing to the Laurel School Historic District due to loss of historic
integrity.
10
9
10
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 143
4/8/2021
6
Reminder: Commission’s Role
•Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide
additional comments as necessary
•Approve or modify findings in draft report
•Staff issues report on behalf of LPC
11
11
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 144
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Gustave Danielson <bud.danielson@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 11:24 AM
To:Jim Bertolini
Cc:Ian Danielson; Stewart King
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: B2101308 - Addition to 336 E Magnolia - historic review required
Hi Jim,
Yes, the virtual meeting ASAP
Is good.
We will also ask our architect to attend if he can.
Best Regards,
Gustave (Bud) Danielson
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2021, at 1:21 PM, Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote:
Ian and Bud,
Based on our conversations I think it was clear you were okay with proceeding with a virtual hearing via
Zoom but I don’t think I ever got a confirmation on that for the record (since this matter isn’t quasi-
judicial, but advisory, it’s a bit different). Please see the note below:
Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or
commission or an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use
Code, shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi-Judicial
Hearing using Remote Technology. Such person or applicant shall be entitled to request that
the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be conducted in
person.
Would you mind replying to this email confirming whether you’re okay proceeding with the virtual
hearing on April 21 or if you’d like to wait until an in-person meeting can be safely conducted? Thanks!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
From: Jim Bertolini
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 4:24 PM
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 145