Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/16/2021 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
Page 1 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair Michael Bello This meeting will be held Walter Dunn remotely via Zoom Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison: Jim Rose Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Interim Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting June 9, 2016 5:30 PM Historic 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 Historic 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 Historic 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 MAY 19, 2021. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 19, 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 under Pulled Consent 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 CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 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 Historic Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. 3. 308 CHERRY ST – LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street. APPLICANT: Kim Baker Medina, 308 Cherry Street, LLC 4. 710 MATHEWS ST – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW, PORCH REHABILITATION DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to be approved or denied based on the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the missing historic front porch. The plan will generally follow historic photographs of the porch, but will not reconstruct the historic top brick wall and is proposing use of fiberglass columns in place of wood. APPLICANT: Anna Bernhard and Peter Workman (owners) 5. 821 WHEDBEE ST – NATIONAL REGISTER REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Demolition of roof structure and removal of most Craftsman-style features to remodel building into a two-story dwelling of a neo-Victorian style. APPLICANT: Allison and Alexander Klug 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 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 16, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Aubrielle Brennan, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2021 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 19, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC May 19, 2021 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 May 19, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was conducted Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair remotely Michael Bello Walter Dunn Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting May 19, 2021 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Walter Dunn STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Aubrie Brennan 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.” She mentioned that the prevalence of Covid was waning and in-person meetings were on the horizon but would not be taking place just yet. The Chair noted May was Historic Preservation Month, both locally and nationally, and on May 4th, new Mayor Jenny Arndt had passed a resolution proclaiming it. The Chair read a statement she had read upon receiving the proclamation from the Mayor: “On behalf of the Landmark Preservation Commission, as well as people who care about preservation and local history throughout the City, I’m honored to accept this proclamation for Historic Preservation Month. There are three core objectives at the heart of historic preservation in Fort Collins. The first has to do with understanding the identity of our community over time and Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 May 19, 2021 preserving the structures that add to the sense of place that is unique to our community. We particularly want to make sure that these historic sites not only tell the stories of important people, such as Franklin Avery, Abner Loomis, and other wealthy landowners, but we also want to be sure to preserve the sites that speak to the lives of the less wealthy, the indigenous, the immigrant, and the working class. The Museo de las Tres Colonias remembers the lives of the Romero family and includes a few buildings that tell the stories of other immigrant families, as well as some properties that allow us to remember the lives of the working class, but we have already lost many of the buildings related to our early African American history, to our indigenous history, and to influential women who helped to guide and shape our community. Clearly, we have room for improvement in preserving and telling the full story of our past. We acknowledge this and we invite the community to help us in telling the full story by participating in the National Preservation #tellthefullstory campaign. Celebrate the places you love by using this hashtag on your social media channels, so if you take a picture of a place that you think really particularly tells our story, just add that hashtag. Another priority of the Landmark Preservation Commission is strengthening the economy of Fort Collins through the numerous financial benefits that investment in historic places brings to our City. In additional to substantial state and federal tax credits, as well as grants and zero interest loans, the maintenance and restoration of our historic buildings provides far more local jobs per dollar spent than new construction, and of course, that sense of authenticity that older buildings are imbued with is a draw for residents who enjoy spending time and money hanging out in places with a sense of history and personality. Our actively used historic buildings are an economic powerhouse within our community, providing the City with more taxes per acre than any of our big box chain stores. And thirdly, historic preservation encourages the restoration of older buildings, which keeps valuable, irreplaceable materials out of our County landfill. Reusing buildings reduces the need to harvest, haul, and install virgin resources from around the world and construct new buildings, thereby saving a significant amount of energy and conserving our natural resources. This benefits the planet on both a local and a global scale and is in line with the City’s Our Climate Future plan. Historic preservation is socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable, making it a key component in helping to keep Fort Collins strong, now and into the future.” She gave the Commission a chance to comment, but seeing no comment moved to the next topic. The Chair recognized Historic Preservation Staff Member Maren Bzdek for receiving the World Class People Award from the City of Fort Collins. Every year, this was awarded to City employees for their outstanding teamwork, customer service, individuality, and creativity. It was a chance to show the community who Fort Collins employees were, not just what they did. The organization was fortunate to have employees who took pride in their work, cared about the community, and saw their job as a way to make a difference in Fort Collins. All of the Commission already knew what a superstar Maren was, but it was great the City had officially recognized it, as well. She congratulated Ms. Bzdek and asked her to appear on camera for those participating. The Chair recognized Historic Preservation Manager Karen McWilliams on her last Commission Hearing due to retirement after 26 years of service with the City. The CDNS department and Historic Preservation department would not be the same without her. The Chair invited members of the public to chime in. Mr. Ron Sladek spoke about his friend Karen McWilliams, whom he had known for a long time. He met her at the local library 30 years ago, when she worked at the local library in the history archive and helped him with his research. She located all kinds of records for him. He could not believe she had moved from the library to the City 26 years ago. They had worked together over 30 years now. Many people in the city did not know what Commission members and Historic Preservation Staff members did. He was a preservation consultant, historian, and president of Historic Larimer County and knew what a remarkable asset to the City Karen had been. He thanked her for everything she had done for him and the City. Ms. Gina Jannett read a prepared speech to thank and give thanks and tribute to Karen for the wonderful work she had accomplished during her many years at the City. She met Karen when she was on City Council from 1993 to 1997, which she was sure Karen had a hand in. Karen had helped preserve many important buildings as local, state, and national landmarks during her tenure. Ms. Jannett had done research and found about 180 properties landmarked since 1997. These were ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 May 19, 2021 buildings that made our history come alive and we all cherished. Some highlights included Northern Hotel, Harmony School, Armstrong Hotel, Preston Farm, Plumber School, Coy Farmstead Barn and Milkhouse without Silos, Sheely Addition Historic District, Twin Silos, Nick’s Farm, Romero House, Empire Grange House, 7th Day Adventist Church, West Mulberry Street Bed and Breakfast, St. Joseph Church and Parish, Grandview Cemetery, Jessup Farm, Great Western Flume and Bridge, and DairyGold Creamery, the Butterfly Building. There are 100s of wonderful historic homes and other buildings, probably about 1,000 altogether. Karen had been a very productive City employee. Ms. Jannett thanked Karen for all she had done for our community and expressed best wishes on a well-deserved retirement. The Chair asked for comment from the Commission. Mr. Murray stated he met Karen at one of his first meetings at the Commission in 1997. They hit it off right away and had paralleled in their love of Historic Fort Collins and saving buildings. The largest award that could be given to Karen would be from who she picked to replace her. Her staff was fantastic. She searched them out and left them with the Commission and he was not sure where they would be without them. He really appreciated her and was sure they would see lots of her in the future. He was sorry the City could not do a big soiree because of Covid, but she should know the Commission thought well of her. The Chair read an email from Ms. Leslie Struck: “History is one of the key aspects of Fort Collins that makes it special. Karen’s tireless efforts over the years to preserve our community’s unique resources can be seen all over the City and will be enjoyed for generations. Thank you, Karen for all of your incredible work.” She also read an email from Per Hogestead: “Karen, I appreciate your friendship over the years. I think back on the LPC in the early 90’s, and I am amazed at how you were able to keep the LPC circus productive, in spite of Bud’s and my antics. Those were great times, and I appreciate your patience, professionalism, and friendship. I wish you and Carl the very best in your retirement. Per.” The Chair stated the work Karen had done had gone had gone a long way in protecting and improving upon the character and authenticity of Fort Collins. She had been a steward and a champion for the City’s historic buildings, and much of what we enjoyed today in our built environment was either a direct result of her work or somehow her fingers had reached out and touched those projects in some way that helped to guide and protect what it was that people think of as Fort Collins. The Chair thanked her for all she had done and when she started to get bored with retirement, the Chair hoped Karen might fill the open spot on the Commission due to her unique qualifications. Ms. McWilliams thanked everyone for the comments and well wishes. She was not good at saying goodbye, so the Commission would see her around a lot. Now she was able to be on the other side as an advocate for historic properties instead of being impartial. They would see her on the other side soon. She was grateful to have found Ms. Bzdek and Mr. Bertolini, although Ms. Bzdek had found Mr. Bertolini. They were phenomenal people, and the preservation program was being left in phenomenal hands. Mr. Murray remarked Karen had found all of the Commission as well. The Chair remarked Karen had not found the Chair, that the Chair had just showed up on the front step one day. Ms. McWilliams said she would miss everyone so she hoped to serve on the Commission soon. AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 May 19, 2021 CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Bertolini noted the City Council had passed a blanket resolution regarding Boards and Commissions. The Commission’s name would change to the Historic Preservation Commission in advance of the June regular hearing. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:56 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 21, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 5:57 p.m.] DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the 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. The Chair asked about the nature of the damage to the Linden Street project and if this was a learning opportunity for a better plan of protection. Ms. Bzdek stated the damage was done during sitework in preparation for the improvements at Linden Street, in particular the intersection at Walnut and Linden. It was a City project. The subcontractor working on excavation to correct the utility lines had damaged the Southwest base stone on the Linden Hotel. The area damaged was not historic because a portion of the stone had been replaced in a previous project. Historic Preservation was able to have a follow-up meeting with City Engineering staff to discuss protocol for working with contractors under the plan of protection, which was in place for the project, and to see if they could tighten up their processes. They were able to identify a few minor improvements with managing the projects on the day of the work and making sure the information was conveyed down to the subcontractor. It was actually a positive in that they were able to do some process improvements. The Chair remarked Staff had done everything she was hoping the Commission could do, and like she had said, Ms. McWilliams was leaving great staff behind. The Chair asked who the decisionmaker was in regards to projects such as the one-room schoolhouse at Trilby and College and the teacherage. Mr. Bertolini said it was a CDOT-funded project headed by the Engineering department. The decisionmaker there would be the engineering crew and the project manager for that. They did have a call with the management ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 May 19, 2021 running the project discussing the comment Staff submitted to CDOT regarding the project, because they have some federal obligations requiring them to speak with the Historic Preservation office. Staff had reinforced their suggestion that CDOT find a different location, but to do so was difficult considering the engineering goals and how wide the street had to become. A different location seemed like an unlikely outcome. The decision rested with the Engineering division. The Chair asked if Engineering could discuss mitigation strategies with the Commission. Mr. Bertolini said they could invite them to come before the Commission and do a short presentation. The Chair remarked it could be worth getting all their brains together to come up with some ideas that would work really well for their project. 3. 140 N. MCKINLEY – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed rear addition to the City Landmark at 140 N. McKinley Avenue, the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT: Casey (Keith) Churchill (Property Owner) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. This was a Final Design Review for a rear addition, an item the Commission had seen before when the Applicants came before the Commission for the Conceptual Review in December. The question was if the plans met the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The action would be to issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness. The property is a City landmark designated in 1998 for Standard 1, History and Events and Standard 3, Design and Construction. The likely period of significance was 1945 for minimal traditional architecture and early post-War infill. The proposed addition would be onto the rear (East) elevation. Overall materials would be wood door, wood windows, and engineered wood siding with a six inch lap to offset the four inch lap on the historic portion. As noted by Staff previously during the Conceptual Review, it was slightly large for what Staff would usually recommend on City landmarks but it was mitigated by the historical layout of the property. There would be very minimal demolition of historical material on the rear elevation, but the siding would be removed. The basement level of the addition would be excavated and finished. From the front (West) elevation, there would be minimal visibility of the addition, but would show a bit between the attached garage and existing hipped roof. The addition would have different windows to differentiate from the historic portion. A small entryway on the rear would be removed for the addition. There would be an offset to differentiate and subordinate the addition, as required by the Standards. Staff found the project to be generally consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation; it was compatible, distinguishable, generally reversible, and subordinate to the historic building. Mr. Bertolini addressed Commission questions from the Work Session: 1) the joining method between the historic building and the addition was corner cladding, and 2) the windows on the addition would be wood. Staff recommended the Commission approve the project and issue a certificate of appropriateness. Applicant Presentation Mr. Churchill had not prepared a presentation but was available for Commission questions and thanked the Commission. It was self-explanatory that they had a tiny house and wanted it to be a little bit bigger. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion The Chair directed the Commission to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation on packet pages 16 through 18 and invited discussion germane to them. Mr. Murray commented this was a good show for design review. The Applicants had listened to feedback from the Conceptual Review and the design fit the SOI Standards. He appreciated the ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 May 19, 2021 time of the architect and owners to do this. Mr. Knierim agreed and did not have any concerns on this one. He said it was a good example of what can be done thoughtfully. The Chair added the fact that you can barely see the addition from the right-of-way is significant and mitigates the larger footprint. The inset of the addition not being flush with the side wall was a nice attention to detail and helped it be subordinate. A larger addition could be possible when it was done really well and hardly visible from the front. Ms. Nelsen agreed it met all the Standards but especially Standard 9 in a way that really did preserve the scale and massing of the original building. The addition was differentiated enough and the attention to detail was a great way of applying the Standards. The Chair pointed out adding basement space was a good way to add space without making it visible from the front that no one sees but the family gets to enjoy. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the Robert & Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage at 140 North McKinley Avenue, because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The Chair added she was reading an article that day on the National Trust forum about how sometimes historic preservationists are misunderstood as being people that just want to freeze everything in place. This was a great example of managing change so what made this house a unique representation of what Fort Collins had been was retained, while it was modified so that it was more useful for a family today. The motion passed 7-0. The Chair wished the Applicants luck on their project. There were always surprises with older houses but she hoped their surprises were kept to a minimum. [Timestamp: 6:17 p.m.] 4. 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE – APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the Samuel & Jessie Moore Property at 528 W. Mountain Avenue. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jason and Misha Green. APPLICANT: Mark Greenwald, Resident; Gina Janett, Resident; Robin Stitzel, Resident; William Whitley, Resident The Chair asked for disclosures and recusals. She knew three of the applicants, two as fairly nearby neighbors. Those two neighbors and the third were history buffs so she knew them in that regard, as well. However, the relationship would not create bias or affect her impartiality. Mr. Murray knew a couple of the applicants and lived half a block from the property, but it would not affect his impartiality. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. This was a Landmark Designation Hearing for an involuntary nomination request. This was the first of two potential hearings before the Commission required under Code when the owner(s) did not support the nomination. The role of the Commission was to provide a recommendation to City Council on designation. The first hearing was to determine if the property met the requirements of Chapter 14, Article II, meaning it was eligible to be a Fort Collins landmark. If the decision was not eligible, the process would terminated and the decision was final, meaning there could be no appeal. If it was eligible, the process would move to a second hearing and would not be final. The role of the Commission was to determine if the criteria of Code Section 14-22 were satisfied. Article II laid out the standards by which eligibility should be determined. The two general groupings of Standards were significance to Fort ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 May 19, 2021 Collins history and historic integrity. If the Commission found it eligible, at the second hearing, the Commission would need to determine if designation upholds Section 14-1 and 14-2 “in a manner sufficient to justify the requested designation without the consent of one or more of the owners”. A vote in the affirmative at the second hearing would require six votes to pass and would move to a Council hearing within 75 days. The property at 528 W Mountain was constructed in approximately 1885. The historic name was the Jessie Moore Residence, because she was associated with the property between 1902 and 1949. She was a significant educator at the local school district. This item came before the commission through the Demolition Notification process for Single Family construction. It was posted on the Commission’s April 21st Agenda. A nomination was received consistent with Article III of Code, which requires the support of three residents when there is not consent from the owner(s). A group of four residents submitted the nomination on April 20th. The nomination was for the building and grounds, which was typical for landmark nominations. Code Chapter 14 specified unless otherwise specified, parcels should be the property nominated instead of just the structure. Applicant Presentation Mr. Greenwald gave the Applicant presentation. He had lived in Fort Collins on Mountain Avenue for about two years. His reason for presenting at the meeting was included in a brief statement included in the hearing packet, Item 4, Attachment 2. What he would say would duplicate what others had said, but he was new to the City and new to Historic Preservation and wanted to share his thoughts. Over the past 50 years, Fort Collins, like many other cities, had tried to save local properties that reflected its historical heritage. Landmark designation, which could be done by City, State or National government was the principal means to that end. Action by the City provided significant tax benefits to landmark property owners. Designation by any entity limited the rights of property owners to alter the appearance of the property in the interest of protecting its historic or architectural value for the community. Most protected properties within Fort Collins were located in two historic districts, both East of College Avenue, Laurel School and Old Town, created by the Federal Government in 1980 and 1978, respectively. Some of the homes within those districts had also received State and local landmark designation. A substantial amount of homes outside those districts in Fort Collins had also been designated as landmarks, mostly by the City. The first was the Avery House, built in 1879 and designated a Federal, State, and local landmark in 1972. Individual landmark designation was usually initiated by a property’s owner, but nomination by any three City residents could set the process in motion, as was the current case. Ultimately, the decision would be made by City Council following review by the Landmark Preservation Commission. West Mountain Avenue was judged by many in Fort Collins to be the City’s most coveted address. It was the site of 26 designated addresses, more than any other local street. The homes on West Mountain Avenue were built in mostly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and were quite diverse in size and style. Some were fairly large and imposing; others were small and modest. In contrast to grand boulevards in other towns, Mountain Avenue contained mostly homes built by and for working class people. The street was a reflection of Westward expansion with egalitarian ideals. The street was endangered as many smaller homes were being replaced by the modern demand for larger, less affordable homes as property values rose. 528 West Mountain Avenue was one of those modest homes, constructed in 1885, just six years after the Avery House. An 1894 map showed it was only one of a few on the street at the time. To Mr. Greenwald’s knowledge, it was the oldest home on Mountain Avenue, and in the City, that did not have landmark status. From the time it was built through the early 20th Century, this building was home to the Moore family. Jessie Moore lived most of her life at this address. Ms. Moore became a teacher in Fort Collins and served there for more than half a century. He showed a photograph of what he believed to be a gathering of local teachers in front of her home. She taught mainly at the LaPorte Avenue School, a building now lost, designed by a leading local architect. She was held in such high esteem that a new elementary school constructed in Fort Collins in the 1950’s was named in her honor. The neighborhood surrounding the school was still identified as Moore. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 May 19, 2021 Despite its small size, 528 West Mountain was a prime example of folk-Victorian architecture. The prominent bay window, door, and unusual pediment above it were features of this style. This property could contribute significantly to the historic and architectural legacy of the neighborhood and Fort Collins. Its loss would severely diminish the block and it should be preserved via landmark status for present and future residents of Fort Collins. The Chair invited the other applicants to add to the presentation. Ms. Jannett stated that the building was eligible due to architectural integrity and the significance of Jessie Moore who lived in the house. These are the two criteria of eligibility. Jessie Moore was a key, important female teacher in this community. She believed the photograph Mr. Greenwald showed pictured the seven female high school graduates in 1900. She was probably one of the early female graduates from Fort Collins High. She was a key, important figure in our history. Those were the reasons why the property was eligible for designation. Mr. Whitley stated he believed the demolition of 528 West Mountain would be detrimental to Fort Collins. As one of a handful of late 19th Century homes remaining in the City, the modest charm of the house was key to one of Fort Collins’s most scenic avenues. The direct association to working class people on Mountain Avenue was irreplaceable. Demolishing the house for a large, newly-constructed Victorian would not improve the City. He feared the pleasant scale of the City’s neighborhood streets was in danger. He urged the Commission to deny the demolition request and to instead consider its designation as a local landmark. Owner Presentation Mr. Obermann spoke on behalf of the owners as the designer and builder of the proposed new home at the property. The eligibility of the property from a historic standpoint was above his paygrade and for the Commission to consider. He believed the picture provided by Applicants of the women in front of the house was not the property unless it had been significantly altered. In the photograph, there was a window above the bay window and the detailing above the porch looked different. He believed the photograph was of 317 Mountain. The description of the photograph at the bottom stated not that it was of teachers but said something to the effect of “Grandma’s birthday.” He was not sure how important that was but wanted to correct the record. Mr. Obermann also had a procedural objection. He was not sure when conflicts of interest would arise and asked Mr. Yatabe to weigh in. The Applicant (Mr. Greenwald) had reached out to the owners and offered to purchase the home for his daughter. He had asked Mr. Bertolini and the owners to let him in to see the house. He had approached the homeowners when they were at the property and asked to see the inside without identifying himself. They were friendly and let him in. It seemed off that someone who stood to have financial gain could be an applicant and asked if Mr. Yatabe could answer that. The Chair said Mr. Yatabe could comment on that later during Public Comment. Two other members, possibly Mr. Whitley and Ms. Jannett, were part of the group trying to get the Loomis Addition designated. He also believed some Applicants were part of a Poudre Landmark group. He was unsure if they received government funding, but all three were part of groups trying to protect historic properties. He wanted to point out no one in the general community who was not involved or did not have a financial stake had come forward. He shared his screen to show the Seller’s Disclosure from when the owners had purchased the home. The disclosure stated it was uninhabitable, due to unsafe conditions and environmental, structural, and electrical issues. He also shared an environmental report from an industrial hygienist. It described the methodologies for testing at the beginning. He read a loose excerpt that said, “Sample results indicate the presence of a profoundly elevated concentration of methamphetamines at the residence. The concentration of methamphetamine at the residence exceeds the regulatory cleanup threshold of the State of Colorado by about 170 times and exceeds the toxicology significant concentration by about 60 times. Based on results of the samples taken, indicate an illegal drug laboratory as defined by Statutes [blah blah blah] have been discovered at the subject property. Pursuant to [relevant Code] entry to the property has been restricted to those meeting the regulatory training requirements found in [another section of Code] and the restrictions found in [another section of Code]. Pursuant to [this Code again] prohibition of entry into the subject property from this point forward extends to the current occupant, future occupants, the registered owner, real estate agents, prospective buyers, owners of personal property in the ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 9 May 19, 2021 residence, construction personnel, maintenance personnel, home inspectors, and any and all other personnel, except on-duty law enforcement personnel meeting the requirements of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” What this meant to Mr. Obermann was the house was being used as a laboratory that was producing a significant amount of meth, not just for recreational use. He read another excerpt, “According to Section 5 no personal items may be removed from the property except as conducted by a contractor in good standing and removal must be supervised at all times by a decontamination supervisor.” This was something that only happened when it was really, really, really bad. He was told furniture could not be removed from the property at that point because the situation was so bad. The report explained the methods and testing, and Mr. Obermann believed they had tested five different ways. He read another excerpt, “Conclusions: Based on our objective sample results collected during our assessment, the subject property contains elevated methamphetamine contamination in excess of our reporting threshold and in excess of regulatory cleanup threshold. A methamphetamine-infested property exists on the subject property.” Going through the recommendations, they did mention cleaning as a possibility, but it may not be the most financially prudent. He read another excerpt that “the normal cleaning processes may degrade the various structural members in the residence and the garage.” Mr. Obermann wanted to point out the garage was also contaminated and the cleanup would degrade the structure of the residence, which was already compromised. From his knowledge as a builder, he could see some major structural concerns but unfortunately, due to the contamination had not been able to get his engineer into the home to assess the true condition. He then read what he thought was the most important part of the report, “Although FACTS personnel have been performing assessments of methamphetamine properties for approximately 20 years, this is only the third time we have recommended demolition of a property.” He highlighted the property was so bad the experts recommended it was better to demolish than to clean it. He asked what historic preservation would save in this situation. He can appreciate the old and the level of significance, but health and safety matter. With a property this bad, he was unsure if anybody would be willing to live in the home, especially children. If Jessie Moore truly was an advocate for children, for whom methamphetamines had the worst consequences, he believed the property should not be saved at the risk of children who would occupy the house. He could understand and appreciate the desire to protect the home and the significance of it, but in the interest of health and safety, he would trust the person with 20 years’ experience that said it needed to come down. He stated at this point the damage had been done and the home needed to come down, despite how upsetting it was that it would need to come down in this manner. Whomever created this situation is to blame. Registering this house and forcing the designation would not be to the greatest benefit of the community. The Chair asked if the owners wanted to speak, but Mr. Obermann said he believed they did not. Public Input Ms. Kimberly Medina stated although the representative for the owner stated that no one from the community supported the nomination, she would happily have put her name on the application and she believed a lot of people would have. She grew up in this town, and she lived in Old Town but was not a member of a committee or anything so there was no need to worry about that. It broke her heart to walk through her neighborhood and see homes scraped away and nasty modern homes put up. That was not the town she grew up in. Those who did grow up here cannot hardly afford to live here anymore. She attended Moore Elementary in 1968 and walked past the house her entire childhood. She owns an older home, and all the concerns that came up are fixable and can be overcome when restoring a historic property. Those concerns should not be taken into consideration because they really could be overcome. The architectural significance was something she had noticed walking by every day, but the historical significance intrigued her. This fit so nicely with the statement Meg read in the beginning related to the proclamation about preserving history, and this was a good foil in size and scale to the big, elegant Avery house, just down the street. The story of the teacher was a good contrast to the that of the wealthy banker – the banker had the big Victorian and the teacher the miniature, working-class Victorian. The proclamation talked about recognizing working-class, women, and not so fortunate people. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 10 May 19, 2021 Recognizing and preserving the history of working-class people in Fort Collins was something we should be cognizant of moving forward. The owners had a lot of money, and they never planned to live there. She thought it was disingenuous to say they could not live there because of meth because they bought it with the intention of knocking it down. The voices of those who grew up in this community mattered, too. If the future came down to who had the most money to knock down buildings and dictate what Fort Collins would look like, that would not be OK. The Commission had a hard job that was going to get even harder. As Fort Collins became an even choicer city, people moved there to telecommute, and property values went even higher, we would see more of this. More and more, we would see people who had phenomenal amounts of money that wanted to scrape off history and build something big. The Commission’s job was to look at houses like this and ask if it was something we needed to preserve, and it would be hard and involve conflict. People like her, who grew up in Fort Collins and had their hearts broken every time they saw another scrape-off, were counting on Commissions like this to recognize the historical significance of properties like these and be their voice and preserve their history. She thanked the Commission for their work and said it was greatly appreciated. Mr. Chet Wisner spoke on behalf of himself and his wife Delores. They lived in 508 West Mountain, three doors down on the same block. As someone living on the block, he believed the house the Greens wanted to put up would significantly improve the neighborhood. For those who had to live there, he would be happy to see the meth lab disposed of. He wanted to put in strong support from the neighbors living right there on the scene. Applicant Response Mr. Bill Whitley stated his name for the record and he lived on the 600 block of W Mountain. He was a neighbor with absolutely no financial interest in this property. His interest was solely historical and neighborly. He wanted to comment the forensic report was received by the Commission late that afternoon and clearly stated the home could be cleaned and did not have to be demolished because of the meth lab. Again, it was cleanable but it would cost up to $40,000.00. That was all he had to say. Owner Response Mr. Jason Green stated he and his wife moved to Fort Collins from a historic property in Chicago. They did not hate old buildings or history. When they first bought the property, the first thing he did was to scour the archives for the history of Jessie Moore and her sister Pearl Moore and their background in our community. Before the methamphetamine report, they considered the house was in dire condition. Unfortunately, like other historic properties that have been saved, this property gave very little to work with. It was in a state of absolute disrepair. When they found it, there were 36 car tires on the property, there was a sink growing into a tree, and a pile of feces in the middle of the carpet. The house had not been loved for a number of years. At one point, they were talking to neighbors, and one of them mentioned a previous owner was “one of the biggest drug dealers in Fort Collins,” which is why they investigated the possibility of methamphetamine production and use in the house. They did not have an ulterior motive. Since that time, they had apologized to anyone who had been in the house because it was not habitable. Their intention was not to put up a brand new mansion and exhibit enormous wealth. The hard part was to go from what they all wanted the building to be, which was a beautiful piece of Victorian architecture that had been loved and maintained, to the mental leap of what the building was currently. The building was in a complete state of disrepair and a methamphetamine laboratory with levels 60 times the toxic level. There was no way he could live in the house and have future grandchildren there. This was their long term, forever home. He could not imagine letting his kids or, hopefully, future grandkids, play in a methamphetamine laboratory. He certainly understood the public’s desire to save old buildings, and he had some of the same feelings and yearnings about old properties. He had friends that lived in older homes on Mountain Avenue that he would not dream of tearing down because they had been cared for and were beautiful pieces of our community history. Unfortunately, that was not the case with the property they had bought. They had no idea they had bought a methamphetamine laboratory and it had shaken them a little bit to the core. He was trying to speak from the heart. He was unsure how to save the property or what would be left if they attempted to save it. Their goal was to build a home they could live in that would blend in ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 11 May 19, 2021 with the other properties on Mountain Avenue. The early indication they had received was the home they were trying to build would blend in, because they wanted to respect the Mountain Avenue feeling. They deeply understood the emotional connection attached to the building. Their goal was not just to tear things down and exhibit wealth. That was his emotional plea to the Commission. They were shocked by the degree of contamination in the house. The next door neighbors had written to support them. The people that sold the property asked to be present when it was demolished. Their desire was not to come in and destroy the history of Fort Collins. They just wanted to build a home they could live in and be proud of and make the City proud of. Commission Questions and Discussion The Chair did not want to ignore or downplay the health issues here. She understood this likely blindsided the members, and it was not at all what people expect on prestigious Mountain Avenue. It was not under the Commission’s purview to look at health issues. They were not a health Board, they were the Landmark Preservation Commission. All they could really look at was what was before them today, which was if the house was eligible. That is what they would be discussing. The health issue would be addressed at some point by the appropriate City department. She was not saying tough luck, because she would not want her kids in a meth house, either. She wanted to make sure they were all on the same page. She wanted to be clear to everyone participating and watching: the question before the Commission was if the house was eligible – did it have integrity and significance. She also wanted to share a weird thing that comes with old houses. When the house was on the market, there was a rumor on Facebook that someone had lived there in the 70’s as a kid and they had found bones and medical instruments in the yard. The Chair had no idea what it was about, but it was something to keep in mind. Sometimes these rumors had something to them, and sometimes they did not. She wanted to make sure that information was out there, but there could be archeological significance there, as well. Mr. Bello remarked the methamphetamine contamination should be considered at some point. He respected the Chair’s position and what she was saying but felt that it needed to be respected and considered. He asked where Mr. Obermann got his reference to the photo being from a birthday party because he did not see it on the image. Mr. Obermann answered it was written on the bottom of the picture in light cursive and might not be relevant. He was just trying to keep things as accurate as possible. The Chair asked Mr. Bertolini to pull it from the archive site and see what the house number is in the picture. She requested if the item was going to come back next month to get a better scan of the photo with a clearer house number. Mr. Bertolini responded he would look into it. Ms. Michell asked Mr. Obermann about the structural integrity. She asked if anyone with training had gone through the house to see what could be fixed. Mr. Obermann said he had done a preliminary walkthrough. He believed he had training and had spent some time investigating what could be done to add on and allow for a larger house. There were issues with older houses and old foundations, but the process was held up when rumors of meth came up and he started looking at it with a different perspective. Structurally, anything could be saved with enough money. He was unsure if that level of meth could be 100% cleaned. He said the significant level of contamination was what caused the demolition to come into play. Ms. Michell pointed out the demolition came into play before the hygiene report was commissioned by the owners. Mr. Obermann said there was a quick home test done by the owners and rumors, but the official report came later once suspicions were there. Ms. Michell remarked the structural viability was important to determining the integrity of the building. Mr. Obermann said he was confused, and she said so was she. There were two parts, the history associated and the integrity of the building. She wanted to know how much investigation occurred. She remembered when the building went up for sale, and she had thought about it but never went in there. She needed to know what could be saved, what was historic, and what was not. Mr. Obermann said from a structural standpoint, things could be saved with modern technology. That was not the number one reason to pursue demolition at the beginning, but now the meth was the reason. He did not have cleaning experience, but what he understood from his contractors this level of contamination had likely permeated the structure, the floor joists, and windows. A simple cleaning was not likely to fix it, and they were likely to have further structural issues after attempting the level of cleaning required. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 12 May 19, 2021 Again, he was not an expert at meth cleanup, and he was sure there was always a way to save a home; however, with meth it did not appear things could ever be 100% safe. Mr. Bello asked Mr. Bertolini if the integrity of the photo could be determined that evening before a vote. Mr. Bertolini displayed the photo from the History Connection Archive. The museum description said “Grandma Ayers birthday party” and on the back identified the property behind the women as 528 W Mountain. Mr. Obermann said a lot of details must have changed over the years if it was the same property, including the beams on the posts, the detailing around the bay window, and the window above the bay window. He was unsure if the loss of those details over the years would decrease the historic significance. Mr. Bello said what had been established was the address in the photo was the subject property, but what they were not sure of were the changes to the property from then to today. The Chair remarked they needed a better scan, and if the Archive had the photo they could certainly provide that. Mr. Bello said one could see the top portion of the porch was different from that of the property today. Mr. Murray said he did not think it was the same house. The paneling and bay windows were different. After seeing the photo, he drove around to try to find the house in the picture. He thought it was the same style, but he did not think it was the same house. Mr. Obermann said he believed it to be 317 Mountain. He also was not trying to convince anyone the subject property did not belong to Ms. Moore. They were not throwing every argument at the wall to see if it stuck. They were just trying to be thorough. Mr. Knierim asked if Mr. Bertolini could zoom in on the house number, but the Chair said it was likely too poor a scan. Ms. Nelsen commented Mr. Obermann had a great eye for detail. After reading the Landmark Nomination Form, she asked how critical the picture was to the potential landmark status of the property. It did not really change who lived there or what they did. She thought they had pieces of other documentation that showed the house’s architectural evolution over time or lack thereof. The Chair remarked generally there is a survey of someone who went to the house and there were enough historic photos of the property. Mr. Bertolini pointed the Commission to the survey form that included a detailed history of construction and alteration, Item 12 on the form, packet page 97. The Chair stated photos in the archive are often mislabeled and requested a better scan for the next hearing. She stated the 1968 photo of the house looked very much like it does now. A better scan of the photo would help them determine which house it was, but it was not required to move forward on the item. Ms. Nelsen was unsure if discussion of the photo should take up a lot of the time. It possibly was not labeled correctly, and as long as that did not affect the nomination they could move on. Mr. Yatabe commented that for any issue that comes before the Commission in a quasi-judicial matter, the Commission members were the finders of fact. It was a similar concept to a jury in a trial. Each of them could decide whether evidence was relevant or credible. He did not think the photo was something that would hold them up. Essentially what was before them was all the information the Applicant for landmark status submitted in support of the application. They were able to decide what mattered. He did not want them to get stuck on any one point. The Chair pointed out Mr. Obermann mentioned the Poudre Landmarks Foundation, which was a non-profit that was in charge of the Avery House and the Fort Collins Waterworks. That was all they did and they did not do any advocacy. They had no relationship with the subject property or any neighborhoods. They did hold a historic homes tour, which was canceled last year, but they went all the way almost to Taft and way on the other side of the hospital. It was not just a downtown thing, so it did not have anything to do with the house at hand. The Loomis Addition is not an organization, but a neighborhood name. The neighborhood is just across the street from the property. The subject property was in the original town plat, and the Loomis Addition was one of the first additions to the City, just West of the property. She reiterated it was not an organization at all, just neighbors and a neighborhood that she also lived in. Mr. Yatabe discussed possible bias of Applicants because Mr. Obermann asked about it. The City did not screen for these issues as to members of the public, only City staff and Commission members. Whatever the motivation of the Applicants was, the City did not look into it. The only way bias was mattered was City Staff or Commission members should recuse themselves when should not be involved with that item. The Chair added the motivations of the Applicants or the ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 17 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 13 May 19, 2021 Owner were not things the Commission should consider, only the significance and integrity of the property. Mr. Yatabe agreed. The Chair commented they were not there to second guess or judge anyone, only to look at the property. Commission Deliberation The Chair suggested the Commission start talking about significance first. The item was being proposed under two criteria: Architecture and People. She asked if there was discussion or thoughts on that. Mr. Knierim pointed out one of the focuses of the City has been Women’s History. As an educator he believed the role and history of public education was important. Looking at the socioeconomic levels of teachers, he believed this house told that story very well. In terms of significance, this home offered a lot as to the types of stories that should be told in Fort Collins. Ms. Michell completely agreed. She was looking at the picture and thinking it was irrelevant whether that picture was of a group of women at a birthday party or teachers. That did not detract from who Jessie Moore was or her contribution to women’s history as an important part of Fort Collins history. She thought this house where Ms. Moore lived and her life history were an important part of the history of Fort Collins. Mr. Bello asked due to the confusion over which house was in the photo, if it was known for sure whether Jessie Moore actually lived in the home. Mr. Murray stated Jessie lived in the home no matter what, there were lots of records to that effect. The question was if those were teachers sitting out front in that photo or something else. The photo would be the cream if it was of a bunch of female teachers in front, but it may not have been realistic. One of the comment letters brought up the property was significant for women in Fort Collins, as well as the architecture. Mr. Knierim stated on packet page 99 there was a history of ownership and Jessie Moore was the owner. Ms. Nelsen said after reviewing the evidence, the photo was not a critical piece of evidence that Jessie Moore lived there. Through tax records, phone books, and whatever else was used to substantiate ownership, there was a preponderance of evidence suggesting she lived at 528 West Mountain. The Commission did not need to depend on the photograph for a link. Ms. Nelsen went back to significance. As far as overall contribution to community, the overall impact Jessie Moore had on the fabric Fort Collins was large. She was a teacher with a long career. That was enormously significant and worth celebrating. Jessie Moore would have had an enormous impact on numerous individuals in Fort Collins. The place where she spent the majority of her life should be closely examined as a potential landmark. Ms. Nelsen believed a nomination could be supported on who Jessie Moore was as a person without the consideration of the architectural character of the home. The Chair commented the photo was a red herring and that they had plenty of other evidence as Ms. Nelsen had said. The Chair commented Jessie worked at two schools that had been torn down. This was the only property related to her name as far as the Chair knew at this point. The Chair stated they had covered Standard 2 and asked for thoughts on Standard 3, design and construction. Mr. Murray commented it was a classic T, although he really thought it was a classic L, and everyone else called it a Folk-Victorian, which it probably was, too. It was a style that was around Fort Collins. Most in Fort Collins had been torn down or changed so much. There was a time when this was on the outskirts of town and somewhere between a townhome and a farmhouse. The style really speaks to the history of Mountain Avenue. The Chair noted a commenter had contrasted this home to the Avery House as two distinct representations of the community. She commented the City had a few other Ls but they were quickly losing them. They would be losing one they found not to be eligible on Magnolia, and they lost one maybe two years ago on North Meldrum. There were not many left. Ms. Nelsen asked if there was any significance to the double entries. She remembered seeing it on another property as evidence of something she could not recall. She said if they were looking at the house as part of an underrepresented class, it seemed like the Commission saw properties with two doors in terms of room that was rented out. The purpose was not mentioned in the packet. She was not sure and asked if anyone who knew more could comment. The Chair asked if there ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 14 May 19, 2021 was another teacher who lived with her for a while. Ms. Nelsen agreed and said it could be there were two separate entries for two households. She thought it was a neat architectural feature that contributed to the uniqueness and significance of the house. Mr. Rose concurred with what Ms. Nelsen said. He said they could not disregard the linkage of the archival research that had been done to connect the house to Jessie Moore. There was clear evidence Jessie Moore was directly and integrally related to the home. Whether or not the photo was taken in front of the house was of little consequence. With respect to the architecture, he wanted to address the comments that the back porch was not compatible with the overall architectures. He believed the back porch was not a significant enough intrusion to affect the overall architecture. It could be remediated and removed because the original fabric was likely back there. He had difficulty accepting the suggestion it could not be remediated. He believed it was another red herring because it did not affect the judgment of the significance of the home. It qualified in a number of respects to all the elements of significance and integrity. If the Commission focused on their job, it would be difficult to deny it was landmark eligible. The Chair commented in addition to the L being increasingly rare in our community, they did not see too many bay windows like the ones on the home anymore, either. It spoke to the age of the home and the fact that we had lost many of those. There were several architectural details on the home that spoke to the time it was built and were growing increasingly rare. Mr. Bello agreed everyone was correct about the historic significance and the architectural significance. He could not wrap his mind around the fact that the home was so bad that an investigative company with 20 years’ experience had only said three should be demolished and this was one of them. Before he could move forward, he needed to know if someone else would look at the health aspects. Would someone else look at that or would the Commission be the arbiter to decide if the owner could make the home safe for their family. The Chair asked Mr. Yatabe or Mr. Bertolini to opine; she believed even if the property were landmarked there was something in Chapter 14 regarding habitability and safety. Mr. Yatabe had not dealt with meth contamination in a long time. He honestly did not know if the City had a particular role in that. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was likely the one to regulate and it was administered through the City and County but he asked not to be quoted on that. They had not yet touched base with Chief Building Official Rich Anderson, but there is a mechanism for an order of demolition under Chapter 14, Section 14-8, Remedying of Dangerous Conditions, to remedy anything that constitutes an imminent danger as determined under the International Property and Maintenance Code. Without additional information, he could not be sure, but Mr. Anderson, the Chief Building Official, would be at the next meeting. Yes, there was a provision to demolish a property that was an imminent danger. Based on the fact that Staff had just received the information, there had not been enough time to follow up on it. His understanding was the standards for eligibility did not address these issues. What the Commission was looking at was significance and integrity, well outlined in Mr. Bertolini’s report. In the future, they could follow up on what meth contamination means for the City, but Mr. Yatabe could not say more at present. Mr. Murray asked if Section 14-8 Applied involved the Commission. Mr. Yatabe said as he read it, 14-8 applied to a Building Official call. He discussed Section 14-32 which talked about interim control of permit issuance, including demolition permits, which would allow the Commission to authorize that by written resolution if there was a finding that the demolition would not cause an adverse effect on the eligibility of the resource for designation or by written resolution by City Council, as necessary for public health, welfare or safety. Mr. Murray stated in his mind they were deciding whether a nomination could move forward as a landmark and the official part would be next month. Mr. Bertolini clarified by going back to the Code that the only question before the Commission was if it was eligible for Fort Collins designation. If so, at next month’s hearing, they would decide whether nominating the property without the owner’s consent still meets the declaration of policy and purpose in 14-1 and 14-2. At that point, they could consider more information than the history of the property. The Chair asked if the National Trust Forum might be able to provide advisory help or guidance on how other jurisdictions had handled historic buildings with methamphetamine issues. Another option would be posting online to put the questions out to preservationists across the country. She was ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 15 May 19, 2021 confident cities had such issues with historic properties because she had lived next to one in San Francisco. It would be good to get a better sense if it was “No, that would destroy the house,” or “Yes, there is this process.” There could be information out there that the Commission did not have access to yet. Mr. Bertolini agreed if the process moved forward he would find information he could on the listservs to which he had access on that topic. The Chair asked if they were ready for a motion. Mr. Murray started to make a motion for approval, then asked if the garage would be included. The Chair stated it was included in the nomination. Mr. Murray moved that the Commission find the whole property at 528 West Mountain be seen as eligible and move forward to an eligibility hearing next month in front of the Historic Preservation Commission. The Chair asked Mr. Yatabe if that was sufficient. Mr. Yatabe said the motion needed to be adopted as a written resolution, which was specified in the Code. Mr. Bertolini’s draft motions included a draft resolution to be signed by the Chair. In a landmark designation, it was important to set the basis for significance and the findings as to integrity. He knew the Commission had discussed it, but that was what the written resolution would contain, so it was important to include here in case this goes to a second hearing and passes that second hearing with a recommendation to Council. Mr. Yatabe offered assistance to write a motion if the Commission wanted to take a break. Mr. Murray removed his earlier motion. The Chair suggested he look at the packet page 81. He had trouble locating it and said he would give the motion to someone else. Ms. Michell moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that: The Samuel & Jessie Moore Property, 528 West Mountain Avenue, is eligible to be designated a Fort Collins Landmark; and The property possesses significance to Fort Collins under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, and 3 Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the nomination document and attachments submitted by the applicant group on April 20, 2021; and, The property clearly conveys this significance through integrity under all seven aspects of integrity in Municipal Code Section 14-22(b); and A second hearing before this Commission should be scheduled consistent with Municipal Code Section 14-33(c). Mr. Knierim seconded. The Chair asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Murray clarified if a resolution needed to be drafted to be signed. Ms. Michell said that was part of the motion she read. Mr. Yatabe clarified he would draft a resolution for the Chair setting forth the findings of the Commission made in the motion. Mr. Bello wanted to be sure the decision was not binding and the Commission would have to reaffirm next month before making a recommendation to City Council. The Chair stated none of the Commission’s decisions on the property would be binding, only City Council can make a landmark. Mr. Bello asked if their recommendation to City Council would not be forwarded unless and until they reaffirmed their decision next month. Mr. Yatabe clarified they would not be reviewing the issue of eligibility at the second hearing. They would be examining whether such designation was justified by the manner and extent to which the requested designation would advance the policies stated in Section 14-1 and the purposes stated in Section 14-2. Section 14- 1 was the declaration of policy, essentially saying why we had a historic preservation code. 14-2 was somewhat related as the purpose and adds detail to the purposes of these particular regulations. Their review would be asking whether a recommendation of designation of the property would advance the reasons why we had historic preservation code. Mr. Bello commented at that point the meth might come into play more. Mr. Yatabe said the Commission really needed to take a look at the purpose and the policy, but the consideration at the second hearing was a ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 16 May 19, 2021 wider consideration. The Chair commented the City Council has a little more leeway in their Code, so there were several more steps for the meth to get through. Ms. Nelsen commented it was a difficult thing for everyone in so many ways with so many issues on the table. From a Code perspective their scope was so narrow. They were looking at if it was significant enough and whether it possessed integrity. They were not looking at the health issues tonight, although those were significant. If they put their blinders on, for better or for worse, and looked at the home and who lived there, it was an individual that made enough contributions to the City and deserved to be recognized. Architecturally, the home shockingly had a preponderance of architectural integrity. She was surprised it had made it so far in as good as a condition as it did. It did not look that different from when it was built in 1885. The changes that had been made were slight and did not affect the integrity of the building or its ability to be a local landmark. It was hard to divorce themselves from all of the topics on the table, but if they narrowed their scope to what they were asked to do by Code, it was clear they would support a landmark designation for the property. The Chair agreed, if it was a consensual designation, they would be thrilled to protect the architecture and recognize Jessie Moore. She could not remember who had said it, but she echoed this was exactly the kind of stories that are somewhat underrepresented and the Commission wanted to ensure were being told about our community. Ms. Nelsen said the egalitarianism of Mountain Ave was striking and unique. It was a beloved, diverse street of people, architecture, and scales in the City. It fostered civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, but also fostered urban design. Mr. Bello heard Ms. Nelsen and agreed wholeheartedly but sometimes the blinders have to come off when something was staring you in the face and was so obvious you should not ignore it. Ms. Nelsen agreed. Several on the Commission had lived close to meth and the health impact was certainly something to consider. She just could not go outside of the Commission’s purview on this. They had to trust other City, County or State ways of handling the issue, either through mitigation or mandating demolition. She hated to be a stickler, but that was not what the Commission was being asked to do. The question was if the property was landmark eligible, period. It was hard for her to say, but she thought City government was set up in a way where there were different tasks for different bodies. Their job was to look at the specific areas outlined in Code. Mr. Bello would be supporting the motion tonight but only because there was an opportunity to address it in a different manner. The Chair recognized Josh’s hand was raised but the time for public comment was over. She suggested he come back next month because the time for public comment was over or submit a public comment to Staff. The Chair re-capped the four points of the motion: it was eligible to be designated, it was significant under Standards 2 and 3, it could convey that significance through integrity under all seven aspects of integrity, and there would be a second hearing on it the following month. The motion passed 7-0. The Chair mentioned that hopefully between now and the next hearing they could get more information to aid in their decision. She thanked the applicants, owners, and members of the public for participating. [Timestamp: 8:07 p.m.] ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 17 May 19, 2021 OTHER BUSINESS The Chair reminded everyone the Historic Larimer County members meeting was Saturday at 10 am on Zoom. It was an overview of what the organization had done for the past two years and all the other stuff the organization was doing when they could not do tours, which included a restoration of a school bus that was a school wagon. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 16, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES AND OTHER STAFF-ISSUED DECISIONS AND LETTERS, MAY 6, 2021 TO JUNE 2, 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 Historic 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. Beginning in May 2021, to increase transparency regarding staff decisions and letters issued on historic preservation activities, this report will include tables for historic property survey results finalized in the last month (provided they are past the two-week appeal deadline), comments issued for federal undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act (also called “Section 106”), and 5G wireless facility responses for local permit approval. The report below covers the period between May 6, 2021 to June 2, 2021. There is no staff presentation this month. Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 23 Old Town Square Stand-alone awning in front of entry. Non- contributing building to Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved May 11, 2021 239 N. Grant Ave After-the-fact approval. Some project elements did not meet Standards. Staff not requiring reversal. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved (after the fact) May 26, 2021 326 Edwards St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) June 1, 2021 308 E. Myrtle St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved June 1, 2021 Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 Historic Property Survey Results City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the reporting period for any historic survey for which the two-week appeal period has passed. Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized 1516 W. Prospect (Church) Not Eligible Yes May 14, 2021 177 N. College Avenue Not Eligible Yes May 18, 2021 179 N. College Avenue Eligible Yes May 18, 2021 Staff 5G Wireless Facility Comments Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3) Proposed Facility Location Co-location w/ Existing Facility? Staff Comment Date Comment Issued 303 Cherry St. Yes Co-location w/ street light. No Preservation concerns. May 21, 2021 4570 John F. Kennedy Parkway Yes No properties over fifty years of age within 200 feet. May 28, 2021 4600 S. Timberline Road Yes No properties over fifty years of age within 200 feet. May 28, 2021 501 W. Prospect Rd No Only 1 property over fifty years of age within 200 feet – field recommendation of not likely Landmark eligible (windshield level) May 28, 2021 828 W. Prospect Rd Yes Designated properties within 200 ft. Co-location should mitigate Preservation concerns. May 28, 2021 112 E. Laurel St. Yes Designated properties within 200 ft. Co-location should mitigate Preservation concerns. May 28, 2021 National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment Issued FCC – 5 Small Cell facilities in Old Town Fort Collins Co-located Small Cell facilities at Cherry & N. Loomis; Cherry & Park; Smith & Olive; E. Plum & Smith; and W. Plum & Taft Hill. Co-locations with street lights. Support either “No Historic Properties Affected” or “No Adverse Effect depending on location.” May 22, 2021 FCC – Small Cell facility at Whedbee & Edwards. Co-located Small Cell facility. Co-location with existing street light should mitigate concerns under NHPA. Support “No Adverse Effects.” May 22, 2021 Packet Pg. 24 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 FCC – Small Cell facility at Harmony Rd & Larkbunting Co-located Small Cell facility. No properties over fifty years of age. Support “No Historic Properties Affected.” May 22, 2021 FCC – Small Cell facility at E. Stuart & Welch Co-located Small Cell facility. No properties over fifty years of age. Support “No Historic Properties Affected.” May 26, 2021 FCC – 2420 Laporte Avenue (church facility). Modification to existing cell tower at church facility. Properties over fifty years of age within .5 miles of site. Support “No Adverse Effects.” May 26, 2021 FCC – Small Cell facility at 320 W. Olive St. and 713 E. Prospect Rd Co-located Small Cell facility. Landmark-eligible properties or properties over fifty years of age within 200 feet – may be NRHP-eligible (unevaluated). Co- location with existing street light should mitigate concerns under NHPA. Support “No Adverse Effects.” May 26, 2021 FCC – Small Cell facilities at Harmony Rd & Larkbunting (correction) Co-located Small Cell facility. No properties over fifty years of age. Support “No Historic Properties Affected.” May 26, 2021 Packet Pg. 25 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 16, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME THE THOMAS PROPERTY AT 308 CHERRY STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Kim Baker Medina, 308 Cherry Street, LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street. COMMISSION’S ROLE AND ACTION: One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to provide a recommendation to City Council on applications for the designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code provides the standards and process for designation. At the hearing, the Commission shall determine whether the following two (2) criteria are satisfied: (1) the proposed resource is eligible for designation; and (2) the requested designation will advance the policies and the purposes in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation. Following its review, and once the Commission feels it has the information it needs, the Commission should adopt a motion providing its recommendation on the property’s Landmark eligibility to City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has determined that the Thomas Property is eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. The Thomas Property has significance under Standard 1 (Events/Trends), as a significant example of Black/African American history in Fort Collins, specifically as a significant surviving reflection of Black life in Fort Collins prior to the 1940s through the experiences of the Thomas family. Most notable were the youth accomplishments of Virgil Thomas, who attended Fort Collins High School while living here with his parents. Virgil Thomas was an accomplished football and boxing athlete for FCHS, and was the starting pitcher for the Mutual Reserves, a local softball club. He later attended Wilberforce College, the oldest Historically Black College in the United States, on a football scholarship and then served in the U.S. Army during the Second World War. The property retains integrity in five key aspects. Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approve a motion to Council via resolution recommending landmark designation. STAFF EVALUATION OF REVIEW CRITERIA STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Staff has determined that the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street is eligible under Standard 1 and retains sufficient historic integrity to convey that significance and qualify as a Fort Collins Landmark. Evidence and analysis supporting the eligibility of the property are contained in the attached Landmark Nomination Form. Packet Pg. 26 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY CODE AND PURPOSE The designation of historic properties and the work of historic preservation promote the policies and purposes adopted by City Council for the City of Fort Collins. Designation furthers the City’s goals of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. By continuing the use of an existing building and preserving the embodied energy of its existing materials, landmark designation is environmentally sustainable. The designation of historic properties also contributes to the City’s economic standing directly, through property, use, and sales taxes and revenues, and indirectly, through the promotion of heritage tourism. Furthermore, historic designation encourages the continuation of private property ownership. The City’s cultural standing is also upheld because the preservation of the built environment helps residents and visitors tangibly gain a better understanding of our history and the diversity of people who shaped Fort Collins. Landmark designation enhances and perpetuates significant resources in the City through the protection and acknowledgement of those historic properties as well as through the financial incentives offered to landmark owners. Finally, the designation of historic properties also maintains and enhances the City’s aesthetics through the protection and recognition of significant local architecture and history, contributing to the promotion of good urban design and fostering civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past. Taken together, these benefits of landmark designation help strengthen Fort Collins’s community and support our vision of a livable, sustainable city. (Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2; City Plan) The designation of the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street would align with several aspects of the City’s Municipal Code and guiding policies. As a significant example of local Black/African American history, protection of the property aligns with Municipal Code 14-2, specifically that the property is an important element of the City’s cultural and social heritage and will help foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past. The property remains a private office, aligning with 14-2(g) to “promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites….” The recognition of the home and potential leveraging of preservation-based incentives in the future aligns with both the Municipal Code and City Plan Policy LIV 2.1 for the Revitalization of underutilized properties, specifically as an adaptive reuse. Designation is also consistent with Policies LIV 10.1, 10.2, 10.4, 10.6, to identify, preserve, utilize incentives for, and designate historic resources throughout the city, respectively. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. That all owners of the Thomas Property have consented in writing to this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the property; 2. That the Thomas Property has significance to Fort Collins under Significance Standard 1, Events/Trends, as supported by the analysis provided in this staff report and accompanying nomination form; 3. That the Thomas Property has integrity of location, design, setting, feeling and association sufficient to convey its significance as supported by the analysis provided in this staff report; 4. That the designation will advance the policies and purposes stated in the code in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation, as supported by the analysis provided in this staff report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a motion to Council recommending the landmark designation of the Thomas Property. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 1, events/trends, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report and Landmark nomination dated June 16, 2021, and that the property Packet Pg. 27 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 clearly conveys this significance through five aspects of integrity to a sufficient degree; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend that City Council does not adopt an ordinance to designate Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is not eligible because of a lack of significance or the failure of the property to convey its significance through its integrity, and/or finding that the designation of this property will not promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Landmark Designation Application 2. Draft HPC Resolution 3. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 28 Historic Preservation Services 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 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION Address: 308 Cherry Street Legal Description: Beginning 100 Ft West of Southeast Corner, BLK 44, FTC, Thence North 190 Ft; Thence West 50 Ft; Thence South 190 Ft; Thence East 50 Ft to the place of beginning. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Thomas Property; The Thomas, Virgil Gordon, Property OWNER INFORMATION Name: Kim Medina Company/Organization (if applicable): 308 Cherry Street, LLC Phone: 970-388-3332 Email: kimbakermedina@gmail.com Mailing Address: 308 Cherry Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY Name and Title: Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Address: 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Phone: 970-416-4250 Email: jbertolini@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: N/A, requested by owner ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 Landmark Name: Thomas House 2 DATE: June 16, 2021 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property (hereinafter the “Property”) consists of the property consisting of Larimer County Assessor parcel 9711117006, also described as “BEG 100 FT W OF SE COR, BLK 44, FTC, TH N 190 FT; TH W 50 FT; TH S 190 FT; TH E 50 FT TO BEG AND ALSO PAR DESC AS BEG AT SE COR BLK 44, TH W 100 FT; TH N 190 FT; TH W 50 FT; TH N 27 3/12 FT M/L TO RAILROAD ROW; TH SERLY.” STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess both significance and integrity. Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards set forth in Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-22(a): Standard 1: Events This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: a) A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b) A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. The Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street is a significant reflection of Black/African American life in Fort Collins, and the experiences of Virgil Thomas in particular. Virgil Thomas was the first Black graduate of Fort Collins High School and an accomplished local athlete in football, softball, and boxing. This property, built in 1904, served as the Thomas family from approximately 1933 to 1940, coinciding with Virgil Thomas’ attendance at Fort Collins High School between 1937 and 1940. Most Black families who lived in Fort Collins prior to 1950 lived in the blocks immediately west and north of Washington Park at Mason and Maple Streets. The Thomas’ were typical of these pioneering African American families, working in service industries and participating in civic life as much as possible, while facing a community that was at the same time tolerant of, but discriminatory against, people of color. This residence was the home of the family during Virgil Thomas’ attendance at Fort Collins High School, becoming the first Black graduate of that institution, and during his time as the starting pitcher for the Fort Collins Mutual Reserves softball club. Virgil Thomas left Fort Collins to attend Wilberforce College in Ohio in 1940 and his parents moved down the street to 316 Cherry later that year. The ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 Landmark Name: Thomas House 3 overall number of residences reflecting the first chapter of Black life in Fort Collins was limited, and only a few remain today. The house at 308 Cherry is a significant surviving example of a property that reflects the early Black life and experiences in Fort Collins, including Black residents like Virgil G. Thomas. Standard 2: Persons/Groups This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Click here to enter text. Standard 3: Design/Construction This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Click here to enter text. Standard 4: Information Potential This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Click here to enter text. Period of Significance is the discrete chronological period (or periods) during which a historic property gained its significance. Additions or alterations to a property that have significance in their own right can warrant the extension of a Period of Significance. Period(s) of Significance: 1930-1940 This corresponds with the time period during which the Thomas family resided at the property and it was a residence for a Black family in Fort Collins. Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities set forth in Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-22(b): location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Standard 1: Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. This property remains in its historic location. Standard 2: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 Landmark Name: Thomas House 4 The overall character of the property reflects a working class residence built in the early 1900s, with subsequent modifications common in that historic context. The building remains a single-story residence with minimal ornamentation; it retains its distinctive hipped-roof and boxy form, with functional additions clustered at the rear of the home. Key modifications to the design include modifications to the porch posts, and recladding of the building with steel siding. However, the overall footprint and design of the porch remain intact, and the siding is a common alteration to working class homes of this sort. The lot upon which the house sits is long and narrow, similar to most lots from this period, with the intention that the rear yard would serve as a garden space, or room for accessory structures such as a garage, sheds, or an accessory dwelling. While altered over time, the overall integrity of design of the property remains good. Standard 3: Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Setting refers to the character of the place; it involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. The setting is generally intact, although modified, continuing to reflect the proximity of the neighborhood to industrial railroad uses during its historic period. Most neighboring properties are the same buildings that flanked the residence historically, although many have additions of varying sizes. The railroad right-of-way to the rear of the historic property remains although the tracks have been removed – this may become an active transportation corridor for pedestrians and cyclists in the foreseeable future. Many of the other African American homes that were in this immediate area prior to 1950 remain as well, including the McDaniels residence at 317 Cherry and the Hicks/Lyle Residence at 312 N. Meldrum Street. Some reminders of the intermixed industrial uses also survive, most notably through the intact Fort Collins Municipal Railway Trolley Barn at Howes & Cherry, a City Landmark. The primary detraction from the integrity of setting is across/south of Cherry Street to the west, a three-story mixed-use development at the southeast corner of Cherry and Meldrum Streets. Other nearby modern intrusions into this historically Black and Latinx area include new developments along Cherry at Howes, and redevelopments on the block to the south for new offices and townhomes. Nevertheless, the property at 308 Cherry retains good integrity of setting for a property in a transitional, quasi-industrial section of downtown. Standard 4: Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. The property retains some integrity of materials, although it is under this aspect that the property has lost the most integrity. What was presumably wood, either lapboard or dropboard, siding, has since been removed or covered. It was originally replaced with asbestos shingles installed by 1969, and now features steel siding, a common alteration for working class homes like this to reduce maintenance. While the loss of this much material, either visible or altogether, is not ideal, materials are not a critical aspect of integrity for the property to convey its significance as an important African American historical site during the 1930s. The existing steel siding is reasonably close to the historic wood lap/dropboard and do not detract significantly from the overall ability of the property to convey its history during the Thomas family’s residence. Furthermore, the property retains its historic windows and many of its interior historic materials including floors, finishes, and doors, providing a reasonable reflection of what the property looked like when the Thomas family made it their home. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 Landmark Name: Thomas House 5 Standard 5: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. The property has experienced some loss of historic workmanship since the 1930-1940 period of significance, mostly that the historic wood siding (lapboard or dropboard) that would likely have covered the building during the Thomas family tenure is no longer present, or at least not visible. However, the property retains the overall evidence of periodic modification and extension to the rear that is common on working class homes like these. Both the asbestos shingling and steel siding are extremely common modifications to working class homes of this type, and while they do not contribute to the evidence of workmanship reflective of the residence in the 1930s, the simple and functional steel siding is consistent with the general level of craftsmanship common to homes of this type and those elements of this residence that do remain reflective of the craftsmanship of that era, including the property’s original windows and interior finishes. The property retains good integrity of workmanship. Standard 6: Feeling is a resource’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. The property retains strong integrity of feeling, overall reflecting the working class character that would have defined this property, and the neighborhood, during the Thomas family’s tenure here. Despite the fact that some of the property’s material character was updated over time, those changes were consistent with the property’s original working class character and overall the property retains a strong visual connection to the aesthetic characteristics and sense of history that defined the property in the 1930s when the Thomases were here. Standard 7: Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. The property retains strong integrity of association with the Thomas family period through its integrity of overall design and setting, and the maintenance of character- defining features such as the building’s overall massing, to associate it with the 1930s in Fort Collins when the Thomas family lived here. It remains a simple, small-scale, working class property that is reflective of Black/African American life in Fort Collins in the first half of the twentieth century. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 Landmark Name: Thomas House 6 HISTORICAL INFORMATION The Thomas Residence at 308 Cherry Street is a significant, surviving reflection of Black/African American life in early Fort Collins. It is primarily significant as the high school home of Virgil Gordon Thomas, an important Black student athlete in the city who played football and softball and boxed for local clubs and student teams. While living here, Thomas became the first Black athlete at Fort Collins High School, and the first Black graduate of the same in the class of 1940. While available records do not indicate if Thomas or his parents specifically faced overt discrimination while he was a student and athlete, social, employment and housing discrimination against Black, Latinx, and Native residents of Fort Collins through the 1970s was endemic is well-documented. The Ku Klux Klan, the notorious white supremacist organization, was active in Fort Collins and Larimer County during the 1920s. Its strong presence here was reflective of larger, deep-seated views about race and racial segregation held by many residents of Fort Collins and Larimer County as a whole. While the Klan during this period was most active in demonstrating against Catholics (Italians in particular) and those of Asian descent (mostly Japanese and Chinese), Black Coloradoans faced similar violence and discrimination as Black Americans in the Jim Crow south. Klan activities in Fort Collins during the 1920s just prior to the Thomas family’s arrival in the city included rallies on North College Avenue and at the State Theater, just three blocks from their future residence at 308 Cherry Street. The Thomas family experience, and Virgil’s athletic accomplishments during a period of significant racial segregation in Fort Collins, are noteworthy and make the property significant to the history of the city. The Michaud Brothers constructed the residence at 308 Cherry Street in 1904 within a section of the city that became home for most of Fort Collins’ Black/African American residents that lived in the city prior to the 1940s. The homes along these blocks served as a transitional zone of housing that directly abutted the industrial and railroad corridor of the city along Mason Street. In many western American cities of the time, it was not uncommon for ethnic minorities like African Americans, Mexican Americans, or Chinese workers to be segregated into neighborhoods near industrial areas of the city. By the 1930s, the 300 block of Cherry Street, 300 block of Maple Street, and 200-300 blocks of North Meldrum Street included the homes of several permanent and temporary Black residents of Fort Collins, including the Thomas family at 308 Cherry Street between 1933 and 1940. Their son Virgil attended junior high and high school in Fort Collins, and was a standout player on both the Fort Collins Reserves private softball club and as a lineman on the Fort Collins High School Lambkins football team. Black/African Americans in Fort Collins and 308 Cherry Street Black/African American history has deep roots in the American West, but is often ignored due to neglect, assumptions on the part of researchers, lack of primary source evidence, or bias in local history. While western states like Colorado often provided the prospect of opportunity for Black families, the racism that plagued most of the nation remained a persistent barrier to equality. Black professionals and business owners grew in number across Colorado in the early 1900s, as did the middle class made up of barbers, waiters, and porters. Some members of Colorado’s white citizenry continuously challenged this progress. The Ku Klux Klan, America’s most notorious white supremacist organization, had strong membership in Colorado during the early 1900s and sponsored recruitment rallies and other public events from Denver to Fort Collins. This set the stage for Klan member Clarence Morley’s election as Governor of Colorado from 1925 to 1927, indicative of the entrenchment of the Klan during that period. White property owners and landlords frequently discriminated against Black residents well into the 1960s through restrictive racial covenants that prevented purchase of property in many neighborhoods, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 Landmark Name: Thomas House 7 and refusing to rent to Black tenants. The problem was compounded by “redlining,” a practice where lending institutions mapped neighborhoods based on perceived risk, a practice that in reality limited mortgage lending in Black and Latinx areas of cities. Both practices perpetuated racial segregation and the generational wealth gaps found today between Black and white Americans. Like many smaller western communities, Fort Collins was home to a small but vibrant Black community from its early days. Census and newspaper records mention several Black residents, mostly making a living as janitors, domestic workers, or porters for the railroads, hotels, and other businesses. The 1880 census documents fifteen Black residents in five households in and around downtown Fort Collins. By 1900, Fort Collins’ Black population remained small, with only sixteen residents noted in the census, including five households and three live-in servants. However, these numbers are artificially low, as many residents were missed in censes and directories because they were not in Fort Collins long enough or simply were not recognized in official records. For example, in its first few years of operation the Great Western Sugar plant appears to have employed Black laborers who lived just west of the factory. Researchers have not yet determined the location of the workers’ housing and they do not appear in city directories or census records. Despite its small size, the Black community in Fort Collins reflected the same optimism for growth and more permanent security that was found in the city as a whole. Society column entries in Denver’s Black newspapers show a social network along the Front Range that was interdependent, mobile, and growing. Fort Collins included several families who were part of that network and committed to expanding their collective presence in northern Colorado. The Clay family was among the most prominent, long-standing of these families in early Fort Collins, having arrived in the city by 1882. Charley Clay was well-known in the Fort Collins area by 1882 as a caterer and cook. Charles and his wife, Anna, had seven children. The Clay home at 317 Maple Street, believed to have been located along a mid-block alley west of Washington Park, was the center of Black social life in Larimer County during the early 1900s. Out of his home, Charley Clay ran the Colored Mission, which became the Zion Baptist Church, and ministered to Black families throughout the region. His son, Charles Clay, Jr., established a home just to the north at 321 Maple. Most of the large Clay family had dispersed to other communities or had passed away by the time the family patriarch was laid to rest in Grandview Cemetery in 1910. However, the Clays became the first Black family among many that chose the blocks around Washington Park along Meldrum, Maple, and Cherry Streets as their home. Black families like the Hicks, Lyles, McDaniels, Murrays, and Thomas’ moved into the area in the early 1900s. The house at 308 Cherry Street was constructed in 1904 during this time period. By this time, the Clays had moved into the property at 317 Maple Street, and soon after, other Black families like the McDaniels would move into the 300 block of Cherry Street. The area was a fast growing, working class area of town comprising the northwestern edge of the 1873 Avery Plat, as well as portions of the West Side Addition. Many of the residents in this area were people of color, either Black families concentrated around Washington Park, or Mexican Americans concentrated around Holy Family Catholic Church, a Spanish-speaking congregation. However, the neighborhood remained racially mixed during the first quarter of the 1900s, with many white residents, mostly tenants, circulating through as well. The first documented residents of 308 Cherry Street were Walter Harrison, a railroad engineer/fireman, and his wife Ethel, both white, who lived at the property between 1907 and 1909.1 In 1909, Aaron Leroy De Boldt, a white harnessmaker, began renting the house, appears to have purchased it between 1919 and 1922, 1 Note that a railroad fireman was not responsible for distinguishing fires but rather for shoveling coal into the steam engine of the locomotive. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 Landmark Name: Thomas House 8 and remained there through 1925. By 1927, Mrs. Mary Casey, widow of William Casey, bought the property and lived there briefly. By 1929, Geof B. Southcotte, a white pipefitter, and his wife Florence purchased the house and lived there briefly – the home was vacant in 1931. By 1933, John H. and Mamie Thomas are residents, renting the property from the owner through 1940.2 One of the key challenges faced by Black Americans who were newcomers to the West, or simply visiting, was identifying and negotiating the boundaries of informal and legalized segregation, economic discrimination, and racism. Some Black families, such as Charlie and Mamie Birdwhistle, helped navigate those boundaries by providing advocacy, worship, and safe places to lodge and visit. Without the establishment of the church, a central feature of the Black community, it was more difficult for the Black community to grow as residents often moved on to other communities on the west coast by the 1940s, or to Denver. At the same time, white supremacist organizations like the Klan continued activities in Fort Collins, including rallies at the America/STate Theater on North College Avenue, participation in Colorado Agricultural College events, and a cross-burning in City Park in 1925. With limited employment opportunities, few options for religious worship, and still-rampant racism, many families like the Lyles moved to urban areas by the 1940s for better jobs, larger church congregations, and safer neighborhoods. Some, like John and Mamie Thomas, chose to stay. Legal housing discrimination in Fort Collins lessened after the Second World War, as the Colorado legislature passed a series of Civil Rights reforms. These included a 1948 ban on racially restrictive housing covenants, a 1951 act prohibiting racial discrimination in public employment, and a fair housing law in 1959. Although these laws were passed, their lackluster enforcement and implementation remained a key civil rights issue into the 1970s. Later U.S. Supreme Court case outlawed private-sector employment discrimination in Colorado in 1963 and forced an end to segregation in Denver Public Schools in 1973. Activism by Black-led organizations like the NAACP and the Black Panthers continued to fight for expanded equality and equity. The Thomas Family The experiences of John and Mamie Thomas appear typical of many working class Black families in the United States. The history of both individuals is difficult to track in census records and city directories and staff has not been able to uncover extensive genealogical records as a result. Records show the couple had moved to Eaton, Colorado by 1910 from St. Louis, Missouri. John Thomas was born in Missouri in 1885 to parents that were from Kentucky. Mamie Earley was born in Liberty (Bedford), Bedford County, Virginia in 1887, a small hamlet in southwest Virginia. They met and were married in St. Louis on August 4, 1907.3 Shortly thereafter in 1910, they moved to the small farming town of Eaton, Colorado in Weld County. Census records suggest they moved around northeast Colorado between Eaton and Sterling. In 1920, a couple that appear to be the same John and Mamie Thomas were living at 417 Douglas Street in Sterling, where John was working in a local garage.4 It appears they returned to the Eaton area shortly thereafter, and that this is where their son, Virgil, was born on February 3, 2 Fort Collins City Directories, 1904-1933; the ownership vs. renter status refers to the presence of an “h” in the entry, typically used by the Polk city directory series to denote ownership, but its accuracy is suspect. For example, the 1933 directory shows the Thomas’ as owners of the 308 Cherry property although other records confirm they were tenants. 3 “John H. Thomas,” obit., Coloradoan, May 2, 1968, p3; “Liberty” was the historic name for what became the town of Bedford, Virginia, the county seat of Bedford County. 4 1920 Census, Sterling Ward 3, Logan County, Colorado; Roll: T625_167; Page: 7B; Enumeration District: 191, accessed via Ancestry.com. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 36 Landmark Name: Thomas House 9 1922.5 The three remained in Eaton until 1930. When the census was taken that year, they were recorded as homeowners in a predominantly Mexican-American neighborhood outside of Eaton town limits to the east. They lived there with one other Black family that owned a home next door, Fred and Sarah Harper and their adopted daughter Ida May. At that time, John Thomas was working as a farm laborer, likely in one of the sugar beet farms that supplied Great Western Sugar.6 The Thomases moved to Fort Collins in 1930, first staying at the former Clay family residence at 321 Maple Street (now demolished). By 1933, they had moved to the home at 308 Cherry Street where they remained until about 1940. John and Mamie later moved down the street to 316 Cherry Street, a home they would eventually purchase from Ernest G. Steele in October of 1951.7 By 1940, Mamie Thomas is also listed as a cook at the Junior High School, employed through the federal Works Progress Administration, while John’s employment after 1930 is not listed. It is possible John continued to work as an agricultural laborer. They remained in their home at 316 Cherry Street until after John Thomas passed away in 1968.8 John and Mamie added Virgil to the title of the property in June of 1965, although it doesn’t appear that Virgil ever returned to Fort Collins after his parents passed away.9 His father John is buried in Grandview Cemetery.10 Virgil Gordon Thomas Virgil Thomas became a prominent young figure in Fort Collins primarily through his athletic accomplishments. While attending the Junior High (Lincoln Junior High, the former High School that was on the current location of the Lincoln Center), Virgil was the opening speaker for Good Will Day on May 18, 1936, giving a speech about the purpose of the event, a day intended to celebrate the contributions of immigrants to the United States.11 However, as he entered high school in 1937, his most prominent achievements were in athletics, specifically football, softball, and boxing. While his athletic advancements are worthy of note, they are significant to Fort Collins history because he was the first African American student to graduate from the high school, having such a prominent influence in a community that still operated under a version of Jim Crow rules that often kept Black families segregated in housing and employment. It is also important to note the important role athletics played during the 1930s and 1940s, not only in social life in Fort Collins, but to the civil rights activism in the United States. Baseball and softball were both popular club sports in Larimer County, with leagues in both sports being popular enough to justify the construction of public fields and formation of regional associations by the 1930s. Local lore recalls that the first baseball game in Fort Collins was played somewhere in present-day downtown in the summer of 1873 between a local team and a team 5 U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007; Calverton National Cemetery interment records, http://www.interment.net/data/us/ny/suffolk/calverton/calverton-national-cemetery- records-th.htm, accessed April 1, 2021. 6 1930 Census: Precinct 11, Weld, Colorado; Page: 2A; Enumeration District: 0022; FHL microfilm: 2339986, accessed through Ancestry.com; While not confirmed, it seems likely that the neighborhood in which the Thomas’ lived was a small working class neighborhood north of the grain silos and railroad siding, now comprising of East Fourth and Fifth Streets, and Wall, Clark, and Linden Streets. 7 “Real Estate Transfers,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 15, 1951, p2. 8 1940 City Directory, p116, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery; “John H. Thomas,” obituary, Fort Collins Coloradoan, May 2, 1968, p3. 9 “Real Estate Transfers,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, June 30, 1965, p9. 10 https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/49397960/john-h-thomas 11 “Good Will Day Assembly Held,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, May 18, 1936, p2. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 37 Landmark Name: Thomas House 10 organized in Greeley.12 While play remained either with amateur teams or with the College’s “Aggies,” Fort Collins gained a professional baseball team in 1909 with the creation of the what was eventually named the Fort Collins Lamb Feeders, formed in June of that year and winning the state championship.13 Nearly every city of size had a baseball club, even if operating in minor leagues.14 By 1930, Fort Collins formed a softball association as a junior league for young athletes, usually of high school or college age, sponsored by local businesses or organizations. By 1935, fourteen softball teams played in the greater Fort Collins area including three teams formed from area Civilian Conservation Corps camps, and the Mutual Reserve club that Virgil Thomas would play for just three years later.15 More than just a social pastime, athletics became an important avenue for people of color to both build their own sense of community, and to advocate for civil rights in their local and national communities. Nationally, athletes like Jackie Robinson, Jesse Owens, Althea Gibson, and Roberto Clemente broke racial barriers and competed alongside white athletes, demonstrating their prowess while advocating for equal rights. Some advocated directly through organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), while others used their wins as means of demonstrating equality. In Fort Collins, this was especially true for Mexican American players. Often facing discrimination in employment and housing, informal and private baseball clubs formed by Mexican-American farm workers in Tres Colonias or the Holy Family area formed teams like the Fort Collins Team under Fred Olivas in the 1920s, which later became the Legionaires, and the Fort Collins Rebels. They frequently played against white teams, and as time went on in the 1950s to 1970s, became more ethnically integrated.16 Currently available records do not document whether Virgil Thomas actively faced discrimination or pressed against discrimination during his time as a youth athlete in Fort Collins. However, the context of the time almost guarantees that he faced pressures and barriers that white athletes did not. At the same time Virgil was playing football, softball, and boxing for teams in Fort Collins, his Black neighbor, Mattie Lyle, filed her lawsuit against the State Theater for discrimination. Considering the mixed nature of race relations in Fort Collins at the time, with endemic discrimination against Black, Latinx, and Native residents, Virgil’s decision to press forward as an athlete, especially as one of the first Black athletes in the community, is highly significant. In the summer of July 1937, just before entering high school, Virgil became a pitcher for the local junior softball club, the Mutual Reserves. The Reserves were part of a much larger grouping of local softball and baseball clubs that had operated in Fort Collins since the sports caught on in the late-1800s. On July 26, 1937, as a new pitcher, Virgil pitched a two-hit game that protected the Reserves undefeated season and placed them in a position to win the Class B softball championship for the regional conference.17 Virgil became such a critical component of the Reserves lineup that for the 1939 season, when he had taken a job in Colorado Springs to continue paying tuition for school, the manager and teammates placed a column in the 12 “First Base Ball Game Played on Diamond in Fort Collins,” Fort Collins Weekly Express, August 13, 1914, p2. 13 Fort Collins Express, November 15, 1910. 14 “Personnel of Ball Team Fixed,” Fort Collins Express, June 30, 1909, p12. 15 “Junior Softball Planned” Fort Collins Express-Courier, May 17, 1936. 16 Lidia Romero, “Beet Fields to Baseball Fields,” and “Sport Allowed Racial Harmony to Step Up to the Plate,” Somos Familia, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Fall 1999), 120-123, accessed via FCMOD. 17 “Reserves Beat Class Rivals,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, July 27, 1937, p7. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 38 Landmark Name: Thomas House 11 Express-Courier pleading for a business owner to employ him locally for the summer to preserve their season outlook.18 Alongside softball, in 1938 Virgil began boxing for the Lambkins student club, taking fights over the summer before his Junior year. On May 31, 1939, he was on the fight card for a Veterans of Foreign War’s matchup at the State Armory on South College Avenue, going up against Red Nelson of Denver, the heavyweight champion of the Catholic Youth organization of the metro area.19 By his senior year, Virgil was noted by the Express-Courier as the best heavyweight boxer of the club under the coaching of Bill Hinkley. While Virgil wasn’t as accomplished a boxer as he was a pitcher or lineman, losing some of his notable fights with Denver area boxers, the community still took interest in his career during his four years at Fort Collins High School until the club ended intramural fights in early 1940 due to lack of interest.20 Most significant of Virgil Thomas’ athletic accomplishments were his time as an offensive lineman for the Fort Collins High School Lambkins football team, aided by his height (around six feet) and weight (about 200 pounds). In the fall of 1937, Virgil entered Fort Collins High School at Lake and Remington Streets as a freshman. His sophomore year (1938), he secured a position on the Lambkins football team.21 Virgil immediately demonstrated talent for the game, aided by his height and size, starting in the first two conference games that season as a left offensive tackle and kicker. The Express-Courier highlighted Thomas as one of the key players on the team, and named him the all-conference second choice at right tackle behind starter Bill Crompton.22 He continued playing in 1939 although he sprained his wrist in a game against West Denver early in the season and through the 1940 season.23 Thomas’ skills on the gridiron secured him an athletic scholarship to play football for Wilberforce College in Ohio, the oldest private historically Black college in the United States, founded in 1856 outside the town of Xenia.24 There he attended school and played football until February of 1943, when he was drafted into the U.S. Army.25 During his service, he saw action as part of the 92nd Division, Fifth Army in Italy and rose to the rank of Corporal.26 After the war, Thomas moved to Brooklyn in New York City, where he married Laura Mae Smith and they had a child together. Virgil passed away on April 24, 1980 and is buried in Calverton National Cemetery on Long Island. His wife Laura Mae passed away on April 15, 2009, and is buried in Calverton with Virgil.27 Based on the size of the Black community in the 1930s and available records, it is likely that Virgil Thomas and his family had some relationship with the Lyles and Murrays just south of 18 “The Mutual Reserve,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, July 5, 1939, p5. 19 “Won Championship,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, May 29, 1939, p7. 20 “Lambkin Boxers Being Drilled by Bill Hinkley,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, January 16, 1940, p7; and “Jess Willard Enters Local Ring as Referee,” May 19, 1940, p3; and “Estes Park Plans New Grid Field,” February 22, 1940, p7. 21 “58 Lambkins at Grid Drill,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, September 6, 1938, p7. 22 “Lambkins Play Trojans,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, October 11, 1938, p5; “Held His Ground,” and, October 16, 1938, p7, and “First and Second,” November 16, 1938, p7. 23 “Pass Offense Practised by High School,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, September 27, 1939, p5. 24 “Wood Refuses C.U. Offer to Play Basketball,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, June 6, 1940, p7. 25 Fort Collins Express-Courier, February 9, 1943, p6. 26 “Mines Still Dangerous Soldier Tells Parents,” Fort Collins Express-Courier, June 26, 1945, p2. 27 “Surnames Th,” Calverton National Cemetery interment list, Interment.Net, http://www.interment.net/data/us/ny/suffolk/calverton/calverton-national-cemetery-records-th.htm, accessed April 26, 2021. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 39 Landmark Name: Thomas House 12 them on Meldrum Street, and the Birdwhistles who lived on W. Oak Street. It is worth noting that during Virgil Thomas’ junior year at Fort Collins High School, Mattie Lyle sued the State Theater for discrimination in County court and won her case. Also at this time, John Mosley attended Colorado A&M, later becoming the first Black student to letter for the Aggies football team, playing with them until his graduation in 1943. Mosley lived on North Meldrum for a time during his attendance at the University, likely boarding with the Murrays at 238 N. Meldrum Street during Virgil’s senior year at high school. The overlap in residence serves as a reminder of two key likelihoods about Virgil Thomas: first, that he very likely faced discrimination in his day-to- day life, on the athletic fields when playing or boxing, and while attending school at Fort Collins High School; and second: that he benefited from living next to Black men and women in the community like Mattie Lyle and John Mosley who provided him with strong models for how to fight against that discrimination and live a full life. After the Thomas Family After John and Mamie Thomas moved down the street to 316 Cherry, the property remained a residence for predominantly working class families, including several Latinx households, indicative of larger trends where Mexican American families continued to live in the blocks around Holy Family Catholic Church. By the end of 1940, Floro and Grace Martinez lived at the property with their two children, Lee and Rosie, Floro being an employed through the federal Works Progress Administration.28 By 1948, Placid and Beatrice Hoernicke lived at the property, Placid being a farm laborer and later a trucker and construction worker.29 The Hoernicke family remained, although with different occupants between 1968 and 1983, the residents included Edna, an accounting clerk for the City Finance Department, Paul, a worker at the municipal dump, and Placido, a student a Colorado State University.30 By 1996, the owners were Early and Ray Joyce, but in that year, the Joyces sold the property to Manual and Amada Martinez.31 In 2013, the Martinez family sold the property to Ramon & Kim Medina and Robert and Susan Baker.32 Later that year, the Medinas purchased the Bakers’ interest in the property, and continue to own the property as a business office.33 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1904 Architect/Builder: Michaud Brothers Building Materials: Wood – horizontal weatherboard; asbestos siding (shingles) metal siding Architectural Style: Hipped Roof Box Description: The Thomas House at 308 Cherry Street is a simple, Hipped-Roof Box on the 300 block of Cherry Street, a traditionally working class neighborhood developed over the early 1900s as part of the Fort Collins Avery Plat. Historically, this area was part of a transition zone between the railroad 28 1940 City Directory. 29 1948, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966 City Directories 30 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 City Directories. 31 Warranty deed, Joyce to Martinez, 19960065447, Larimer County Recorder, September 9, 1996. 32 Warranty deed, Martinez to Medina/Baker, 20130013794, Larimer County Recorder, February 21, 2013. 33 Warranty deed, Baker to Medina, 20130079974, October 24, 2013, and Warranty deed, Medina to 308 Cherry Street, LLC, March 27, 2014, Larimer County Recorder. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 40 Landmark Name: Thomas House 13 industries immediately to the east and the quieter residential neighborhoods around Holy Family Catholic Church to the west. The entire area was punctuated by a railroad spur that connected to quarries northwest of town, running immediately north of 308 Cherry Street, but having been removed later. The Thomas House is defined by its simple, hipped-roof shape with simple siding and window configurations. The siding is metal, likely over top of asbestos shingles installed by 1969, which may be overtop of the original lapboard or dropboard. Windows are historic wood one-over-one windows with aluminum storm covers on the exterior. The south façade is symmetrical, with a centered entry under a small porch, flanked by two one-over-one windows. The door is modern, but centered in the elevation. The porch roof and rear brackets appear historic, but the porch posts and concrete stoop have been replaced since 1969. An Assessor image from that year shows a concrete pad with three concrete steps from the front sidewalk, and lathe-turned posts. A building permit from 1946 says that the porch was repaired in that year but it does not identify what work was undertaken – the porch as it appears in 1969 is typical of working class homes of the 1900s and may be original. Currently, the concrete pad has only a two-step stoop from the front sidewalk and the lathe-turned posts have been replaced with squared porch columns. The two historic side elevations are similar, having similar arrangements of two, symmetrically placed one-over-one wood windows with aluminum storm covers. The west elevation includes a smaller one-over-one wood window that may have been added for a bathroom light. The rear of the building includes a series of two additions, one historic and one non-historic. The historic addition is a small gable-roof extension of approximately twelve feet from the rear of the house, likely a kitchen addition, that is visible in the 1969 Assessor image. Historically, it had a rear entrance on the east elevation that has since been infilled and enclosed into a fixed window. There is also a horizontal, narrow fixed window on the east elevation that appears in the 1969 image that remains, but has been replaced with a modern unit. The west elevation of the historic addition has a single fixed window that appears to be a replacement. Modern paired entry doors are on the rear (north) elevation of the historic addition, opening onto a non-historic wood deck. On the northeast corner of the building is a non-historic shed-roof addition with a single slider window on the north elevation and single door on the east elevation. Wrapping the rear of this is a wood ramp to provide accessibility to the property. To the rear of the building are three non-historic sheds and a non-historic wood privacy fence. There is a concrete driveway and parking lot that wrap around the east and north sides of the house. The rear of the lot is empty except for a small wooden shed near the back of the lot at the former railroad right-of-way. The property’s permit history reveals the following alterations made since construction: 1904 – Construction of the four-room cottage 1946 – Reshingling 1946 – repair porch 1971 – rear enclosed porch (8’x8’) added 1980 – fencing built 1994 – reroof (asphalt shingle) 2013 – bathroom remodel 2013 – Modification to rear entry including ADA compliant ramp ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 41 Landmark Name: Thomas House 14 2015 – front sign for attorney’s office added 2018 – roofing (asphalt shingle) As of the drafting of this nomination, a new two-story carriage house is slated for construction at the rear of the lot. Based on historical research and photographs, the rear of the lot does not appear to have been developed or been a significant aspect of the property during its historic period. It is not expected to have an adverse effect on the historic property due to its location at the extreme rear of the lot. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 42 Landmark Name: Thomas House 15 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Calverton National Cemetery interment records, http://www.interment.net/data/us/ny/suffolk/calverton/calverton-national-cemetery-records-th.htm, accessed April 1, 2021. Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection, https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/. Fort Collins Coloradoan, online archives. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Local History Archives. - LC Recreation – Baseball/Softball Folder - Softball History 1930s folder - Thomas, Virgil, folder - City Directories - Fort Collins History Connection online archive Larimer County Recorder & Assessor records, https://records.larimer.org/LandmarkWeb/Home/Index U.S. Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 43 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 44 Landmark Name: Thomas House 16 MAPS and PHOTOGRAPHS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 45 17 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 46 18 South façade, looking north, January 21, 2021. West elevation, looking north, January 21, 2021. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 47 Landmark Name: Thomas House 19 East elevation, front portion of the building, looking southwest, January 21, 2021. East elevation, full side, looking southwest, January 21, 2021. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 48 Landmark Name: Thomas House 20 North elevation from the parking lot, looking south, January 21, 2021. West elevation and rear addition, looking southeast, January 21, 2021. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 49 Landmark Name: Thomas House 21 Non-historic shed along west property boundary just north of the parking lot, January 21, 2021. Rear yard space looking northwest to neighboring property and railroad right-of-way, January 21, 2021. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 50 Landmark Name: Thomas House 22 Interior front room, looking south at the front entry, showing level of interior preservation (windows, door and window surrounds, and floors), January 21, 2021. Interior southwest room, looking southwest at front west corner of building, showing level of interior preservation (windows and window surrounds), January 21, 2021. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 51 RESOLUTION 2, 2021 OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE THOMAS PROPERTY 308 CHERRY STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, it is a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects, and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the city, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic, architectural, archeological and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets; and WHEREAS, the THOMAS PROPERTY, located at 308 CHERRY STREET in Fort Collins (the “Property”) is eligible for Landmark designation for the property’s sufficient degree of integrity of location, design, setting, feeling and association, as described in City Code Section 14- 22(b); and for its outstanding significance to Fort Collins under STANDARD 1, contained in City Code Section 14-22(a): EVENTS/TRENDS; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the Property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section l4-22 of the code and is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the Property has consented to such landmark designation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the Historic Preservation Commission as findings of fact: 1. That the designation of this property will advance the City of Fort Collins’ Policies and Purposes for Historic Preservation; and 2. That the property is significant under Standard 1, Events/Trends, as this property is a significant reflection of Black/African American life in Fort Collins through the life and accomplishments of the Thomas family, most notably Virgil Thomas; and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 52 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 3, 2020 2 3. That the property retains a strong preponderance of integrity in five of the seven aspects: Location, Design, Setting, Feeling, and Association; and 4. That the owner’s desire to protect this historic property and its resources will be furthered by the property’s status as a Fort Collins Landmark and the accompanying protections and review mechanisms such designation confers; and Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: BEG 100 FT W OF SE COR, BLK 44, FTC, TH N 190 FT; TH W 50 FT; TH S 190 FT; TH E 50 FT TO BEG AND ALSO PAR DESC AS BEG AT SE COR BLK 44, TH W 100 FT; TH N 190 FT; TH W 50 FT; TH N 27 3/12 FT M/L TO RAILROAD ROW; TH SERLY, Fort Collins ALSO KNOWN BY STREET AND NUMBER AS 308 CHERRY STREET CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 3. That the criteria contained in Chapter 14, Article IV of the City Code will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins held this 16th day of June, A.D. 2021. X NAME Chair ATTEST: _______________________ Secretary/Staff ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 1 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – 308 Cherry Street, Thomas Property Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission, June 16, 2021 Maps & Photos 2 308 Cherry Street, Thomas Property 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 54 • Construction: • 1904 by the Michaud Brothers • Standards of Significance: • 1 (Events/Trends) • Exterior Integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Feeling, and Association • Historical Notes: • Thomas family lived here from 1933- 1940; later moved to 316 Cherry 3 308 Cherry Street, Thomas Property Left: 308 Cherry Street in 1969; Below: Virgil Thomas, FCHS senior portrait •1stLandmark nomination for Black/African American history in Fort Collins • Among 4 surviving properties in former Black quarter of pre-1950 Fort Collins • Among 6 known/surviving properties related to Black history that may be Landmark-eligible. The others are: • 312 N. Meldrum – Hicks/Lyle Property • 317 Maple St – McDaniels Residence • 316 Cherry St – Thomas Residence II (1940-c.1968) • 131 N. Mack St – Goodall Residence • 1005 W Oak St – Birdwhistle Residence 4 Significance in Black/African American History in Fort Collins 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 55 Role of the Historic Preservation Commission Determine whether criteria are satisfied: (1) The proposed resource is eligible for designation (1) Significance (2) Integrity (2) The requested designation will advance the policies and the purposes in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation Adopt a motion via resolution making a recommendation to Council 5 6 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – 308 Cherry Street, Thomas Property Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission, June 16, 2021 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 56 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 16, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 710 MATHEWS STREET, FINAL DESIGN REVIEW, PORCH REHABILITATION STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to be approved or denied based on the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the missing historic front porch. The plan will generally follow historic photographs of the porch, but will not reconstruct the historic top brick wall and is proposing use of fiberglass columns in place of wood. APPLICANT/OWNER: Anna Bernhard and Peter Workman (owners) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project with a condition that the joint sealer between the masonry cap and the porch columns be approved by staff prior to installation. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). The HPC should discuss and consider the presented materials and staff analysis. For City Landmarks and properties in City Landmark Districts, the Commission is a decision-maker and can choose to issue, or not issue, a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Issuing a CoA allows the proposed work to proceed. In this case, the applicant is requesting a final design review of proposed plans under Municipal Code 14- 54(a)(2)(b). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Oliver and Leota Chandler Property was designated as a City Landmark on April 16, 2013. The property was designated under Standard B/2 for association with local agriculturalist Oliver Chandler C/3 for Persons/Groups, specifically as the home of Oliver Chandler between 1909 and 1934. Chandler was a notable banker and administrative leader for various agricultural organizations including the Larimer County Stock Feeders’ Association and at one point the director of the Mountain States Beet Growers Marketing Association. The proposed project includes removal of the non-historic wood shutters around the windows, and the partial reconstruction of the front porch based on historic photographs. The proposal deviates slightly from historic images in two ways: (1) the porch columns are proposed to be fiberglass rather than wood, and (2) the missing brick section of the former porch half wall will not be reconstructed due to insufficient brick on site and concerns about finding matching brick. Packet Pg. 57 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Character-defining features for this American Foursquare property discussed in the nomination form include: •Two-story massing with a hipped roof. •Wide, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. •A full-width porch with masonry foundation and walls, noting that the porch was removed sometime in the 1950s-1960s along with the brick section of the porch wall. •A red, mortared, sandstone foundation with blonde brick walls. •A shallow rounded bay on the south elevation. •Distinctive wood sash windows of 8-over-12 on the first floor and one-over-one on the second, all with sandstone sills. •An enclosed back porch with wood framing. •Matching garage at the northeast corner of the lot. [the nomination form is Attachment 2 to this packet] ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: •1928 – New Roof •1937 – Reshingle chicken house with wood; Remodel back porch steps •1943 – Reroof •1944 – enclose porch (likely the rear porch) •1960 (circa) – removal of front porch columns, framing, and brick masonry; addition of non-historic shutters and entry pediment. •1985 – reroof •2011 – egress window •2015 – installation of solar array on garage •2020 - reroof HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: Since designation in 2013, alterations to the property have been minimal, including installation of a solar array on the garage roof in 2015, and installation of an asphalt shingle roof in 2020. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A – Unknown A previous owner applied for Landmark Rehabilitation Loans in 2013 but was not awarded funding. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a final design review for the following items: 1.Rehabilitation of the missing front porch based on historic photographs, including substituting fiberglass instead of wood porch columns, and not reconstructing the brick masonry section of the front wall. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant has applied for and was awarded Design Assistance Grant funding to support this project, specifically regarding the foundation and engineering concerns posed by the Building Services division. That engineering report is underway at this time. Based on the use of a substitute material (fiberglass), staff has requested the joint sealer that will be used to bond and seal the fiberglass columns to the masonry wall cap and has recommended that be included in the Commission’s approval as a condition. Packet Pg. 58 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public outreach has been conducted beyond posting of the property and no public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: As provided for in Chapter 14-53, qualified historic preservation staff meeting the professional standards contained in Title 36, Part 61 of the Code of Federal Regulations has reviewed the project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff finds that the relevant review criteria under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 3, 6, and 7. Staff considered the application of the Standards for Reconstruction but found the project would not meet those Standards, specifically Reconstruction Standard 4, due to the use of fiberglass porch columns and the decision not to restore the brick masonry band on the front porch. The Standards for Rehabilitation, while still requiring the replacement of missing historic features to follow documentary evidence, provides a greater degree of flexibility regarding approach. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis 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 is characterized by its American Foursquare style and detailing as noted above in this staff report. The front porch was a defining element of the property and its absence diminishes the historic integrity of the property to the Chandler period. Its reconstruction, and the removal of the non-historic wood shutters, will significantly improve the historic integrity and character of the property. Y 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. The reconstruction of the missing porch has been based on historic photographs of the property that show the porch in place. While the project is not a complete reconstruction (the brick wall section on the porch will not be reconstructed), otherwise the project is a faithful reconstruction of a missing historic element on this property. It is not conjectural or based on a feature on a different property. Y Packet Pg. 59 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The historic period of the property corresponds to Oliver Chandler’s residence at the home between 1909 and 1934. Both the removal of the front porch and the addition of the decorative shutters occurred sometime in the 1950s or 1960s, likely after the extended Chandler family vacated the property. These are not historic alterations and their removal is consistent with this Standard. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The proposed project seeks to reconstruct a missing, character-defining, feature of the building. It will not have a negative effect on any other character-defining features of the property. Y 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. The proposed reconstruction of the porch is substantiated by historic images of the property prior to the porch’s removal. While the height of the porch wall will not match the historic due to the decision not to reconstruct the brick masonry section, the design of the porch is otherwise faithful of the historic photographs in size, scale, and layout. Furthermore, the new materials generally match the old in design, color, and texture. The roof framing will match the historic in materials as well. The main deviation from historic materials is the use of fiberglass for porch columns rather than wood. While the use of fiberglass has tradeoffs compared to wood, it is generally suitable for replicating architectural features provided precautions are taken during installation to ensure proper bonding/sealing and minimal long-term damage to the masonry wall cap. Staff is recommending a conditional approval on these grounds to have staff approve the bonding/sealing agent prior to installation. Y 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. Due to the proposed use of fiberglass for the porch columns, there is a chemical treatment concern regarding the joint sealer between the fiberglass and the masonry wall cap. Fiberglass is subject to greater heat gain than wood and will require a suitable joint sealer that prevents undue expansion into the stone that may cause cracking and spalling. The sealer product should also be reversible without damaging the stone wall cap should the product fail in the future. Staff is requesting that staff approval of the bonding agent be included in a conditional approval of the project. Y Packet Pg. 60 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. At this time, excavation is not proposed as part of the project. This may change based on the engineer’s letter being funded through the Design Assistance Program. However, the likelihood of significant archaeological discoveries along the front porch area remains low due to significant disturbance of this area, likely shallow depth of excavation, and minimal likelihood of diagnostic artifacts being deposited in this location. 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. The porch reconstruction is generally based on documentary evidence of the historic porch – this Standard does not apply. N/A 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. The porch reconstruction is generally based on documentary evidence of the historic porch – this Standard does not apply. N/A INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations, addition, and new construction at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, staff makes the following findings of fact: •The property at 710 Mathews Street was designated as a City Landmark by City Council ordinance on April 16, 2013. •The proposed project for reconstruction of the missing front porch and removal of non-historic shutters on the main house at 710 Mathews Street meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the project meets the Standards for Rehabilitation as identified in the analysis table above, and that the Historic Preservation Commission issue a conditional approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness, with the condition regarding staff approval of the joint sealer for the fiberglass porch columns. SAMPLE MOTIONS This is being presented to the Commission as a Final Review. If the Commission believes it has the necessary information, it may consider a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for reconstruction of the front porch and removal of non-historic shutters at the Oliver and Leota Chandler Property at 710 Mathews Street as presented, and direct staff to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for reconstruction of the front porch and removal of non-historic shutters Packet Pg. 61 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 at the Oliver and Leota Chandler Property at 710 Mathews Street as presented, and direct staff to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: •[list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the garage and removal of non-historic shutters at the Oliver and Leota Chandler Property at 710 Mathews Street as presented, and direct staff to issue a denied Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Owner approval for remote hearing 2.Design Review Application w/ attached concept renderings, photographs, and product specs 3.Draft Certificate of Appropriateness w/ conditional approval (subject to HPC modification) 4. Landmark Nomination form 5.Staff presentation Packet Pg. 62 1 Jim Bertolini From:Peter Workman <workman.pete@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 30, 2021 11:43 AM To:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 710 Mathews Design Review App & HPC Attachments:image001.png Hey Jim, I approve of the virtual meeting. Also, I'm happy to be available for answering questions, no need for additional presentation time on my end. As for joint sealer, I was think of using Geoff's recommendation if he has one. Is there a product you know of that may suit the purpose? Thanks, Peter Workman On Fri, May 28, 2021, 11:26 AM Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote: Peter, I’m apparently all thumbs this week. Another item for your consideration under emergency ordinance 2020- 079 regarding our intent to hold this hearing using remote technology: 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. If you could let me know if you approve of a completely virtual hearing, and if you’re intending to provide an applicant presentation, by next Wednesday (June 3), I’d appreciate it. Thanks! JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 63 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence)State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence)State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. Reminders: Complete application would need all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing and proposed. The following attachments are REQUIRED: Ƒ Complete Application for Design Review Ƒ Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) Ƒ Color photos of existing conditions Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate demolition application will need to be approved. Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense). Peter Workman 970-218-5967 710 Mathews St. Fort Collins CO 80524 workman.pete@gmail.com N/A The project would entail reconstruction of the roof covering the existing stone foundation porch on the front of the house. The original structure included a porch roof, but this was removed over half a century ago. It is our hope to return the roof to the porch that will be in keeping with the style and historic appearance of the house. Through the Design Assistant Program we are working with a professional engineer that will assist in the technical aspects (attachment, load, and foundation) of the design. The project should be completed by the end of the year. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Front Porch Roof The foundation of the porch is constructed of stone, brick and concrete. There are shadow lines and markings on the original facade that show where the columns supporting the roof sat against the brick. Reconstruct the roof on the front porch of the house. The roof will be shed style with a single gablet. It will be constructed with standard wood frame materials. Roof shingles will match the existing on the main structure and the trim/fascia will be painted white to match the rest of the existing house. Remove Window Shutters There are decorative shutters attached to all front windows of the house. Remove the window shutters that were not original to the house. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product specification sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. Ƒ Partial or full demolition is a part of this project. Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition. Signature of Applicant Date Digitally signed by Peter Workman Date: 2021.05.22 20:57:44 -06'00'5/22/2021 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 Page 2ULJLQDO3KRWR ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 Page &XUUHQW3KRWRV ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 0SJHJOBM $VSSFOU Page ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 1SPQPTFE Page ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 Page ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 8PSLNBOXFTUFMFWBUJPO8PSLNBOTPVUIFMFWBUJPO8PSLNBOFBTUFMFWBUJPO8PSLNBOOPSUIFMFWBUJPO8PSLNBO.BUIFXT4U Page ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 2017 RW Specialties Dealer Catalog 46www.rwspecialties.com Architecturally Correct Structurally Reliable Fiberglass Classic Columns Fiberglass Classic Columns ROUND TAPERED COLUMNS TUSCANSIZE DESCRIPTION POLYMER 8" x 5' Plain Column $122.06 8" x 8' Plain Column 214.31 8" x 10' Plain Column 264.14 10" x 8' Plain Column 256.08 10" x 10' Plain Column 323.39 12" x 8' Plain Column 332.72 12" x 10' Plain Column 441.94 12" x 12' Plain Column 502.83 The Above Are Rw Stocked - More Sizes & Styles Available From Factory. Splitting Charge is $175.00 Per Column Fib erg lass Columns Weatherproof Non-Porous and Waterproof Insect Free Very Low Maintenance Will Support Substantial Loads with Ample Safety Margins Will Never Split or Disassemble Limited Lifetime Warranty DO NOT STRAP ORDUMP COLUMNS WHEN DELIVERING TO JOB SITE DAMAGE TO COLUMNSMUST BE REPORTED TO RW WITHIN 24 HOURS Quantity Discounts Available SPLIT COLUMN KIT A split column kit should be used to reassemble the split Àberglass column up to 10"x10' shaft halves. CRSPLITKIT $ 61.14 TUSCAN ROUND CAP & BASE SQUARE CAP & BASE SETS 8' Square Cap & Base Set $52.50 10' Square Cap & Base Set 59.50 COLUMN INSTALLATION KIT #17040 INSTALL KIT Column Installation Kit $12.36 Includes brackets, Tapcon screws and instructions. ROUND POLYURETHANE CAP & BASE SETS TUSCAN SIZE DESCRIPTION POLYMER 8" Cap & Base Set $47.61 10" Cap & Base Set 62.47 12" Cap & Base Set 80.06 Column Installation Kit is not Included in Round Cap & Base Sets Size Round Square 8" 10,000 lbs 6,500 lbs 10" 14,000 lbs 7,000 lbs 12" 18,000 lbs 7,500 lbs CONCENTRIC LOAD LIMITS* All load bearing capacities are based on axial loads with no movements. Please consult your structural engineer for wind sheer, uplift and building code requirements for your area. COLUMN ACCESSORIES 8" Cap Cover $8.14 10" Cap Cover 9.75 12" Cap Cover 13.89 SQUARE COLUMNS PERMALITE 8" x 8' Square Column $275.33 8" x 10' Square Column 338.33 10" x 8' Square Column 338.33 10" x 10' Square Column 416.50 TUSCAN SQUARE CAP & BASE ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 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 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUED: June 16, 2021 EXPIRATION: June 16, 2022 Peter J. Workman & Anna W. Bernhard 710 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Property Owner: As you are aware, on June 16 the Historic Preservation Commission gave Final Design Review approval for the work you are proposing for the Oliver and Leota Chandler Property at 710 Mathews Street. More specifically, the Commission provided conditional approval of the following items: 1. Reconstruction of the missing front porch. a.Condition: Staff will approve the joint sealer product for the fiberglass columns to ensure compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. 2. Removal of non-historic shutters. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis 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 is characterized by its American Foursquare style and detailing as noted above in this staff report. The front porch was a defining element of the property and its absence diminishes the historic integrity of the property to the Chandler period. Its reconstruction, and the removal of the non-historic wood shutters, will significantly improve the historic integrity and character of the property. Y 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, Y ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 74 -2 - such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. The reconstruction of the missing porch has been based on historic photographs of the property that show the porch in place. While the project is not a complete reconstruction (the brick wall section on the porch will not be reconstructed), otherwise the project is a faithful reconstruction of a missing historic element on this property. It is not conjectural or based on a feature on a different property. SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The historic period of the property corresponds to Oliver Chandler’s residence at the home between 1909 and 1934. Both the removal of the front porch and the addition of the decorative shutters occurred sometime in the 1950s or 1960s, likely after the extended Chandler family vacated the property. These are not historic alterations and their removal is consistent with this Standard. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The proposed project seeks to reconstruct a missing, character- defining, feature of the building. It will not have a negative effect on any other character-defining features of the property. Y 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. The proposed reconstruction of the porch is substantiated by historic images of the property prior to the porch’s removal. While the height of the porch wall will not match the historic due to the decision not to reconstruct the brick masonry section, the design of the porch is otherwise faithful of the historic photographs in size, scale, and layout. Furthermore, the new materials generally match the old in design, color, and texture. The roof framing will match the historic in materials as well. The main deviation from historic materials is the use of fiberglass for porch columns rather than wood. While the use of fiberglass has tradeoffs compared to wood, it is generally suitable for replicating architectural features provided precautions are taken during installation to ensure proper bonding/sealing and minimal long-term damage to the masonry wall cap. Staff is recommending a conditional approval on these grounds to have staff approve the bonding/sealing agent prior to installation. Y ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 75 -3 - 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. Due to the proposed use of fiberglass for the porch columns, there is a chemical treatment concern regarding the joint sealer between the fiberglass and the masonry wall cap. Fiberglass is subject to greater heat gain than wood and will require a suitable joint sealer that prevents undue expansion into the stone that may cause cracking and spalling. The sealer product should also be reversible without damaging the stone wall cap should the product fail in the future. Staff is requesting that staff approval of the bonding agent be included in a conditional approval of the project. Y SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. At this time, excavation is not proposed as part of the project. This may change based on the engineer’s letter being funded through the Design Assistance Program. However, the likelihood of significant archaeological discoveries along the front porch area remains low due to significant disturbance of this area, likely shallow depth of excavation, and minimal likelihood of diagnostic artifacts being deposited in this location. 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. The porch reconstruction is generally based on documentary evidence of the historic porch – this Standard does not apply. N/A 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. The porch reconstruction is generally based on documentary evidence of the historic porch – this Standard does not apply. N/A The Commission found that the proposed work meets the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notice of the approved application has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. 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 the approved work is not completed prior to the expiration date noted above, you may apply for an extension by contacting staff at least 30 days prior to expiration. Extensions may be ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 76 -4 - granted for up to 12 additional months, based on a satisfactory staff review of the extension request. You may appeal this decision within two weeks by submitting a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days of this decision. Grounds and process for appeals are enumerated in Chapter 2, Division 3 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. If you have any questions regarding this approval, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact staff at preservation@fcgov.com or (970) 416-4250. Sincerely, Meg Dunn Chair, Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 77 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 78 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 79 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 710 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Legal Description: LOT 16, BLOCK 147, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. Also known by street number as 710 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Oliver and Leota Chandler Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Barbara Liebler Email: Phone: (970)482-6648 Address: 710 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, CO CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register* Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register* Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government *The property is listed as a contributing element to the Laurel School Historic District FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planner; John Kochanczyk, Historic Preservation Intern Address: City of Fort Collins, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-219-3974 Email: jweinberg@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: February 13, 2013 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 80 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The property at 710 Mathews Street qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standard 2, for its association with prominent individuals in Fort Collins history. The building is significant under Standard 2 for its association with prominent Fort Collins businessman and farmer Oliver Chandler during the early-twentieth-century expansion of the city. The property is currently listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places as a contributing element to the Laurel School Historic District. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 81 Page 3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Houses in the Laurel School Historic District are some of the oldest in the city. In close proximity to what was formerly known as Colorado Agricultural College (now Colorado State University) campus and the city’s central business district, the neighborhood was the most heavily-populated residential area in the city before 1900. As Fort Collins expanded and grew in the first decade of the twentieth century, many local business leaders and prominent citizens constructed their homes in the neighborhood. The wide variety of houses in the historic district physically illustrates the transition from late nineteenth-century architectural styles such as Queen Anne and Italianate to more prominent twentieth-century styles like English and Dutch Colonial Revival styles to American Foursquares and Craftsman bungalows. The house at 710 Mathews Street was constructed in 1909 for the local farmer and businessman Oliver Chandler. Born in Illinois in 1868, Chandler moved his family to Fort Collins prior to 1907 where he prospered as a cattle and sheep farmer.1 A June 1907 edition of the Fort Collins Courier described Chandler as “an Iowa capitalist who has been looking after investments in Fort Collins.”2 Late in the summer of 1907, Chandler purchased the lot at 710 Mathews Street for $2,500, and construction of the house finished in 1909.3 The Chandlers moved to Fort Collins during one of the city’s most rapid periods of growth. Between 1900 and 1910, the city’s population expanded from 3,053 to 8,210 people.4 Locating their home in the developing suburbs – in the area currently referred to as the Laurel School Historic District – the Chandlers contributed to this urban growth. Chandler and his wife, Leota, raised four children in the house, all of whom attended school. Chandler’s eldest son, Lowell, attended Colorado Agricultural College around 1917, and his youngest son, Floyd, served in the military during World War I.5 A prominent citizen in the Fort Collins community, Chandler was appointed as a director of the Commercial Bank & Trust Company in 1909.6 He also became active in the Larimer County Stock Feeders’ Association in the 1910s. This group of local farmers led protests against state tax increases on cattle farmers.7 In 1923, Chandler was listed as a director of the Mountain States Beet Growers Marketing Association, suggesting how his farming interests expanded beyond cattle and sheep.8 Chandler’s life and career illustrated the economic and social opportunities available in the developing West during the early part of the century, and his story is representative of the ways that upper-middle class families prospered and advanced in Western communities. The family owned at least one automobile, and their social activities were repeatedly recorded in historic city newspapers. Oliver continued to operate large farms outside of the city until his death in 1934. At this time, his widow, Leota, assumed ownership of the property at 710 Mathews Street until her death in 1949. While the widowed Leota occupied the house, census records in 1940 show that her daughter Olive and grandson Robert also lived at the residence.9 1 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1880. 2 Fort Collins Courier, June 26, 1907. 3 Fort Collins Courier, September 18, 1907. 4 Fort Collins History Connection, “Fort Collins History and Architecture: Sugar Beets, Streetcar Suburbs, and the City Beautiful, 1900-1919,” http://history.poudrelibraries.org/archive/contexts/sugar.php. 5 Fort Collins City Directories, Fort Collins: The Courier Printing and Publishing Company, 1910-1911, 1917; Fort Collins Weekly Courier, July 5, 1918. 6 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, June 2, 1909. 7 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, May 1, 1914. 8 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, June 27, 1923. 9 Fort Collins City Directories, 1936, 1948; US Census, 1940. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 82 Page 4 After Leota Chandler’s death, city directories listed Elizabeth Hughes as the property owner in 1950. Rooms in the house were rented to female boarders in this year, all of them attending Colorado A&M University.10 In 1952, the Theta Chi fraternity moved into the house, and male students occupied the residence until 1959. Sometime in the 1950s or 1960s, the original Foursquare-style porch was removed from the house’s façade, giving the house its contemporary look.11 The addition of a Colonial-style pediment and pilasters to the front doorframe and shutters around front windows altered the original Foursquare façade of the structure. It is plausible that this alteration occurred while the Theta Chis lived at 710 Mathews, incorporating Classical architectural elements to give the fraternity house a more suitably Greek appearance. However, photographs of the Theta Chi house in university yearbooks from the 1950s suggest that the Theta Chis never altered the façade. In 1960, Victor and Elizabeth Sothers purchased the property. The Sothers ran a photography studio from the house, Sothers Photography, until they moved to Elizabeth Street in 1969. During this period, the home functioned as dual residence and business. Both Vicor and Elizabeth operated the studio, and directories list Elizabeth’s occupation as “photo color & toucher.”12 Likely, the Colonial-Revival façade was probably added by the Sothers. In 1970, Edmund and Violet Schulz purchased the property. Edmund Schulz was a professor at Colorado A&M as early as 1954 (and Colorado State after 1957), working in hydrology and groundwater engineering. Notably, Schulz was an early contributor to CSU’s groundwater data collection.13 The Schulzs owned the house until 2002, when Violet sold the property to Craftsmen Builders. In 2003, Barbara Liebler, the current owner requesting landmark designation, purchased the property.14 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1909 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Brick; Sandstone foundation Architectural Style: American Foursquare with Colonial-style façade Description: The Oliver and Leota Chandler Property at 710 Mathews Street is, architecturally, an excellent example of an American Foursquare with English Colonial elements added in the 1950s or 1960s. The American Foursquare form developed as a reaction to the ornate elements of Victorian architectural styles and grew from the emerging Prairie and Craftsmen styles at the turn of the twentieth century. Common characteristics are its square plan, two-story height, and overall simplicity. A popular style in Colorado during the first three decades of the twentieth century, the American Foursquare was typically constructed with a hipped roof, often with a central dormer, broad overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, classical freize with dentils, and a prominent front porch with hipped roof, supported by classic columns. It was designed to fit a small city lot with maximum living space. Plans were available from pattern books, and house kits could be purchased from catalogs and delivered locally by rail.15 Many elements of the building’s original design are well-preserved, though the original Foursquare porch and central dormer have been removed. Standing a full two stories, the house is topped by a hipped roof with composition shingles, wide, overhanging eaves, and exposed rafter tails around the entire structure. Exposed rafters reflect the emerging influence of the Arts and Crafts movement at the turn of the century and were common on American 10 Fort Collins City Directory, 1950. 11 Fort Collins City Directories, 1952, 1956, 1957, 1959; Jason Marmor, “City of Fort Collins Architectural Property Reconnaissance Survey Form: Eastside Neighborhood Survey Project, 710 Mathews Street,” February 1998. 12 Fort Collins City Directories, 1960, 1962, 1969. 13 Fort Collins City Directories, 1954, 1960, 1970. 14 Larimer County Tax Assessor Records, 710 Mathews Street. 15 Colorado Historical Society, Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering, July 2008 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 83 Page 5 - Foursquares. Building records indicate that the house was reroofed in 1923 and 1943. A full width porch sits on the front (west-facing) elevation, though the original porch roof and columns were removed sometime during the 1950s or 1960s. A short brick wall surrounds the porch, rising approximately to knee level. The façade of the house was altered with the addition of stylistic Colonial Revival elements. The front door is crowned with a broken pediment and pilasters on both sides, and green shutters sit on either side of the façade windows in the outer bays.17 The house sits on a red, mortared, sandstone foundation with brick walls and incorporates a four-square plan with a symmetrical, three-bayed façade. The front porch also rests on the sandstone foundation. The southeast elevation of the structure includes a small, rounded bay with three sets of windows. First story windows on either side of the front door are double-hung sash windows with 8-over-12 panes. Second-story windows are double-hung with one-over- one panes. The central, second-story window is a narrower, double-hung window with two- over-two panes. All windows on the house have a red sandstone sill beneath that match the house’s foundation. An enclosed back porch stands apart from the symmetrical structure, an addition constructed before 1948. A 1944 permit to “enclose porch” possibly indicates the construction of the rear porch. A raised wooden patio also sits to the rear of the house next to the enclosed porch, a recent addition that does not affect the structure’s historic integrity. Two outbuildings sit on the property, a garage and shed. The garage has rolled asphalt roofing and is clad in brick similar to the main house. It is original to the property and reflects many of the house’s stylistic characteristics. The Chandlers were well-known automobile owners in the community, and the garage’s original construction correlates with the expansion of automobile use across the nation in the early 1900s. Currently, a small wooden shed stands behind the garage. Historically, the Chandlers kept a shed in a different spot on the property, and a 1937 permit issued to “reshingle chicken house” indicates the historic usage of the building. However, a much newer, wooden shed now sits behind the garage.18 A 1948 photograph from the Larimer County Tax Assessor illustrates the original appearance of the home and its typical Foursquare features. Historically, the house included a full-width front porch with a central gable supported by large, white, classical columns. The front door was unadorned by any classical ornamentation. In addition, the roof included a central, hipped dormer that was removed sometime in the 1950s or 1960s, though there is no permit for reroofing during this period.19 Photographs from CSU yearbooks suggest that the Theta Chis left the original porch intact. Most likely, the changes occurred in the 1960s when the Sothers owned the property. While these alterations changed the house’s original Foursquare appearance, they do not affect the overall integrity of the building or its architectural significance in the developing Laurel School neighborhood. Furthermore, Barbara Liebler, the current owner, is looking into restoring the original façade elements of the house. Plans are underway to redesign the original front porch and reconstruct the central dormer on the roof. Designation as a local landmark would facilitate Mrs. Liebler’s interest in maintaining the historic integrity of her house while providing valuable assistance in this process. 16 Fort Collins History Connection, online archive (building permits), http://history.poudrelibraries.org/archive/research.php. 17 Marmor, “City of Fort Collins Architectural Property Reconnaissance Survey Form.” 18 Fort Collins History Connection, online archive; Marmor survey. 19 Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archive, tax assessor record 710 Mathews Street, 1948; Fort Collins History Connection, online archive. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 84 Page 6 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Colorado A&M and CSU Yearbooks (1952-1960) Fort Collins City Directories (1910-1980) Fort Collins History Connection. “Fort Collins History and Architecture: Sugar Beets, Streetcar Suburbs, and the City Beautiful, 1900-1919.” http://history.poudrelibraries.org/archive/contexts/sugar.php. Fort Collins History Connection. “Fort Collins History and Architecture: The Railroad Era, Colorado Agricultural College, and the Growth of the City, 1877-1900.” http://history.poudrelibraries.org/archive/contexts/railroad.php. Fort Collins Public Library, Local History Archive (online), including Building Records and Permits Larimer County Tax Assessor Records Marmor, Jason. “City of Fort Collins Architectural Property Reconnaissance Survey Form: Eastside Neighborhood Survey Project, 710 Mathews Street,” February 1998. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Knopf, 2011. U.S. Federal Census Records (1880, 1910, 1920, 1940) Various newspaper articles from Fort Collins Courier and Fort Collins Weekly Courier (1907- 1923) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 85 Centennial Sr High Colorado State University Young Peoples Learning Center¬«287 Mathews StLocust St E Plum St Old Main Dr E Laurel St E Elizabeth StRemington StS College AveW Laurel St © 710 Mathews StreetFort Collins Landmark Designation These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 200 feet Aerial Site Map ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 86 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 87 710 Mathews Street Fort Collins Landmark Designation Western Elevation Eastern Elevation ATTACHMENT 5ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 88 Southern Elevation Northern Elevation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 89 Garage Western Elevation Garage Southern Elevation ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 90 Shed Southern Elevation Shed and Garage Eastern Elevations ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 91 6/3/2021 1 1 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission – June 16, 2021 Chandler Property - 710 Mathews Street Landmark Design Review - Final 2 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 92 6/3/2021 2 Role of the HPC • Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation • Pass a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a certificate of appropriateness for the project under Municipal Code 14, Article IV 3 Property Background • City Landmark • Designated April 16, 2013 • Standards 2/B • Period of significance: 1909- 1934 • House constructed in 1909 • Oliver Chandler lived there 1909 to his death in 1934. 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 93 6/3/2021 3 Proposed Project 5 1. Reconstruction of the missing front porch following historic photographs a) Masonry brick half wall will not be reconstructed b) Porch columns will be fiberglass rather than wood 2. Removal of non-historic wood shutters Proposed Alterations – West facade 6 • Porch Reconstruction • Removal of non-historic shutters 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 94 6/3/2021 4 Porch Reconstruction Plans & Renderings 7 Porch Reconstruction Plans & Renderings 8 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 95 6/3/2021 5 Staff Analysis • Project appears to meet applicable Rehab Standards: • 2 – Preserve historic character • Reconstruction of missing feature and removal of non-historic features enhances property’s historic integrity • 3 – Avoid false sense of history • Porch reconstruction based on historic images of Chandler property • 6 – Replacement of missing features based on documentary evidence • Porch reconstruction based on historic images of Chandler property • 7 – Avoid damaging chemical & physical treatments • Fiberglass does cause concern; should be mitigated by appropriate joint sealer 9 Staff Recommendation • Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions, specifically the following condition: • Staff will approve the joint sealer for the fiberglass columns to ensure compliance with Standard 7. 10 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 96 6/3/2021 6 Role of the HPC • Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation • Pass a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a certificate of appropriateness for the project under Municipal Code 14, Article IV 11 11 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 97 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 16, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 821 WHEDBEE STREET (FERDINAND & LILLIE ZABEL PROPERTY) – NRHP DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of roof structure and removal of most Craftsman-style features to remodel building into a two-story dwelling of a neo-Victorian style. APPLICANT/OWNER: Allison and Alexander Klug 821 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 CONTRACTOR: Forge and Bow (PM: Joseph Green) 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 HPC are decision-makers on this review. The HPC’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 HPC may make recommendations for improvement as part of its discussion. The report issued by the HPC 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 Ferdinand & Lillie Zabel Property was constructed in c.1921 according to Larimer County Assessor Records. It appears on the 1925 Sanborn Map generally in its current configuration, including the attached garage, although no building permit could be found for initial construction. The property does not appear in the 1919 city directory. The first directory entry is in 1922 when Lyle G. and Lela Rice are listed as the occupants, Lyle being a student. In the context of the city directories, when an occupation is listed as “student,” it typically indicates a high school student attending Fort Collins High School. In 1922, the high school was at the current location of the Lincoln Center at Meldrum and Magnolia Streets, later replaced in 1925 by the high school building at Lake & Remington Streets. It was relatively common for farmers to own or rent dwellings in town for their older children to attend school during the week more easily. It is likely that either or both Lyle and Lela took the trolley north on College Avenue to get to school during the week. Ferdinand and Lillie Zabel are listed in the 1925 city directory as the owner occupants, Ferdinand being a clerk at the Ideal Furniture Company at 213-225 Linden Street in Old Town. By 1927, Ferdinand had become a salesman at the Harris-Warner Furniture Co. at 204-206 S. College Avenue. By 1936, directories also show a Lavina Zabel, Packet Pg. 98 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 presumably the daughter of Ferdinand and Lillie, as a student, likely attending Fort Collins High as well (now at its Remington Street location). By 1940, Lavina is listed as a Colorado State College [sic – Colorado Agricultural College] student. The Zabels appear to have sold the property sometime in the 1940s. In 1948 through 1950, a Mary Snyder [sic, Schneider], widow of Henry Schneider, is listed as the owner of the property with four other occupants. Among the other occupants is Walter H. Snyder [sic], a plumber, presumably Mary’s son, a Bertha Russell, widow of George and a nurse at the County Hospital (near the present location of Elizabeth Street and Riverside Avenue, now demolished), and Walter Schneider, a plumber’s helper for Roger’s Plumbing & Heating. In 1952, George and Bertha Rosselle are listed as the occupants, Bertha being a nurse. However, in 1954, the directory shows both the Schneiders and Rosselles at the property in two separate households, suggesting conversion to a duplex in 1952 – a common modification in the late-1930s through the 1950s. From 1957 to 1960, the Schneiders and Rosselles are gone and Nellie Duff, widow of James, is living at the property. By 1962, Ernest and Beverly Peyton are living at the property, Ernest being the owner of the Caboose Drive-In Restaurant at 1701 N. College Avenue. In 1963, the property is listed as vacant. In 1964, William and Mary Ann Gideon and Don Doose are listed as occupants with their families, although the Doose household may be listed in error. William Gideon was a truck driver for the Poudre Valley Co-op Association and Mary Ann was a waitress at the Town Pump. The Gideons remained at the property through 1970. Other tenants during the Gideon period include Judith Perley in 1966, a CSU student. Staff did not research occupants past 1970. 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 demolish the roof framing, the porch, and certain sections of the exterior walls to modify the building from a one-story to a two-story dwelling, and modify the style from its historic Craftsman Cottage design into a neo-Victorian house. It also proposes a rear addition onto the main building. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The F.D. Zabell Property is a simple Craftsman Cottage home with a rectangular footprint, front-gabled roof with overhanging eaves, wood lapboard siding, and a simple front-gabled porch over the entry with lapboard half walls, squared posts, and a stoop off the north side (the property faces east onto Whedbee Street). There do not appear to be available historic images of the property, but the property is missing exposed rafter tails, a distinctive feature of Craftsman-style dwellings, possibly being removed at some point. It has wood sash and casement windows of varying configurations. Sash windows are generally eight-over-one wood and casements are generally two-by- three with some wood screens remaining. It has two small brick chimneys, one along the roof crest and one along the south roof slope. There are basement windows with shallow concrete window wells, mostly wood slider windows but also some metal/vinyl sliders on the rear elevation. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1928 – rear porch added • 1942 – reroofing • 1943 – porch enclosed • 1947 – insulation added • 1994 – reroof • 2012 - reroof HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: N/A - This property does not appear to have undergone any significant Design Review in past. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A Packet Pg. 99 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report regarding the following items: 1. Demolition of the existing roof framing, front-gabled front porch, and certain elements of the exterior walls. 2. Renovation to include construction a second story and modification of the building from its historic Arts-and-Crafts period style to a neo-Victorian design. 3. Addition onto the rear of the property. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has worked with the applicant to provide the following modifications and information: • Additional photographs of the existing property exterior (received) • Additional construction drawings including demolition plans and an overall site plan.(received) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. The property was posted prior to the HPC hearing. 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 renovation of 821 Whedbee Street under Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The F.D. Zabel 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 821 Whedbee 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 Historic Preservation Commission issue the report as drafted by staff, finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the F.D. Zabel Property at 821 Whedbee Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that the property will likely, permanently, lose access to financial Packet Pg. 100 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 incentives available to historic properties in Colorado, 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 Historic 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 F.D. Zabel Property at 821 Whedbee Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that the property will likely, permanently, lose access to financial incentives available to historic properties in Colorado, 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 Historic 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. . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft HPC Report for issuance 2. Application, plans and supplementary existing condition photos from the property owner 3. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 101 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: 821 Whedbee Street Laurel School National Register Historic District ISSUED: June 16, 2021 Allison and Alexander Klug 821 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Klug: This report is to document the summary of effects from proposed alterations to the Ferdinand and Lillie Zabel Property at 821 Whedbee Street, pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, made by the Historic Preservation Commission at their June 16, 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.Demolition of the existing roof framing, front-gabled front porch, and certain elements of the exterior walls. 2. Renovation to include construction a second story and modification of the building from its historic Arts-and-Crafts period style to a neo-Victorian design. 3. Addition onto the rear of the property. 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 Zabel Property is a modest Craftsman Cottage built in c.1921 that currently contributes to the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. It is characterized by its single-story, front-gabled N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 102 - 2 - configuration and front-gabled front porch with matching roof slope, stepped down from the main roof by about two feet. It has lapboard siding and multi-light wood windows on all elevations. Nearly all of the distinctive features of the property are proposed to be removed as part of the renovation. The roof form and building massing will be demolished to bring the one-story building up to a two-story. The distinctive front porch will be demolished to attach a full-width, shed roof porch. All windows will be replaced and window patterns and openings significantly modified. The only remaining historic material on the exterior appears to be the lapboard siding which will remain on most of the first floor. The building will effectively be unrecognizable in relation to the historic district’s period of significance (approximately 1875- 1940). The project does not meet this Standard. 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. The property was historically a Craftsman-style building, constructed during the Arts and Crafts movement in approximately 1921. The proposed project completely alters the presented architectural style and period from Arts and Crafts to Victorian, creating a neo-Victorian, two-story temple-front with some anachronistic Craftsman elements like brackets along the eaves. The project does not meet this Standard. 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: • 1928 – rear porch added • 1942 – reroofing • 1943 – porch enclosed • 1947 – insulation added • 1994 – reroof • 2012 - reroof There do not appear to be historic alterations that need to be considered as part of this project. N/A ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 103 - 3 - SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. As noted in the analysis for Standard 2, nearly all of the features that characterize the property as a one-story Craftsman Cottage built in the 1873 Avery Plat neighborhood in c.1921 are being removed as part of the project. The only historic material to remain is the lapboard cladding on most of the first floor addition. As a result of the extensive loss of historic materials, features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of early-twentieth century Arts-and-Crafts craftsmanship, this project 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. The property appears to be in overall excellent condition, with minimal wear-and-tear or rotting on the wood features, including the windows. None of these features are in a condition to justify replacement. Due to the extensive removal of historic features that are in good to excellent condition, this project does not meet this Standard. N 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. The exterior alterations to the property, specifically removal of the historic windows, porch, and roof framing, construction of a second story on a home that was historically one-story, and modification of exterior styling from Arts-and-Crafts to largely neo-Victorian in nature, collectively do not meet this Standard. N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 104 - 4 - While the new work is differentiated from the old through the use of vertical beadboard siding, the project does not meet the other two primary requirements of this Standard due to the extensive demolition, removal, and alteration of historic features. - Compatibility – Exterior alterations and additions onto historic buildings can meet the Standards, but typically need to retain historic materials and design features, including overall massing, scale, and configuration of the historic building. Alterations and additions should be clustered on the rear of the property and be designed in a sympathetic manner to the historic building. The demolition of the roof framing, addition of a second story, and introduction of inappropriate materials and stylistic features for an Arts-and-Crafts building are not compatible with the building’s overall character as a small Craftsman Cottage. - Subordinate to Historic Building – Exterior alterations and additions should be subordinate to the historic building, being located on a side or rear elevation, and generally smaller in scale than the historic building. A second-story addition onto a small Craftsman residence cannot meet this Standard, nor can the demolition of a character-defining feature like a front porch, or the majority of historic material in the building. 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. As noted above, the alterations and demolition of character- defining features are extensive. They will result in permanent loss of historic character and are not reversible, requiring significant demolition and reconstruction to return the building to its historic configuration and design. This project does not meet this Standard. N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 105 - 5 - 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 loss of the property’s character-defining features as a Craftsman Cottage built in the 1920s, during a significant period of residential growth in the then southeast portion of Fort Collins. Loss of historic status will result in permanent loss of access to financial incentives available to historic property owners, and further diminishes the overall historic integrity of the Laurel School Historic District. 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 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 106 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. The following attachments are REQUIRED: ƑComplete Application for Design Review ƑDetailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) ƑColor photos of existing conditions ! " # Forge and Bow Dwellings 970-797-2354 120 West Olive Fort Collins Colorado 80524 josh@forgeandbow.com Alex and Allison Klug 813-766-4254 821 Whedbee Street Co 80524 atklug@gmail.com Remaining a single family home with a dormer second level with a rear main level only addition.Construction starting this Fall and ending early next fall of 2022 9-10 Month estimated project. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 107 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. 1RWH &LW\3UHVHUYDWLRQVWDIIPRGLILHGWKHWDEOHEHORZWREHYLVLEOHDQGFRQIRUPZLWKH[WHULRULWHPV VXEMHFWWRWKH&LW\ VKLVWRULFSUHVHUYDWLRQUHYLHZDXWKRULW\XQGHU&KDSWHU$UWLFOH,9 Bedrooms and bathrooms Bedrooms: 4 Bathrooms: 2 Full bathrooms: 2 Level: Main Length: 12 null Width: 12 null Basement Area: 936 null Basement: Full,90%+ Finished Basement Flooring: Wood Floors Total structure area: 1,980 Total interior livable area: 1,940 sqft Finished area above ground: 1,044 Second floor addition adding additional bedrooms/bathrooms and an addition off of the rear of the property adding a living room with a gas fireplace. The main level siding will remain and will carry the same style of siding to the top fo the second level. A new covered porch will be added to the front of the home with a proposed metal roof. Main roof will be a high profile interlocking hail resistant shingle as well as the rear addition. Stories: 1 Patio and porch details: Deck Fenced,Wood,Chain Link Residential vegetation: Deciduous Trees, Grassed Lot Lot size: 9,500 sqft Lot features: Level, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks Other property information Additional structures included: Storage, Second Material information Construction materials: Wood/Frame, Wood Siding, Painted/Stained Roof: Composition Roof ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 108 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product specification sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. Ƒ Partial or full demolition is a part of this project. Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition. Signature of Applicant Date ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 109 ZKK&^&>KKZ^ yd Z/KZt>>^&Ϯtϭ />/E'^Zϭϭ'zW^hDKZ^^ D>z͗ͻ'zW^hDKZ;ϱͬϴΗΛ͘K͘ZKK&^͕ϭͬϮΗΛ͘K͘&>KKZ^Ϳͻh^ WKyzW/EdKE />/E'^/E^,Kt Z^͕KEͻtKK&ZD/E'W ZW>EZ/Ed, dͬtKK&ZD ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZ/E'Z ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks ZͻϭϭͬϮΗ'zWZ d dKWW/E'ǁͬ,zZKE/Z/Eddh , d/E'^z^d DW ZD ,͕KEͻ&>KKZ <^, d,/E'W Z^dZhd͕Ks Zͻ^K>/t tKKd:/&>KKZ:K/^d^W Z^dZhdͻZͲϭϯKh^d/dd/E^h>͘dKddKDK& ͘:K/^d^W ͘^z^d DEKd ^D d>ZKK&^^ D>z͗ͻ^dE/E'^ DWZ &/E/^, D d>ZKK&/E'͕Ks Zͻd/dE/hDhE Z>zD EdW ZDEh&dhZ Z͕ͻ/ Etd ZD DZE >z ZǁͬD d>&>^,/E';D/E͘Ϯϰ'͘'>s͘^d >Ϳds>> z^Ehdd/E't>>^W Z^DEZ KDD Ed/KE^͕Ed s ^ yd E/E'ϯϲΗ zKEKhd^/ & K&^dh͕KEͻZKK& <^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻtKK&ZD/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕ͻD/E͘ZͲϰϵ/E^h>d/KEKs ZKE/d/KE ^W ^^K&&/d^^ϭ/^>/D Z͗^z^d DEKd ^Z D EddK ^/^K& ^/'EͲKEdZdKZ;^Ϳh>d/Dd >zZ ^WKE^/> &KZd, ^dZhdhZ>EKd, Zt/^ /Ed 'Z/dzK&d, WZ ^Z/ ^zd D^ ^Z/ >Kt^W,>d^,/E'> ZKK&^^ D>z͗ͻKDWK^/d ^W,>d^,/E'> ZKK&/E'͕Ks Zͻd/dE/hDhE Z>zD EdW ZDEh&dhZ Z͕ͻ/ Etd ZD DZE >z Z&KZ s ^dKϯΖͲϬΗ/E^/ yd Z/KZh/>/E'& D ^hZ ,KZ/KEd>>zEs>> z^ǁͬD d>&>^,/E';D/E͘Ϯϰ'͘'>s͘^d >Ϳds>> z^Ehdd/E't>>^W Z^DEZ KDD Ed/KE^͕KEͻZKK& <^, d,/E'W Z^dZhd͕Ks ZͻtKK&ZD/E'͕Z ͗^dZhdͻD/E͘ZͲϰϵ/E^h>d/KEKs ZKE/d/KE ^W ^ZϮtϰs Zd/>>W^//E'^^ D>z͗ͻdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕ϯͬϴΗ'ZKKs ΛϴΗK͕͘Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,KW E/E'^W ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^͕Ks ZͻϭͬϮΗEKD͘K^^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϮdžϲEKD͘tKK^dh&ZD/E'͕ͻZͲϮϭD/E͘>K^ >>^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KEͻϭ>z ZϭͬϮΗ'zW^hD͕d ydhZ EW/Ed Z ͗/Ed Z/KZ^Z/<s E Z^^ D>z͗ͻ&h>>Z/<s E Z͕&/>>>>:K/Ed^t/d,DKZdZ͕dKK> Θ&/E/^, ͻh^ WZ &KZD Khd^/ KZE Z^K&sZz/E'^/ ^ͻ&h>>zhdd Zd, <^K&^dKE ^ͻdh<WK/Ed>>:K/Ed^&h>>ǁͬDKZdZ͕dKK> Θ&/E/^, ͕Ks ZͻWKZd>E D Ed^ dd/E' ͕Ks Zͻ'>sE/ D d>>d,dd, tͬ'>sE/ ^ >&Ͳ&hZZ/E'E/>^d,Zh^, d,/E'dK^dh^͕Ks Zͻϭ>z ZϯϬηh/>/E'& >d^>/W^, d͕Ks Zͻdzs <,KD tZW/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^͕KEͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘&ϯZ/Ed, dͬ^>KE'Z ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZZ ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks ZͻϱΗKE^>ǁͬ,zZKE/Z/Eddh , d/E'^z^d DW ZD ,KE'Z Z /E&W Z^dZhd͕͘:͘ΖƐW Z^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϭϱD/>sWKZZZ/ Z͕KEͻϮΗZͲϭϬZ/'//E^h>d/KEͻϰΗ>z ZK&> EͲ'Z 'Zs >͕Ks Zͻ^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZdͻ&/>>>>:K/Ed^/E^>t/d,^ >Ed&ϱ&>dtKZ<^^ D>z͗ͻϰΗ yd͘KEZ d ^>KE'Z Z /E&͘tͬ&/ ZD ^,͕^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZd&ϲ <^^ D>z͗ͻϮdžϲ͘&/ZdΘ'tKK <͕KEͻ^K>/tKK <:K/^d^W Z^dZhds Ed WE >^^ D>z͗ͻϰΖdžϴΖdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd s Ed ^K&&/dWE >^ͻϭϬ^Y/EK&s Ed/>d/KEW Z>/E Z&d;s Ed ^K&&/dWE >^Λ ' ^K&ZKK&^Ks Z/E^h>d ^W ^Ϳ&ϭtKK&ZD ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZ/E'Z ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks Zͻ^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks Zͻ^K>/t tKKd:/&>KKZ:K/^d^W Z^dZhdͻZͲϭϯKh^d/dd/E^h>͘dKddKDK& ͘:K/^d^W ͘&ϰ^>KE'Z ^^ D>z͗ͻϰΗKE^>KE'Z Z /E&W Z^dZhd͕͘:͘ΖƐW Z^dZhd͕Ks Zͻt > t/Z ͻϮΗZͲϭϬZ/'//E^h>d/KEͻϰΗ>z ZK&> EͲ'Z 'Zs >͕Ks Zͻ^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZdͻsWKZZZ/ Zͻ&/>>>>:K/Ed^/E^>t/d,^ >EdtϮ Z^,< ^^ D>z͗ͻ/E/s/h> Z^,< ^//E'͕^d/E ͬ^ > ͕Ks ZͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘tϯ KZ^^ D>z͗ͻ KZWE >^//E'͕Ks ZͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘tϱ'Z' >W^//E'^^ D>z͗ͻ^DKKd, D Ed/d/Kh^͕Dy͘ϱΗZ s >>W^//E'͕Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,KW E/E'^W ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^͕Ks ZͻϭϭͬϮΗZͲϱKEd/EhKh^Z/'//E^h>d/KEͻϭͬϮΗEKD͘K^^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϮdžϲEKD͘tKK^dh&ZD/E'͕ͻZͲϮϭD/E͘>K^ >>^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KEͻϭ>z ZϭͬϮΗ'zW^hD͕d ydhZ EW/Ed Z ͗/Ed Z/KZ^&^/^^ D>z͗ͻϭdžϲdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕Ks ZͻϭyϭϮdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,^Z YΖW ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^ZϯZ&d/E'^zDK>^Zt/E'/E/dKZt>>^ d/KEKZ d/>h/>/E'^ d/KEKKZd' > sd/KEd't/EKtd'K>hDE'Z/^ZKKDd'^z^d Dd'Zt/E'd/d> Zt/E'EhD Z^> Zt/E'EhD ZDK/&/ Z^, dEhD Z^, dEhD ZZt/E'EhD Z$10152201$0(ϭtϭϭϴ͘ϭ;^ ^z^d D^EKd ^&KZ ^Z/Wd/KEͿ ^^KZzd' />/E'd'ϭϴΖͲϲΗ͘&͘&͘ />/E'dzW ;^ ^z^d D^EKd ^Ϳ />/E', /',dKs &>KKZϭ DKW>E^> ͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬ͘Ϭϭ^/D͘Zt/E'EhD ZDK/&/ Z^, dEhD ZϬ͘ϬϭdzW͘K dZ ^, h> K ^͗ϮϬϭϴ/͘Z͘͘ǁͬ>K>DD ED Ed^ϮϬϭϴ/͘&͘͘ϮϬϭϴ/͘ ͘͘͘ZKK&͗D/EZͲϰϵt>>^͗D/EZͲϮϬ^ D Edt>>^͗D/EZͲϭϯt/EKthͲs>h ͗Dy͘ϯϬĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ϴϮϭtŚĞĚďĞĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐK^ŝƚĞƌĞĂ͗dKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗KŶĞͲ&ĂŵŝůLJǁĞůůŝŶŐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶdLJƉĞ͗sͲEƵŵďĞƌŽĨ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐ͗dǁŽ^ƚŽƌŝĞƐнĂƐĞŵĞŶƚZ ^/ E 'ZK^^Z ED Z ^ D EdD/E> s >hWW Z> s >ϭϮϴϵ^&ϭϮϵϱ^&ϵϯϯ^&dKd>͗ϯϱϭϳ^&'Z' 'ZK^^Z ED Z 'ZKhE> s >EͬdKd>͗dždždž^&EKd ͗>>Z/D:K/^d^E:K/E/E'W>d ^^,>> /ZͲ^ > E/E^h>d h^/E'^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KEdKD/EZͲϭϱ͘Z s/d/KE^^zDK>^͗Ζ& dΗ/E, ^ηWKhE;^ͿŽƌEhD ZΘEнͬͲW>h^KZD/Eh^ΛdZ s/d/KE^͗:: EdŽƌ:h^d> &&Ks &/E/^, &>KKZ>d>d ZEd Z,Z,/d dŽƌZ,/d dhZ>hdKhdKDd/t/ZEt d, ZZZ/ ZKZ d dt EKKddKDK&/E d> Ed Z>/E >Z> ZDhKEZ d D^KEZzhE/d^KEKEZ d >Kh> DK DK>/d/KEŽƌ DK>/^, Wd WZdD Ed//D d Z/D/D E^/KE/^W/^W E^ ZEKtE^KtE^WKhdt/^,t^, Zt'Zt/E'; Ϳ y/^d/E' ^d , > > dZ/>Žƌ > dZ/d/E Y Yh> Yh/W Yh/WdD Ed yd yd Z/KZ&&>KKZZ/E&>Z&>KKZ&K& K&&KhE&KhEd/KE&d&KKdŽƌ& d&d'&KKd/E'&hZZ&hZZ/E'''h' '>s'>s E/ '' E Z>KEdZdKZ''Z' /^WK^>' Kd ,' Kd ,E/>'>'>^^Žƌ'>/E''>h>D'>h >D/Ed 'zW'zW^hD,,K^ /,'d, /',d,KZ/,KZ/KEd>,Z,KhZ/ /Ed ZEd/KE> E Z'zKE^ Zsd/KEK /E/E,KZ/E, ^/E>/E>h/E'/E^h>/E^h>d/KE/Ed/Ed Z/KZ/W/Ed ZEd/KE>W>hD/E'K >^>>D/Ed ^dZE>hD Z>d>/',d>s>>D/Ed s E Z>hD ZDyDy/DhDD ,D ,E/>D&ZDEh&dhZ ZD/ED/Ehd ŽƌD/E/DhDD/^D/^ >>E Kh^DW,D/> ^W Z,KhZDd>D d>EEKZd,EKDEKD/E>Ed^EKddK^> KKE Ed ZK^KZ/ Ed ^dZEKZW>zW>ztKKWZ &/EWZ &/E/^, WdW/EdZZ/h^ZWZ &> d />/E'W>EZ Z & ZŽƌZ & Z E Z &Z &Z/' ZdKZZ /E&Z /E&KZ Z YZ Yh/Z ^^Khd,^, ^, h> ^ d^ d/KE^&^YhZ & dŽƌ^YhZ &KKd' ^/D^/Dh>Z^W ^W /&/d/KE;ƐͿ^dZhd^dZhdhZ>Žƌ^dZhdhZ ^h^hKEdZdKZdΘ'dKE'h E'ZKKs ddK d ZD/E d,Zhd,ZKh',dKdKWK&dzWdzW/>hE&/EhE&/E/^, hEKhE> ^^EKd Kd, Zt/^ ssWKZZZ/ Ztt ^dtͬt/d,tͬKt/d,KhdttKKt&t/ &>E' tEt/EKttWtd ZWZKK&Žƌtd ZWZKK&/E'WZK: d/Z dKZzKtE Z> yΘ>>/^KE<>h'ϴϮϭt, ^dZ d͕&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^Z,/d dhZ> ^/'E ZϭϭϲEK>> ' s ͕^h/d ηϱ͕&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ;ϵϳϬͿϳϵϳͲϮϯϱϰƉĂƵůΛĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵKEdd͗WĂƵů ƐƉŽƐƚŝKEdZdKZ&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^ϭϭϲEK>> ' s ͕^h/d ηϱ͕&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ;ϵϳϬͿϳϵϳͲϮϯϱϰũŽƌĚĂŶΛĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵKEdd͗:ŽƌĚĂŶKďĞƌŵĂŶŶ/Ed Z/KZ ^/'E Z&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^ϭϭϲEK>> ' s ͕^h/d ηϱ͕&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ;ϵϳϬͿϳϵϳͲϮϯϱϰůŝǀΛĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵKEdd͗>ŝǀůƵŵďĞƌŐ^dZhdhZ>d^dZhdhZ> E'/E Z/E'ϮϵϬϵKy&KZKhZd͕&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϯϳϮͲϭϭϰϬǁĞŶĚLJĚΛƚĚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů͘ĐŽŵKEdd͗tĞŶĚLJǁŽƌĂŬs//E/dzDW W>hD^dt, ^d>Kh^d^dϴϮϭt, ^dZ d>> zdd/E^h>d/KEKEZ d D^KEZzhE/dZ/<Z/'//E^h>d/KE'zW^hDͬDKZZZͬ^dhKW>ztKKtKK/D E^/KE>hD ZtKK>K</E'E tt>>KZWZd/d/KE^dKE KZ^zEd, d/^dKE KEZ d ^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KE Zd,'Zs >tKK&/E/^,>hD Z>KtEͲ/E/E^h>d/KEDd Z/>^> ' E y/^d/E't>>KZWZd/d/KEK^ϭϭϲEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϱ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰƉŚ͗ϵϳϬ͘ϳϵϳ͘ϮϯϱϰZt/E'EhD Z͗^ >͗^WKE^ Z^,/W͗d, ^ Zt/E'^Z d, WZKW ZdzK&&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^͘zKh, Z z'Z EhE Zd< zKht/>>EKd/EEztzhd/>/ ͕KWz͕Z WZKh ͕KZd< sEd' K&d, Zt/E'^;KZEzWZdK&d, DͿWZ/KZdKtZ/dd EKE^ Edz&KZ' нKt͘>>Z/',d^Z ^ Zs ͘KWzZ/',d͗/ƐƐƵĞĚEŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞϭZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐϯϰϱϲĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞǁǁǁ͘ĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵZ t/E'^ Ͳ EKd &K Z KE^ d Z h d /KEϮEŽ͘ϱͬϮϱͬϮϬϮϭϭϭ͗Ϭϵ͗ϰϭD<>h'Z ^/ E ŽŶt, ^dZ dWZ/>ϭϮ͕ϮϬϮϭϬ͘Ϭ/E y^, d<>h'Z ^/ E ϴϮϭt, ^dZ d&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ^, Dd/ ^/'E/^^h &KZZ s/ tϬ͘Ϭ /E y^, dϬ͘ϭ Z,/d dhZ>^/d W>Eϭ͘Ϭ >Kt Z> s >W>Eϭ͘ϭ D/E> s >W>Eϭ͘Ϯ hWW Z> s >W>EϮ͘Ϭ >Kt Z> s > DKW>EϮ͘ϭ D/E> s > DKW>Eϯ͘Ϭ >Kt Z> s >Z &> d />/E'W>Eϯ͘ϭ D/E> s >Z &> d />/E'W>Eϯ͘Ϯ hWW Z> s >Z &> d />/E'W>Eϰ͘Ϭ ZKK&W>Eϱ͘Ϭ yd Z/KZ > sd/KE^ϱ͘ϭ yd Z/KZ > sd/KE^Zt/E'/E yZ,/d dhZ /Ed Z/KZ^^dZhdhZ>ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 110 MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"BEAR'G IEL. = 8' - 6"BEAR'G IEL. = 8' - 6"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8"BEAR'G IIEL. = 15' - 3 5/8"BEAR'G IIEL. = 15' - 3 5/8"12" / 12"4" / 12"͘&/Z>/E' y/^d/E'^//E'ϲΗdžϲΗ ZWK^ddzW ^/E'> ,hE't/EKtdzWϲΗdžϲΗ ZKZ >dzWϭΗdžϮΗDd>Z/>tͬϯͬϰΗDd>>h^d Z^tϭZϮZϯϭdžϲKs ZϭyϭϮ Z KZd/s EEL. = 29' - 5"MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"BEAR'G IEL. = 8' - 6"BEAR'G IEL. = 8' - 6"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8"BEAR'G IIEL. = 15' - 3 5/8"BEAR'G IIEL. = 15' - 3 5/8"4" / 12"12" / 12" y/^d/E'^//E'ϲΗdžϲΗ ZKZ >dzWϭΗdžϮΗDd>Z/>tͬϯͬϰΗDd>>h^d Z^tϭtϭtϮZϯϭdžϲKs ZϭyϭϮ Z KZd/s EZKK&^&>KKZ^ yd Z/KZt>>^&Ϯtϭ />/E'^Zϭϭ'zW^hDKZ^^ D>z͗ͻ'zW^hDKZ;ϱͬϴΗΛ͘K͘ZKK&^͕ϭͬϮΗΛ͘K͘&>KKZ^Ϳͻh^ WKyzW/EdKE />/E'^/E^,Kt Z^͕KEͻtKK&ZD/E'W ZW>EZ/Ed, dͬtKK&ZD ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZ/E'Z ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks ZͻϭϭͬϮΗ'zWZ d dKWW/E'ǁͬ,zZKE/Z/Eddh , d/E'^z^d DW ZD ,͕KEͻ&>KKZ <^, d,/E'W Z^dZhd͕Ks Zͻ^K>/t tKKd:/&>KKZ:K/^d^W Z^dZhdͻZͲϭϯKh^d/dd/E^h>͘dKddKDK& ͘:K/^d^W ͘^z^d DEKd ^D d>ZKK&^^ D>z͗ͻ^dE/E'^ DWZ &/E/^, D d>ZKK&/E'͕Ks Zͻd/dE/hDhE Z>zD EdW ZDEh&dhZ Z͕ͻ/ Etd ZD DZE >z ZǁͬD d>&>^,/E';D/E͘Ϯϰ'͘'>s͘^d >Ϳds>> z^Ehdd/E't>>^W Z^DEZ KDD Ed/KE^͕Ed s ^ yd E/E'ϯϲΗ zKEKhd^/ & K&^dh͕KEͻZKK& <^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻtKK&ZD/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕ͻD/E͘ZͲϰϵ/E^h>d/KEKs ZKE/d/KE ^W ^^K&&/d^^ϭ/^>/D Z͗^z^d DEKd ^Z D EddK ^/^K& ^/'EͲKEdZdKZ;^Ϳh>d/Dd >zZ ^WKE^/> &KZd, ^dZhdhZ>EKd, Zt/^ /Ed 'Z/dzK&d, WZ ^Z/ ^zd D^ ^Z/ >Kt^W,>d^,/E'> ZKK&^^ D>z͗ͻKDWK^/d ^W,>d^,/E'> ZKK&/E'͕Ks Zͻd/dE/hDhE Z>zD EdW ZDEh&dhZ Z͕ͻ/ Etd ZD DZE >z Z&KZ s ^dKϯΖͲϬΗ/E^/ yd Z/KZh/>/E'& D ^hZ ,KZ/KEd>>zEs>> z^ǁͬD d>&>^,/E';D/E͘Ϯϰ'͘'>s͘^d >Ϳds>> z^Ehdd/E't>>^W Z^DEZ KDD Ed/KE^͕KEͻZKK& <^, d,/E'W Z^dZhd͕Ks ZͻtKK&ZD/E'͕Z ͗^dZhdͻD/E͘ZͲϰϵ/E^h>d/KEKs ZKE/d/KE ^W ^ZϮtϰs Zd/>>W^//E'^^ D>z͗ͻdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕ϯͬϴΗ'ZKKs ΛϴΗK͕͘Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,KW E/E'^W ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^͕Ks ZͻϭͬϮΗEKD͘K^^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϮdžϲEKD͘tKK^dh&ZD/E'͕ͻZͲϮϭD/E͘>K^ >>^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KEͻϭ>z ZϭͬϮΗ'zW^hD͕d ydhZ EW/Ed Z ͗/Ed Z/KZ^Z/<s E Z^^ D>z͗ͻ&h>>Z/<s E Z͕&/>>>>:K/Ed^t/d,DKZdZ͕dKK> Θ&/E/^, ͻh^ WZ &KZD Khd^/ KZE Z^K&sZz/E'^/ ^ͻ&h>>zhdd Zd, <^K&^dKE ^ͻdh<WK/Ed>>:K/Ed^&h>>ǁͬDKZdZ͕dKK> Θ&/E/^, ͕Ks ZͻWKZd>E D Ed^ dd/E' ͕Ks Zͻ'>sE/ D d>>d,dd, tͬ'>sE/ ^ >&Ͳ&hZZ/E'E/>^d,Zh^, d,/E'dK^dh^͕Ks Zͻϭ>z ZϯϬηh/>/E'& >d^>/W^, d͕Ks Zͻdzs <,KD tZW/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^͕KEͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘&ϯZ/Ed, dͬ^>KE'Z ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZZ ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks ZͻϱΗKE^>ǁͬ,zZKE/Z/Eddh , d/E'^z^d DW ZD ,KE'Z Z /E&W Z^dZhd͕͘:͘ΖƐW Z^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϭϱD/>sWKZZZ/ Z͕KEͻϮΗZͲϭϬZ/'//E^h>d/KEͻϰΗ>z ZK&> EͲ'Z 'Zs >͕Ks Zͻ^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZdͻ&/>>>>:K/Ed^/E^>t/d,^ >Ed&ϱ&>dtKZ<^^ D>z͗ͻϰΗ yd͘KEZ d ^>KE'Z Z /E&͘tͬ&/ ZD ^,͕^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZd&ϲ <^^ D>z͗ͻϮdžϲ͘&/ZdΘ'tKK <͕KEͻ^K>/tKK <:K/^d^W Z^dZhds Ed WE >^^ D>z͗ͻϰΖdžϴΖdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd s Ed ^K&&/dWE >^ͻϭϬ^Y/EK&s Ed/>d/KEW Z>/E Z&d;s Ed ^K&&/dWE >^Λ ' ^K&ZKK&^Ks Z/E^h>d ^W ^Ϳ&ϭtKK&ZD ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZ/E'Z ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks Zͻ^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks Zͻ^K>/t tKKd:/&>KKZ:K/^d^W Z^dZhdͻZͲϭϯKh^d/dd/E^h>͘dKddKDK& ͘:K/^d^W ͘&ϰ^>KE'Z ^^ D>z͗ͻϰΗKE^>KE'Z Z /E&W Z^dZhd͕͘:͘ΖƐW Z^dZhd͕Ks Zͻt > t/Z ͻϮΗZͲϭϬZ/'//E^h>d/KEͻϰΗ>z ZK&> EͲ'Z 'Zs >͕Ks Zͻ^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZdͻsWKZZZ/ Zͻ&/>>>>:K/Ed^/E^>t/d,^ >EdtϮ Z^,< ^^ D>z͗ͻ/E/s/h> Z^,< ^//E'͕^d/E ͬ^ > ͕Ks ZͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘tϯ KZ^^ D>z͗ͻ KZWE >^//E'͕Ks ZͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘tϱ'Z' >W^//E'^^ D>z͗ͻ^DKKd, D Ed/d/Kh^͕Dy͘ϱΗZ s >>W^//E'͕Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,KW E/E'^W ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^͕Ks ZͻϭϭͬϮΗZͲϱKEd/EhKh^Z/'//E^h>d/KEͻϭͬϮΗEKD͘K^^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϮdžϲEKD͘tKK^dh&ZD/E'͕ͻZͲϮϭD/E͘>K^ >>^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KEͻϭ>z ZϭͬϮΗ'zW^hD͕d ydhZ EW/Ed Z ͗/Ed Z/KZ^&^/^^ D>z͗ͻϭdžϲdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕Ks ZͻϭyϭϮdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,^Z YΖW ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^ZϯϭϭϲEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϱ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰƉŚ͗ϵϳϬ͘ϳϵϳ͘ϮϯϱϰZt/E'EhD Z͗^ >͗^WKE^ Z^,/W͗d, ^ Zt/E'^Z d, WZKW ZdzK&&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^͘zKh, Z z'Z EhE Zd< zKht/>>EKd/EEztzhd/>/ ͕KWz͕Z WZKh ͕KZd< sEd' K&d, Zt/E'^;KZEzWZdK&d, DͿWZ/KZdKtZ/dd EKE^ Edz&KZ' нKt͘>>Z/',d^Z ^ Zs ͘KWzZ/',d͗/ƐƐƵĞĚEŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϭZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐϯϰϱϲĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞǁǁǁ͘ĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵZ t/E'^ Ͳ EKd &K Z KE^ d Z h d /KEϮEŽ͘ϱͬϮϱͬϮϬϮϭϭϭ͗Ϭϵ͗ϱϬDϱ͘Ϭ yd Z/KZ > sd/KE^<>h'Z ^/ E ϴϮϭt, ^dZ d&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ^, Dd/ ^/'E/^^h &KZZ s/ t^> ͗ ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ&ZKEd > sd/KE^> ͗ ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮZ Z > sd/KEITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 111 MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8"3 1/2" / 12"12" / 12" 12" / 12"͘&/Z>/E' y/^d/E'^//E'^/E'> ,hE't/EKtdzWϲΗdžϲΗ ZKZ >dzWϭΗdžϮΗDd>Z/>tͬϯͬϰΗDd>>h^d Z^ZϭZϭtϭtϮZϮZϭtϭEL. = 29' - 5"EL. = 17' - 3 7/8"MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"MAIN LEVELEL. = 0' - 0"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8"UPPER LEVELEL. = 9' - 6 5/8" 12" / 12"͘&/Z>/E' y/^d/E'^//E'ϲΗdžϲΗ ZKZ >dzWϭΗdžϮΗDd>Z/>tͬϯͬϰΗDd>>h^d Z^ZϭtϭZϮZϯZϭtϮtϭZϮZϮZKK&^&>KKZ^ yd Z/KZt>>^&Ϯtϭ />/E'^Zϭϭ'zW^hDKZ^^ D>z͗ͻ'zW^hDKZ;ϱͬϴΗΛ͘K͘ZKK&^͕ϭͬϮΗΛ͘K͘&>KKZ^Ϳͻh^ WKyzW/EdKE />/E'^/E^,Kt Z^͕KEͻtKK&ZD/E'W ZW>EZ/Ed, dͬtKK&ZD ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZ/E'Z ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks ZͻϭϭͬϮΗ'zWZ d dKWW/E'ǁͬ,zZKE/Z/Eddh , d/E'^z^d DW ZD ,͕KEͻ&>KKZ <^, d,/E'W Z^dZhd͕Ks Zͻ^K>/t tKKd:/&>KKZ:K/^d^W Z^dZhdͻZͲϭϯKh^d/dd/E^h>͘dKddKDK& ͘:K/^d^W ͘^z^d DEKd ^D d>ZKK&^^ D>z͗ͻ^dE/E'^ DWZ &/E/^, D d>ZKK&/E'͕Ks Zͻd/dE/hDhE Z>zD EdW ZDEh&dhZ Z͕ͻ/ Etd ZD DZE >z ZǁͬD d>&>^,/E';D/E͘Ϯϰ'͘'>s͘^d >Ϳds>> z^Ehdd/E't>>^W Z^DEZ KDD Ed/KE^͕Ed s ^ yd E/E'ϯϲΗ zKEKhd^/ & K&^dh͕KEͻZKK& <^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻtKK&ZD/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕ͻD/E͘ZͲϰϵ/E^h>d/KEKs ZKE/d/KE ^W ^^K&&/d^^ϭ/^>/D Z͗^z^d DEKd ^Z D EddK ^/^K& ^/'EͲKEdZdKZ;^Ϳh>d/Dd >zZ ^WKE^/> &KZd, ^dZhdhZ>EKd, Zt/^ /Ed 'Z/dzK&d, WZ ^Z/ ^zd D^ ^Z/ >Kt^W,>d^,/E'> ZKK&^^ D>z͗ͻKDWK^/d ^W,>d^,/E'> ZKK&/E'͕Ks Zͻd/dE/hDhE Z>zD EdW ZDEh&dhZ Z͕ͻ/ Etd ZD DZE >z Z&KZ s ^dKϯΖͲϬΗ/E^/ yd Z/KZh/>/E'& D ^hZ ,KZ/KEd>>zEs>> z^ǁͬD d>&>^,/E';D/E͘Ϯϰ'͘'>s͘^d >Ϳds>> z^Ehdd/E't>>^W Z^DEZ KDD Ed/KE^͕KEͻZKK& <^, d,/E'W Z^dZhd͕Ks ZͻtKK&ZD/E'͕Z ͗^dZhdͻD/E͘ZͲϰϵ/E^h>d/KEKs ZKE/d/KE ^W ^ZϮtϰs Zd/>>W^//E'^^ D>z͗ͻdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕ϯͬϴΗ'ZKKs ΛϴΗK͕͘Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,KW E/E'^W ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^͕Ks ZͻϭͬϮΗEKD͘K^^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϮdžϲEKD͘tKK^dh&ZD/E'͕ͻZͲϮϭD/E͘>K^ >>^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KEͻϭ>z ZϭͬϮΗ'zW^hD͕d ydhZ EW/Ed Z ͗/Ed Z/KZ^Z/<s E Z^^ D>z͗ͻ&h>>Z/<s E Z͕&/>>>>:K/Ed^t/d,DKZdZ͕dKK> Θ&/E/^, ͻh^ WZ &KZD Khd^/ KZE Z^K&sZz/E'^/ ^ͻ&h>>zhdd Zd, <^K&^dKE ^ͻdh<WK/Ed>>:K/Ed^&h>>ǁͬDKZdZ͕dKK> Θ&/E/^, ͕Ks ZͻWKZd>E D Ed^ dd/E' ͕Ks Zͻ'>sE/ D d>>d,dd, tͬ'>sE/ ^ >&Ͳ&hZZ/E'E/>^d,Zh^, d,/E'dK^dh^͕Ks Zͻϭ>z ZϯϬηh/>/E'& >d^>/W^, d͕Ks Zͻdzs <,KD tZW/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^͕KEͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘&ϯZ/Ed, dͬ^>KE'Z ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZZ ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks ZͻϱΗKE^>ǁͬ,zZKE/Z/Eddh , d/E'^z^d DW ZD ,KE'Z Z /E&W Z^dZhd͕͘:͘ΖƐW Z^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϭϱD/>sWKZZZ/ Z͕KEͻϮΗZͲϭϬZ/'//E^h>d/KEͻϰΗ>z ZK&> EͲ'Z 'Zs >͕Ks Zͻ^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZdͻ&/>>>>:K/Ed^/E^>t/d,^ >Ed&ϱ&>dtKZ<^^ D>z͗ͻϰΗ yd͘KEZ d ^>KE'Z Z /E&͘tͬ&/ ZD ^,͕^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZd&ϲ <^^ D>z͗ͻϮdžϲ͘&/ZdΘ'tKK <͕KEͻ^K>/tKK <:K/^d^W Z^dZhds Ed WE >^^ D>z͗ͻϰΖdžϴΖdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd s Ed ^K&&/dWE >^ͻϭϬ^Y/EK&s Ed/>d/KEW Z>/E Z&d;s Ed ^K&&/dWE >^Λ ' ^K&ZKK&^Ks Z/E^h>d ^W ^Ϳ&ϭtKK&ZD ^^ D>z͗ͻ&/E/^,&>KKZ/E'Z ͗^ > d/KE^, d^͕Ks Zͻ^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks Zͻ^K>/t tKKd:/&>KKZ:K/^d^W Z^dZhdͻZͲϭϯKh^d/dd/E^h>͘dKddKDK& ͘:K/^d^W ͘&ϰ^>KE'Z ^^ D>z͗ͻϰΗKE^>KE'Z Z /E&W Z^dZhd͕͘:͘ΖƐW Z^dZhd͕Ks Zͻt > t/Z ͻϮΗZͲϭϬZ/'//E^h>d/KEͻϰΗ>z ZK&> EͲ'Z 'Zs >͕Ks Zͻ^h'Z WZ WW ZZ KDD Ed/KE^K&' Kd ,E/>Z WKZdͻsWKZZZ/ Zͻ&/>>>>:K/Ed^/E^>t/d,^ >EdtϮ Z^,< ^^ D>z͗ͻ/E/s/h> Z^,< ^//E'͕^d/E ͬ^ > ͕Ks ZͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘tϯ KZ^^ D>z͗ͻ KZWE >^//E'͕Ks ZͻͲ>E K&t>>dzW tϭ͘tϱ'Z' >W^//E'^^ D>z͗ͻ^DKKd, D Ed/d/Kh^͕Dy͘ϱΗZ s >>W^//E'͕Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,KW E/E'^W ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^͕Ks ZͻϭϭͬϮΗZͲϱKEd/EhKh^Z/'//E^h>d/KEͻϭͬϮΗEKD͘K^^, d,/E'͕Z ͗^dZhd͕Ks ZͻϮdžϲEKD͘tKK^dh&ZD/E'͕ͻZͲϮϭD/E͘>K^ >>^WZz&KD/E^h>d/KEͻϭ>z ZϭͬϮΗ'zW^hD͕d ydhZ EW/Ed Z ͗/Ed Z/KZ^&^/^^ D>z͗ͻϭdžϲdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕Ks ZͻϭyϭϮdZ d E'/E Z t^dZE^h^dZd ͕Ks Zͻ/ZΘt d, ZZZ/ Z͕dW >>^ D^ΘW E dZd/KE^͕&>^,^Z YΖW ZDEh&dhZ Z/E^dZhd/KE^ZϯϭϭϲEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϱ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰƉŚ͗ϵϳϬ͘ϳϵϳ͘ϮϯϱϰZt/E'EhD Z͗^ >͗^WKE^ Z^,/W͗d, ^ Zt/E'^Z d, WZKW ZdzK&&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^͘zKh, Z z'Z EhE Zd< zKht/>>EKd/EEztzhd/>/ ͕KWz͕Z WZKh ͕KZd< sEd' K&d, Zt/E'^;KZEzWZdK&d, DͿWZ/KZdKtZ/dd EKE^ Edz&KZ' нKt͘>>Z/',d^Z ^ Zs ͘KWzZ/',d͗/ƐƐƵĞĚEŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϭZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐϯϰϱϲĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞǁǁǁ͘ĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵZ t/E'^ Ͳ EKd &K Z KE^ d Z h d /KEϮEŽ͘ϱͬϮϱͬϮϬϮϭϭϭ͗Ϭϵ͗ϱϰDϱ͘ϭ yd Z/KZ > sd/KE^<>h'Z ^/ E ϴϮϭt, ^dZ d&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ^, Dd/ ^/'E/^^h &KZZ s/ t^> ͗ ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ> &d > sd/KE^> ͗ ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮZ/',d > sd/KEITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 112 '^tKϮϳ͘ϵΖϭϵ͘ϵΖϳ͘ϱΖ Ϯ͘ϭΖ ϭϮ͘ϰΖ ϭϲ͘ϰΖ'Z' ϮϬϯ^&D/E> s >ϭϮϵϱ^&Ks Z WKZ,Ϯϭϰ^&ϴϵΣϱϱΖϬϰΗϭϵϬ͘ϬϬΖ^ ϴϵΣϱϱΖϭϮΗϭϵϬ͘ϬϬΖEtϬΣϬϯΖϮϬΗ ϱϬ͘ϬϬΖ E ϬΣϬϯΖϮϯΗ ϰϵ͘ϵϵΖ ^t 'Z ^^ >Kt'Z KW EWd/KϮϮϬ^&>/E K&,>&>Kd /DWZKs D Ed^hZs zW>dϴϮϭt, ^dZ d>Kdϯ͕>K<ϭϱϴ͕&KZdK>>/E^^/dhd /Ed, EKZd,t ^dYhZd ZK&^ d/KEϭϯ͕dKtE^,/WϳEKZd,͕ZE' ϲϵt ^dK&d, ϲd,W͘D͘t, ^dZ d ;ϭϬϬΖZKtͿ >> z ;ϮϬΖZKtͿ >Kdϯϵ͕ϰϵϵ^&ϭϬϱ͘ϰΖϭϲ͘ϲΖK,h &Kt '^^, ϲϵ^&ϴ͘ϯΖ ϴ͘ϯΖ >/E K& y/^d/E'>/E K&ZKK&&KhEηϰZ ZtͬKW>^ϱϬϮϴ&KhEηϰZ Z&KhEηϰZ ZtͬZ W>^d/W>^ϯϴϯϰϴ&KhEηϰZ ZtͬZ W>^d/W>^ϯϴϯϰϴ^dKKW^ǁ ŽWZK: dEKZd,ϭϭϲEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϱ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰƉŚ͗ϵϳϬ͘ϳϵϳ͘ϮϯϱϰZt/E'EhD Z͗^ >͗^WKE^ Z^,/W͗d, ^ Zt/E'^Z d, WZKW ZdzK&&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^͘zKh, Z z'Z EhE Zd< zKht/>>EKd/EEztzhd/>/ ͕KWz͕Z WZKh ͕KZd< sEd' K&d, Zt/E'^;KZEzWZdK&d, DͿWZ/KZdKtZ/dd EKE^ Edz&KZ' нKt͘>>Z/',d^Z ^ Zs ͘KWzZ/',d͗/ƐƐƵĞĚEŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞϭZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐϯϰϱϲĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞǁǁǁ͘ĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵZ t/E'^ Ͳ EKd &K Z KE^ d Z h d /KEϮdZh EKZd,EŽ͘ϲͬϭͬϮϬϮϭϰ͗ϰϰ͗ϰϭWDϬ͘ϭZ,/d dhZ>^/d W>E<>h'Z ^/ E ϴϮϭt, ^dZ d&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ^, Dd/ ^/'E/^^h &KZZ s/ tϮϬϮϭͲϬϲͲϬϭ^> ͗ϭΗсϭϬΖͲϬΗϭZ,/d dhZ>^/d W>EITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 113 WD REFWHFAUA5.01A5.11A5.02A5.12WZK: dEKZd,ϭϭϲEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϱ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰƉŚ͗ϵϳϬ͘ϳϵϳ͘ϮϯϱϰZt/E'EhD Z͗^ >͗^WKE^ Z^,/W͗d, ^ Zt/E'^Z d, WZKW ZdzK&&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^͘zKh, Z z'Z EhE Zd< zKht/>>EKd/EEztzhd/>/ ͕KWz͕Z WZKh ͕KZd< sEd' K&d, Zt/E'^;KZEzWZdK&d, DͿWZ/KZdKtZ/dd EKE^ Edz&KZ' нKt͘>>Z/',d^Z ^ Zs ͘KWzZ/',d͗/ƐƐƵĞĚEŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϭZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐϯϰϱϲĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞǁǁǁ͘ĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵZ t/E'^ Ͳ EKd &K Z KE^ d Z h d /KEϮdZh EKZd,EŽ͘ϲͬϭͬϮϬϮϭϰ͗ϰϰ͗ϰϮWDϮ͘Ϭ>Kt Z> s > DKW>E<>h'Z ^/ E ϴϮϭt, ^dZ d&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ^, Dd/ ^/'E/^^h &KZZ s/ tϮϬϮϭͲϬϲͲϬϭ^> ͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ>Kt Z> s > DKITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 114 REF A5.01A5.11A5.02A5.12WZK: dEKZd,ϭϭϲEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϱ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰƉŚ͗ϵϳϬ͘ϳϵϳ͘ϮϯϱϰZt/E'EhD Z͗^ >͗^WKE^ Z^,/W͗d, ^ Zt/E'^Z d, WZKW ZdzK&&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^͘zKh, Z z'Z EhE Zd< zKht/>>EKd/EEztzhd/>/ ͕KWz͕Z WZKh ͕KZd< sEd' K&d, Zt/E'^;KZEzWZdK&d, DͿWZ/KZdKtZ/dd EKE^ Edz&KZ' нKt͘>>Z/',d^Z ^ Zs ͘KWzZ/',d͗/ƐƐƵĞĚEŽ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ĂƚĞϭZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐϯϰϱϲĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞǁǁǁ͘ĨŽƌŐĞĂŶĚďŽǁ͘ĐŽŵZ t/E'^ Ͳ EKd &K Z KE^ d Z h d /KEϮdZh EKZd,EŽ͘ϲͬϭͬϮϬϮϭϰ͗ϰϰ͗ϰϮWDϮ͘ϭD/E> s > DKW>E<>h'Z ^/ E ϴϮϭt, ^dZ d&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰ^, Dd/ ^/'E/^^h &KZZ s/ tϮϬϮϭͲϬϲͲϬϭ^> ͗ ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭD/E> s > DKITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 115 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 116 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 117 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 118 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 119 6/3/2021 1 1Design Review (NRHP) – Renovation of 821 Whedbee St Historic Preservation Commission, June 16, 2021 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner 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 HPC 2 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 120 6/3/2021 2 Background • 1921 (circa) – Home constructed on the lot • 1925-1940 – Ferdinand and Lillie Zabel are the owner/occupants. • 1948-1956 – Schneiders and Rosselles are occupants; duplex use appears in directories • 1980 – Property listed in National Register (contributing to Laurel School Historic District) 3 Proposed Alterations 1. Demolition of the existing roof framing, front-gabled front porch, and certain elements of the exterior walls. 2. Renovation to include construction a second story and modification of the building from its historic Arts-and-Crafts period style to a neo-Victorian design. 3. Addition onto the rear of the property. 4 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 121 6/3/2021 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 – Overall Site & Demo 6 • Demolition of all roof framing • Demolition of rear addition • Demolition of some exterior walls • Demolition of front porch • Demolition of most surface concrete in landscape 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 122 6/3/2021 4 Proposed Alterations – East facade 7 Proposed Alterations – South Elevation 8 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 123 6/3/2021 5 Proposed Alterations – North Elevation 9 Proposed Alterations – West/Rear Elevation 10 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 124 6/3/2021 6 Staff Findings of Fact The Ferdinand & Lillie Zabel Property is a contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. The proposed renovation of 821 Whedbee 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. 11 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 HPC 12 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 125