Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/2022 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting City of HistoricCommission F6rt CollinsAGENDA Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair Margo Carlock This meeting will be held Walter Dunn remotely via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 5:30 PM 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://fcgov.zoom.us/'/99525863329. (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 995 2586 3329. 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(cbfcgov.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 abrennan6a 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. Page 1 Packet Pg. 1 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 The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda.Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda.Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately with Commission-pulled items considered before Discussion Items and Citizen-pulled items considered after Discussion Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: • Approval of Minutes • Items of no perceived controversy • Routine administrative actions 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2022. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 19, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Page 2 Packet Pg. 2 2. 741 LINDENMEIER RD—SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION The purpose of this item is to notify and inform residents of the possible demolition of a single family property over 50 years of age and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 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. 4. 1306 W MOUNTAIN AVE—FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants' project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and to issue, with or without conditions, or to deny, a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building, demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Alexandra Haggarty(legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at this time. • OTHER BUSINESS o Election of Officers (Chair and Vice Chair) • ADJOURNMENT Page 3 Packet Pg. 3 Roll Call&Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission Date: 2/16/2022 Roll Call Margo Walter Eric Kurt Anne Jim Rose Vacant Vacant Meg Vote Carlock Dunn Guenther Knierim Nelsen Seat Seat Dunn Present Present Present Present Present Present N/A N/A Absent 6 present, 1 absent Consent Agenda: 1)MINUTES OF JANUARY 19,2022 Eric Anne Walter Vacant Margo Vacant Kurt Meg 2)741 I INDENMEIER_SF IICRJA NOTIFICATION Jim Rose Guenther Nelsen Dunn Seat Carlock Seat Knierim Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - 6-0 4)1306 W MOUNTAIN AVE-FINAL DESIGN REVIEW Anne Walter Vacant Margo Vacant Kurt Eric Meg APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION OF 1968 GARAGE AND REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS Nelsen Dunn Seat Carlock Seat Knierim Jim Rose Guenther Dunn DENIAL OF ADDITION TO MAIN HOUSE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recused - 5-0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Visitor Log [This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.] DATE: 2/16/22 MailingName Address Phone Reason for Attendance Michelle Haefale Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Laura Bailey Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Gina Janett Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Kevin Cook Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Loretta Bailey Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Karen McWilliams Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Bill Whitley Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Shelly Terry Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Asma Henry Item 4— 1306 W Mountain Fred Snyder Item 4— 1306 W Mountain THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Aubrie Brennan at 970-416-4390 or abrennankfcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: 5 R� C' &U LOT14 C R Title: Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): MvW�L/W�J1\JS -0a1c GoLt, ��s .S l. 0 Brief statement of interest: N U (- i� I, o J �E N i w C S t 'P tw v L Date: Signature: REMOVAL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 97 Packet Pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 16, 2022 Historic - •n Commission STAFF Aubrielle Brennan, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2022 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 19, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC January 19, 2022 Minutes— DRAFT Item 1, Page 1 Packet Pg. 5 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 City of Historic Preservation F6rt Collins Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was held Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair Remotely via Zoom Margo Carlock Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting January 19, 2022 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Jim Rose ABSENT: Anne Nelsen STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Brad Yatabe, Aubrie Brennan *Secretary's note: Assistant City Attorney Brad Yatabe started as counsel for the meeting, due to Assistant City Attorney Claire Havelda's recusal on Item 3, 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. Chair Dunn introduced the new members of the HPC, Margo Carlock and Eric Guenther. All members of the HPC briefly introduced themselves. Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: "We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020." • AGENDA REVIEW There was a minor change to the Agenda that Mr. Bertolini would give a report on properties that recently came before the HPC, as requested by Chair Dunn. Historic Preservation Commission Pa_qe 1 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 6 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Bertolini reported on the status of 528 W. Mountain Avenue, the Jessie Moore house, and 1433 S. Overland Trail, the Maxwell Rock House. Council did not adopt the ordinance for the involuntary designation of 528 W Mountain and demolition would occur in the near future. 1433 S Overland Trail was adopted on first reading January 18,2022,and the second reading should be approved in February resulting in landmark status. Chair Dunn asked Staff about the change in the MLK Day Parade. Ms. Bzdek responded the route had been changed to go through a historically black neighborhood and past sites of African American historical significance to make the march more meaningful and avoid the difficult logistics of College Avenue. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp:5:47 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 15, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Knierim moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the December 15, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dunn clarified members can vote on minutes for meetings they did not attend, as long as they do not try to make corrections. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe agreed. [Timestamp: 5:48 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 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. Mr. Bertolini explained to new members this is usually a written report for review and does not have a presentation. These are mostly design reviews covered by Staff, as well as a few other actions covered by Staff. Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 7 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 3. 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE—CONCEPTUAL REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a 2nd round conceptual review of the applicants' project, identify key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Alexandra Haggarty (legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) Member Guenther recused himself from this item, due to being a directly adjacent neighbor to the property. He did not have a legal or financial interest. He had submitted a public comment as a private citizen and requested to observe the meeting as a member of the public. Chair Dunn disclosed she knew Bob Bailey, the former owner, as a member of the preservation community. Mr. Yatabe stated Member Guenther could attend this portion of the meeting as a private citizen and could give further public comment if he desired. Laura Bailey challenged Member Guenther's ability to attend as a private citizen if he was a member of the HPC. Mr. Yatabe clarified Member Guenther would not be serving as a Commissioner or voting on the item. She understood he would not be serving in both roles simultaneously, and she thought it made sense. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report for the conceptual review 1306 W Mountain Avenue was a City landmark. He noted a few pages of the report had not been corrected from a previous iteration, the site map and page 14, that had been corrected in the packet. The role of the HPC was to provide guidance to the Applicant on how the project could be improved to meet the Secretary of the Interior (SOI)Design Standards. This item originally came before the HPC for the March 2021 hearing but was continued at the Applicant's request due to a late-running meeting. Staff and Applicants had participated in several meetings since that time. The last and first time the HPC saw this item was a conceptual review in November 2021. The size of the addition had been reduced. There were elements of the design with which the HPC had not had issues in November that had been retained. The revision changed the design to attach to the home solely at the wood porch, saving the historic brick wall, but it still bumped out to the East. Staff found that despite noted improvements, the design still did not meet SOI Design Standards 2 and 9. Applicant Presentation Mr. Berkhausen gave the Applicant presentation. He reviewed the revisions to the original plan. He and his wife desired to retire in place on a single level; currently, necessities such as laundry and a shower were located in the basement down steep stairs that did not meet current Code. The non- historic garage would be demolished and increase open space on the lot. A new garage would be built on the alley. The addition to the house would be 887 square feet. In addition to the HPC they were working with various City entities to meet Land Use Code, as well as other City initiatives, with the design. He highlighted the need to keep the historic use of homes over time. He believed the SOI Standards were only applicable when used in light of each case's unique facts. The home did not comply with required setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR) codes which is why the addition design bumped out to the side. Due to the simple floor plan and basement staircase in the middle, there were design challenges which necessitated the bump-out. However, they would be retaining the home's historic character. The new plan honored current Code on setbacks and had limited visibility from the street. The original design was completed before he knew what a landmarked home meant. The new plan was more modest in scale to make it subordinate. Historic Preservation Commission Pa_qe 3 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 8 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 The new addition would not require demolition of the original brick wall on the back of the house, but would instead replace the enclosed wood porch that was part of an undocumented addition to the kitchen during the home's lifetime. The window opening on that wall would be turned into a cabinet for future reversibility. The roof height, massing, and scale were subordinate to the main house. The original windows would be rehabilitated. Mr. Berkhausen pointed out the SOI Standards were open to interpretation and designed to be applied on a specific basis. He believed the term "subordinate" was subjective, and the current plan fit the Webster's Dictionary definition. He believed Standard 9 was met because the materials made the addition distinguishable from the original and it was subordinate in size with a lower roofline. He believed the overarching objectives of Bulletin 37 were reversibility and protection of historic material so the bump out was not fatal to the design. It did not require removal of historic material and was reversible. Public Input Laura Bailey spoke in opposition to the plan. She was the daughter of the previous owner, who had restored and landmarked the home, and had written for architectural and bungalow-specific magazines. She agreed with Mr. Berkhausen's assertion the SOI Standards were not one-size-fits-all, but she believed a level of consistency was expected. She agreed with Staff the design did not meet the standards in significant ways. To her understanding, additions should not exceed 30% of the original home, but this would almost double the footprint of the home. The addition would destroy the simple symmetrical cottage layout and the large natural buffer of the yard, defining characteristics of a bungalow home. Allowing this plan to go forward would violate the spirit of the historic preservation program and Iandmarked properties would lose their protections in the future. She believed the home was already viable for the next 100 years, despite Applicants' assertion it was not. Improvements had been made, such as a furnace in the basement and Wi-Fi. Many internal things could be done in the home to bring it up to modern standards. She pointed out there was a bathroom on the main level that had a bathtub which could easily be converted to a shower. She believed the house could be livable for those aging in place without a large addition. She asked the HPC to uphold the standards and protect the home. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn opened discussion and pointed out for a conceptual review, discussion was not just among the HPC but included Applicants. Chair Dunn had asked Mr. Bertolini to research Loomis Addition properties and a Wood Street property with additions. Mr. Bertolini researched how the State Historic office dealt with historic properties in the past, around 2016-2017. The correspondence was related to which properties would be contributing to the National Register of Historic Places Loomis Addition Historic District. There were two cases where HPC-approved additions to City landmarks were found to be no longer contributing to the historic district. The addresses were 227 Wood Street and 145 N. Loomis. It does indicate the State would interpret the standards more stringently,although there was an understanding local governments would be more flexible due to local needs. Mr. Schneider asked if past additions were relevant to the discussion because he felt City Staff had told him he could not bring up past work. Chair Dunn felt it was important to look at the past to see if additions changed a property to the point it was no longer eligible for landmark status. He asked if he could submit evidence regarding two historic properties on which he had done additions to the side of the homes. The bump outs on those homes were larger than what was proposed for this item. He understood the State challenged the City around 2015-2016 for allowing too many large additions to historic homes. He felt the approach was not consistent to what had been approved in the past and was not sure designs were required to comply with all ten SOI standards. He was unsure how much more the design could change to make the project feasible. Mr. Bertolini clarified that Staff cautioned Mr. Schneider that using past examples might not be the best approach, given the feedback received from the State regarding the additions mentioned. Chair Dunn did not want to do a side-by-side comparison; the standards are open to interpretation but the goal is to be as consistent as possible. The HPC has trainings several times a year to contrast and compare similar situations of applying the Standards with other jurisdictions' approaches to improve HPC decision making. That is the context in which feedback was given to Applicants. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 9 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Mr. Schneider worked on homes all over Fort Collins, including Mountain Avenue. He would not do anything to degrade the neighborhood. He felt the Applicants had compromised with the HPC as much as possible. He and the Applicants respected the home but needed to make it livable for future generations. Mr. Yatabe noticed a raised hand among participants and suggested that the HPC formally finish public comment and close it. Chair Dunn thought she had closed it but acknowledged Karen McWilliams' hand was raised. As the recently retired Historic Preservation Manager, Ms. McWilliams commented the HPC had approved a couple of additions Mr. Schneider did prior to the 2015 review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO had challenged a few properties the City believed were contributing to the Loomis Addition, the lowest level of historic property. Staff was surprised that local landmarks, allowed additions after landmark status,were found not to even be contributing on the National Register. Staff made changes to Code requirements and processes afterward, so today could not be compared to 2006 when Mr. Schneider completed those additions. As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the City had to uphold the State standards to maintain the CLG status. Specific feedback from the SHPO was a property footprint increase of 30% would likely not be compatible because it would be hard to comply with the Standards for designated properties. Chair Dunn closed public comment. The Chair suggested looking at the Standards specifically. She believed all would agree on Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and the HPC agreed. The HPC had concerns with 5 and 10 last time but Staff felt the revised design complied. Member Knierim felt the new design met standard 5 and appreciated the thoughtfulness of not driving into the structure. The Chair agreed the addition on the rear of the house was probably historic but not a character-defining feature, so the removal would be acceptable. Member Rose agreed with Staff that Standard 10 was met due to the design modification. He pointed out there was an error in the Staff report that had not updated from the November version. Member Rose appreciated how the Applicants had scaled down size and massing and implemented the HPC's feedback. The Chair went back to Standard 5 to ask if the back chimney would remain. Mr. Schneider commented it was part of the coal furnace and would not be removed. Chair Dunn commented the design was stronger on standard 5. Chair Dunn moved on to Standards 2 and 9, which overlapped. Member Carlock had a problem with the size of the proposed addition almost a doubling of the size of the house. She lived in an old house and understood there were some aspects with which one must live. If the addition were allowed, the house would no longer meet the requirements for a landmark. She had a concern with the bump out and asked Mr. Schneider to explain the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement to her. Chair Dunn commented the FAR requirements of Article 4 of the Land Use Code, limiting building footprint based on lot size, was a pain to preservationists because it forced homeowners to go up or sideways instead of down, which is preferred. Chair Dunn stated the HPC could probably write a letter in support of a variance for this property to the FAR. Mr. Schneider opined the intent for the FAR was to encourage solar shading and larger backyards. Member Knierim had an issue with the size due to the reason for the original landmark. The size and style of Craftsmans are supposed to be diminutive. The addition which almost doubled the home was too much, and the bump out changed the reason for designation. He liked the idea of a variance in the back so there would not be a bump out and suggested a reduction in square footage to make the addition more subordinate. Mr. Schneider commented a 30% addition would only be a 300 square foot addition, which could not contain all the improvements needed and 30%was not a hard rule. Chair Dunn pointed out when the house was landmarked, it was commended for its simple design as a compact rectangle. If the Applicants moved the addition to the back, it would keep the house a rectangle and preserve the roof line. Any addition had to preserve or enhance the character-defining features of the house. Mr. Berkhausen stated moving the addition entirely to the back would be a problem for the layout and flow of the house, requiring one to go through the bedroom to get to the kitchen or living room. He and his wife purchased the home because they loved the character and charm and wanted to preserve it, but they could not add the addition entirely onto the back. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 10 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Chair Dunn commented she lived in a house like Mr. Berkhausen's,and she knew similar homes around the City had additions. The goal was to have a consistent approach. Chair Dunn remembered Member Nelsen had brought up ITS 37 last time, and she felt this sentence fit the situation: "In cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate the owners' programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identified." She felt Applicants were trying to shoehorn a design into the wrong house, and it would strip away the reason it was identified to be landmarked in the first place. The design was a simple rectangle with a simple roof and a porch with one gable. An addition in the back could be larger than 30%, if it was done well and enhanced the character-defining features of the house. Mr. Schneider asked why going sideways was an issue because the addition was behind the house. The bump out was to the side a small amount, and they had taken feedback from the HPC. Chair Dunn explained the side bump out would stop a property that should have a simple rectangular form from being eligible. Mr. Schneider explained the bump out had to happen to one side to comply with Land Use Code because the setback requirement was not met on the other. The Chair suggested maybe this was not the best building for this program. Mr. Berkhausen commented he had seen other properties in Old Town with additions. He stated Laura Bailey did not tell him the house was designated until they were at closing, although she would dispute that. Chair Dunn pointed out all landmark information is online and available. Member Rose was unsure if there would be Commission Deliberation, but Chair Dunn said only for a final review. Mr. Berkhausen commented he was not ready for a final design review. Member Rose stated the HPC does not rely on precedent and had to deal with the information before it. He believed the design had been taken as far as possible and Applicants had done everything they could on the design,given their limitations. The house was built in 1922 and had always been occupied by middle class people. It was not intended for the rich, and that was what the house was still. Tastes and needs had changed since then, and he was unsure if the home could conform to what the Applicants wanted. It would be better off being what it had always been —a home for a small, middle class family. Mr. Schneider pointed out a middle class family today could not afford the home. Member Rose commented gentrification was endemic to society, but Brownstones in Greenwich Village were not being added onto despite their high cost. Perhaps there was someone out there willing to pay the price that wanted a small bungalow. Member Rose commented the HPC has a narrow, specific set of criteria by which to evaluate applications. The HPC was not the final authority, and the final decisionmakers would have a wider purview, including FAR. Mr. Schneider was familiar with the process. The Chair asked if there were any further questions or statements from the Applicants. The HPC liked the changes that had been made, but there were still some struggles with the standards. Mr. Berkhausen had nothing further but wanted dialogue to meet the requirements of the HPC and accomplish aging in place in his home. Bumping out to the rear would use all the open space and he had concerns about that. He and Mr. Schneider thanked the HPC for their time and volunteerism. Commission Deliberation None. [Timestamp: 7:35 p.m.] There was a break until 7:41 p.m., when the meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. All were present. "Secretary's note: During the break, Assistant City Attorney Yatabe left the meeting and Assistant City Attorney Havelda joined it. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 11 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 4. 900 S. COLLEGE AVE— FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a final design review of the exterior component of the applicant's project based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and either issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness.The applicant is proposing full rehabilitation of the main Scott Apartments building, with exterior project components including masonry repair, window rehab and partial replacement (to provide egress), and partial enclosure of the rear/east entry. APPLICANT: Steve Levinger Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. The property known as the Scott Apartments was before the HPC for a final design review for exterior rehabilitation. This property had been seen by the HPC in December for a conceptual review. The owner was applying for federal tax credits, which was part of the motivation in getting the property listed in the National Register. The role of the HPC was to make a decision on whether the proposed rehabilitation met the SOI Standards. The property had been a City landmark since 2002 and was built around 1924-1925. It was considered important because it was one of several early-20th century apartment buildings added to the downtown area during that time. It was a very distinctive type of building, unique and rare for the City. The proposal included rehabilitation of the exterior masonry, rehabilitation of most of the windows in the building, rehabilitation of exterior doors, repair of a non-historic deck on the upper East side of the building, construction of a matching deck on the upper West side, addition of condensers on the flat roof, a partial enclosure of the East portico into an entry vestibule, and replacement of sidewalks. Staff felt the project met the standards. The specific standards considered were: Standard 2—overall historic character, Standard 5 - character defining features and materials, Standard 6 — repairing or replacing materials in kind, and Standard 7—avoiding damage to historic materials. Applicant Presentation Mr. Levinger gave the Applicant presentation. He had some technology issues and left the meeting, then rejoined. No discussion of the item occurred during his absence. Mr. Levinger and his wife had owned the building since 2002 and wanted to do a comprehensive rehabilitation because some systems and amenities were antiquated. He wanted to make the building more livable and give it another 100 years of service. He preferred to keep more historic fabric of the building because he liked its unique character. He was applying for Federal and State tax credits, so the vestibule on the East side may not be approved at a different level, even if the HPC were to approve it. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn had not seen the vestibule and asked on which page of the packet it was located. Member Carlock also had not seen it. Mr. Levinger said the building was identical on the East and West sides and had ten feet by seven feet deep porticos. The area is semi-enclosed but exterior. He wanted to take a portion of it to create a vestibule for safety, as well as the building mailboxes and fire alarm panel. A visitor could enter the vestibule, but would need someone in the building to gain admittance. The door system to the vestibule would be similar to the existing door and would be reversible. It would set back three and a half feet behind the portico area. Member Carlock asked if fire escapes would be removed. Mr. Levinger said they would remain because they cannot be removed per Code. He was considering adding a fire suppression system for life safety. Member Guenther asked if Mr. Levinger expected a significant increase in rent for tenants. Mr. Levinger replied all tenants had received notice and would be out by late April or early May. He would be updating and raising rent to market rates, due to the cost of the project. Chair Dunn pointed out affordability was not in the HPC purview. Historic Preservation Commission Pa_qe 7 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 12 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Chair Dunn asked what kind of door would be added for the vestibule. Mr. Levinger understood the Standards said new items should not match existing, but he was thinking it could match because it was reversible. However, he was not married to the proposed design if the HPC did not think it was appropriate. He could do an aluminum storefront system instead. Member Rose asked if the most prominent deck was on the West End. Mr. Levinger explained on the end of one of the gables of the uppermost floor there was a casement exit door that exits onto a flat steel roof near the fire escape. Tenants had been using that roof as a deck, damaging it. He was going to build a deck structure above the roof to protect it. There was a deck already on the East side, but he wanted to put a similar deck on the West side. Member Rose asked how tenants would access the decks. Double hung windows had already been converted to the casement door. The Chair asked what the living room windows would look like. Mr. Levinger submitted a drawing with the tax credit proposal. Mr. Bertolini located the drawing on packet pages 252-253. Mr. Levinger explained it would be a wood window that would be painted like the rest. The jamb, the sill, and the brick molding would remain. The two sashes and the window stops would be removed. The new window would install inside the old jamb. All windows had screens over them, so once it was in place no one would know the difference. He wanted to replace the window because the meeting rail was overspanned, the glass was warped, and it was difficult to open. It was the only window that could be used as a means of egress, so he felt a new window would be safer. Commission Deliberation The Chair asked if anyone disagreed with Staff's determination the plan met the Standards or had any overall concerns. Member Carlock agreed with Staff's recommendations and asked about the location of the condensers. Chair Dunn said the picture of the location was on packet page 322. They would be below the parapet and unobtrusive. Mr. Bertolini noted an elevation picture was on packet page 321, and he had noted there should be some screening. They were small so Staff had less concerns. They would be on the South corner of the East and West sides. Chair Dunn suggested the HPC talk about the vestibule. Member Rose thought it was reversible and there was a need for it. He did not believe either solution, aluminum storefront or mirroring what was there, affected overall eligibility. Member Carlock thought it was a good idea from a safety point of view and would lean more towards something aesthetically pleasing in line with the building. Member Knierim agreed and did not believe it needed to be differentiated much since it would be totally reversible. Chair Dunn posed the question of how to add a door that was compatible but was distinguishable as not original. Member Carlock was no construction expert but believed it could be done. Old doors were distinguishable from new ones. Member Knierim suggested a more modern-looking door that was not a storefront. Member Rose pointed out packet page 326 was the only information they had and the door, lights, and sidelights looked very similar to what was already there. Maybe it was not sufficient differentiation. They were suggesting woodframe construction and every part of the exterior of the existing building was masonry so that was a differentiation. Another differentiation could be the number of sidelights. He agreed with Member Carlock and Vice Chair Knierim that an aluminum storefront was not the right choice. Mr. Levinger was brought back to discuss the vestibule. Chair Dunn asked what was between the sidelights and the door that was rounded and looked like a column. It was framing, and the whole system was wood. They were not rounded but square. There was brick molding around the perimeter and down into the door frame. Member Rose stated the correct term was mullion. Chair Dunn asked on what page the picture was located. Mr. Bertolini replied packet page 326. Chair Dunn noted the proposed door had the exact same number of lights as the existing one. Mr. Levinger suggested a solution would be to do full light panels on either side and a full light door. Member Rose liked the idea of using a full light door because it was compatible. Member Carlock agreed. Chair Dunn liked the idea of keeping the sidelights because it was an echo of the original. Member Rose commented the decks were reversible because they were suspended but removeable. Mr. Levinger explained the only exception would be putting a little bit of mortar in the holes where the thread and rod went through to hold the rim joist. Chair Dunn thanked him for doing the masonry repair because it helped historic buildings last longer. Member Rose thanked him for his desire to do a mortar analysis, because a building this old could have various types of mortar. Using the wrong mortar could be really damaging. Mr. Levinger found a company to do the analysis and provide the mortar mix. Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 13 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Chair Dunn asked if there were any other items to discuss or for a motion. Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Scott Apartment building at 900 South College Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Member Dunn seconded. Chair Dunn asked if Member Rose wanted to modify the motion regarding the number of lights. He commented the number of lights were not a character-defining feature. Mr. Levinger seemed sensitive to the building and what improvements need to be done. He commended Mr. Levinger for doing this project because it was a terrific example of real historic preservation. Mr. Levinger thanked him. Member Guenther agreed with Member Rose because it was an iconic building. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dunn thanked Mr. Levinger for adding health and safety measures to the building, as well as preserving it. He appreciated it, thanked Mr. Bertolini for his help, and said the National Register nomination would go before the State on Friday. [Timestamp: 8:49 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn suggested preservation award nominees be discussed via email and outlined what could be nominated. A new addition to a historic building could be nominated,for example, Ginger and Baker had won in the past for its new building. New infill development that has been sensitively done could be nominated. A project over and above the call of duty, not just following the SOI Standards, could be nominated. People outside Fort Collins had been given awards in the past. The project must be completed to receive an award. A person involved in historic preservation or keeping history alive could be awarded. An event or a group could also be awarded. The plan was to give out awards in May during Preservation Month. Ms. Bzdek wanted to move the awards back to May after a period without awards during the Covid pandemic. They would need to check on turnaround time for the physical award blocks. In the past, the awards had been held as a reception prior to a Council hearing. An in-person or virtual event could be held, but if in person was preferred that should be decided right away. Awardees should be determined by March to order the blocks. If the reception was virtual, Chair Dunn asked if there could be a video for each awardee and the block mailed to them. Ms. Bzdek said in the past, there had been slides for each awardee and some combination could be done but a PowerPoint would be best. Chair Dunn would send an email to the HPC. She asked them to think about it and get back to her in a weeks' time via an email from each member with an idea for nomination. Mr. Bertolini asked if the HPC was interested in public nominations and they were. Ideally, they could ask for nominations in the Coloradoan. Ms. Bzdek commented they would do a press release, regardless, and would want to include clear criteria to show the process was fair. Mr. Bertolini would draft a public nomination form and send it to the HPC for feedback. If it was done by the end of the month, Chair Dunn could include it in her History Now newsletter. Ms. Bzdek would go ahead with making logistical plans for an online program that could be live or presented via recording, and possibly a hybrid. Chair Dunn commented Ms. Bzdek and Mr. Bertolini would be making a presentation for Historic Larimer County January 251'at 7:00 pm that would be available online at historiclarimercounty.org. Ms. Bzdek stated they were providing an overview of the grant-supported work they had been doing on Civil Rights History in Fort Collins, along with the work they would be doing with stakeholders to identify places important to the community related to Civil Rights in an intersectional way. They would invite attendees to get involved in the project. Chair Dunn commented in February, Jason LaBelle would Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 14 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 speak about a new study of the Lindenmeier site. It was February 9'h, but she was not sure if it would be in person or online. Chair Dunn's last comment was for anyone that had a Master Class membership, the Frank Gehry class was surprisingly good. The class was fabulous and she had new respect for Frank Gehry after taking it. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on Meg Dunn, Chair Historic Preservation Commission Page 10 [January 19, 2022] Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 STAFF REPORT February 16, 2022 Historic - •n Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION —741 LINDENMEIER RD STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. Historical Background & Current Conditions The property at 741 Lindenmeier Road is within the Alta Vista neighborhood in northeast Fort Collins. It is one of the few surviving examples of a sugar beet worker's shack. During the 2003 historic survey of Alta Vista, the property was recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for its historical and architectural significance. It was surveyed again in 2017 as part of a research project with students at Colorado State University. Both survey forms documenting the significance of the property have been attached. Staff completed a site visit with the owner on January 14 to assess the condition of the property, discuss alternatives, and take current condition photographs. These are on file and can be provided on request. The condition of the property is generally poor, with significant modifications needed to meet current building code requirements for occupancy. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2003 Survey Form by historian Adam Thomas 2. 2017 Survey Form by CSU Students 3. Public Comment Item 2, Page 1 Packet Pg. 16 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Lindenmeler Road 5LR10638 Official Eligibility Determination OAHP1403 (OAHP use only) Rev.9198 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Date Initials _Determined Eligible-National Register Architectural Inventory Form —Determined Not Eligible-National Register _Determined Eligible-State Register Page 1 _Determined Not Eligible-State Register Need Deta _Contributing to eligible National Register District Noncontributing to eWlble National Register District - � c i a t t -- M I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number. 5LR10638 Parcel number(s): 2. Temporary resource number: n/a 9701400014 3. County: Larlmer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: 741 Llndenmeier Road 6. Current building name: Josephine(Josefene)Griego House 7. Building address: 741 Lindenmeier Road 8. Owner name: Josephine(Josefene)A-Griego Owner organization: Owner address: 741 Lindenmeler Road Fort Collins,Colorado 80524 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Individually E11EIble Local landmark eligibility field assessment: Individually Eliplbie Buckingham,Andersonville,Alta Vista Inventory Sorted by Resource Number #Error 26-Mr-04 #Error Report page. 490 Packet Pg. 17 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Lfndenmeier Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 2 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M.: 6th Township: 7N Range: 69W SE 1/4 of 1/4 of SE 1/4 of 1/4 of Section 1 10. UTM reference zone: 13 Easting: 495158 Northing: 4493856 USGS quad name. Fort Collins Scale: 7.5 Year: 1980(photorevised 1984) 11. Lot(s) Lot(s)n/a,Block We Addition: n/a Year of addition: 12. Boundary description and justification: This legally defined parcel encompasses but does not exceed the land historically associated with this property. Metes and bounds exist: IJ Commencing 30 feet west and 476.6 feet north of the southeast corner of section 1,township 7 north,range 69 west,go west 136 feet,north 43 feet,east 136 feet,and south 43 feet,to point of beginning. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 13. Building plan(footprint,shape): Irregular Plan 14. Other building plan descriptions: 15. Dimensions in feet(length x width): 1,109 square feet 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s): asphalt/asphalt Other wall materials: wood/horizontal siding 18. Roof configuration: other roof/other roof Other roof configurations: gable,shed,and flat roofs 19. Primary external roof material: asphalt roof/composition roof Other roof materials: 20. Special features: fence chimney 21, General architectural description: This house at 741 Lfndenmeier Road is situated on the west side of the street, between 737 Lfndenmeier Road to the south and 805 Lfndenmeier Road to the north.The structure is set back from the street approximately 21 feet.A gravel driveway is located along the south side of the house,and a combination of chain-link and wood fencing encloses the property.Oriented to the south,the structure has no formal foundation and consists of rectangular-plan core with an extremely shallow,side- gabled roof.Side-gabled additions have been expanded the core's east and west elevations.Attached to the core's south elevation is a shed-roof addition.Another addkion is attached to the west elevation of the shed-roof addition; Its roof is higher than the other additions and extends out over a portion of the shed-roof addition.To the east of this addition has been added a flat-roof room.Near the west end of the south elevation is a hatch,covered with brown asphalt shingles,which provides access to a crawlspace or cellar.Exterior wall cladding varies among white-painted wooden composition siding,gray asphalt shingles,gray rolled asphalt,sheet metal,and rolled asphalt with a faux brown brick pattern.At the east end of the south elevation is a one-light,green-painted,glass-in-wood-frame door that opens behind a white-painted,wood-frame screen door. A concrete sidewalk approaches the doorway. Near the middle of the shed-roof addition's south elevation is a two-light,two- panel,white-painted wood door,with whlte-painted,wood-frame screen door;a one-step concrete stoop approaches the doorway.Flanking the door on the east Is a two-beside-four-light,sliding sash window,with green-painted wood frame,an aluminum-frame storm window,and a white-painted wood surround. Immediately west of the door is a three-light hopper window,covered with a metal screen;Its wood frame and surrounds are painted whits.At the west and of the south elevation Buckingham,Andersonville,Alta Vista inventory Sorted by Resource Number #Error 2&Uar-04 #Error Report page 491 Packet Pg. 18 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Llndenmeier Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 3 is a four-panel,blue-painted,wood door,opening behind a blue-painted,wood-frame screen door.The door has blue-painted wood surrounds and is approached by a sidewalk made of concrete,stone,and brick.A one-beside-one-Ilght,aluminum- frame,sliding sash window flanks the door on the east The west elevation features a one-beside-one-light aluminum-frame, sliding sash window and an aluminum-frame storm window.A pair of one-beside-one-light,aluminum-frame,sliding sash windows,with wood surrounds,occupies the north elevation.Fast of these windows is an aluminum-frame storm window. The east elevation has a one-beside-one-Tight,aluminum-frame,sliding sash window,with an aluminum-frame storm window and white-painted wood surround.South of this window is a fixed-wood-frame window,with an aluminum-frame storm window and a white-painted wood surround.A one-beside-one-light,wood-frame,sliding sash window,with an aluminum- frame storm window and white-painted wood surround,occupies the east wall of the shed-roof addition.The east elevation has exposed purlins.The flat-roof addition has exposed rafters capped with a wood fascia. Roof surfaces are covered with brown rolled asphalt and a metal chimney emerges near the southeast corner of the core. 22. Architectural style: other style Other architectural styles: vernacular,wood-frame,sugar beet shanty Building type: 23. Landscape or special setting features: This property is set on the edge of a mature neighborhood of large,shady cottonwoods and willows; modest,mostly single- story or one-and-a-half-story houses;and macadam-paved streets. Large agricultural fields are located east and north.Dry Creek and the Josh Ames Ditch run east-west,dividing the neighborhood. 24. Associated buildings,features or objects 1 : Type: Shed contributing?: Contributing Describe: A shed is located northwest of the house,along the north side of the property.Measuring 11 feet north-south by 23 feet east-west,the structure is oriented to the south.The structure consists of independent east and west portions,connected only and the roof.The eastern portion has a concrete foundation and is of post-and-beam construction. Horizontal strips of unpainted plywood clads the exterior walls of all elevations except the front(south),which is entirely open.The east elevation features two frosted lights lacking formal frames or surrounds. The western portion lacks a formal foundation,and a combination of unpainted vertical boards and spit logs,with the bark still on them,clads the exterior walls.The east end of the front(south)elevation features paired,vertical wood plank doors,opening on metal strap hinges. Sheets of green rolled asphalt and corrugated metal cover the shed roof,and the rafter ends are exposed. Buckingham,Andersonville,Alta Vista Inventory Shed by Resource Number #Error 26-Mar-04 #Error Report page 492 Packet Pg. 19 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Llndenmeier Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 4 2: Type: Guest House/Shed Contributing?: Contributing Describe: A guest house with an attached shed is located west of the house,on the western edge of the property.Measuring 39 feet north-south by 14 feet east-west,the building Is oriented to the east.The structure consists of three distinct components:a front-gabled portion to the north, and side-gabled structure in the center,and a narrow,shed-roof room to the south. The northern portion,originally a garage, rests on a concrete foundation.Green-painted horizontal wood weatherboard,with one-by-four-inch cornerboards,clads the exterior walls. The front(east)elevation,which was originally dominated by paired garage doors,has been filled in and now features a small door to the south and a window to the north.The door is a green-painted,five-panel wood door,opening behind a green-painted,wood-trame screen door.North of It Is a two-Ilght awning window,with a green-painted wood frame and screen. The large strap hinges for the original garage door are visible north of the window.Wood shingles cover the front-gabled roof,and a galvanized metal ridge pole caps the apex.The rafter ends are exposed. The foundation,if one exists,of the middle portion is not visible.Horizontal sheets of whtte/gray rolled asphalt clads the exterior walls.A doorway,which opens near the center of this portion,features a door of pink-painted vertical planks set within a rectangular frame. North of the door is a series of pink-painted,wood-frame sliding windows,consisting of a large one-light sash and two narrow two-light sashes.South of the door Is a similar one-light, fixed-frame window, largely covered by a sheet of unpainted particleboard.Brown asphalt shingles cover the extremely shallowly pitched(almost flat)side-gabled roof. The south portion appears to have been a separate structure rather than an addition cobbled onto the building to the north; It Is not the same width and the apex of Its shed roof Is perpendicular to rather than parallel to the south elevation of the rest of the structure.This portion appears to lack a formal foundation.Unpainted,vertical board-n-batten siding clads the exterior walls.A doorway,flanked by windows,opens in the center of the symmetrical front(east)facade.The door Is of vertical wood plank construction.It Is flanked on either side by four-Ilght,fixed-name windows,with unpainted wood frames and surrounds.Voids in the rear(west)elevation may be unglazed window openings or simply deteriorations In the wall cladding.Sheets of black and green rolled asphalt covers the shed roof. 3: Type: Privy Contributing?: Contributing Describe: A two-hole privy,with only one door and no interior division,is located southwest of the house,near the southwest corner of the property. Measuring 4 feet north-south by 6 feet east- west,the structure Is oriented to the north and lacks a formal foundation.Green-painted horizontal wood weatherboard,with one-by-four-inch cornerboards,clads the exterior walls.A narrow,green-painted,vertical wood plank door,on metal strap hinges,opens on the east end of the front(north)elevation.Sheets of brown,rolled asphalt covers the side-gabled roof,and the rafter ends are exposed. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1905 Actual: n/a Source of Information: Residental Property Information,Larimer County Tax Assessor's Office. 26. Architect: nla Source of information: 27. Builder: unknown Source of information: 28. Original Owner: unknown Source of information: 29. Construction history: Buckingham,Andersonvilla,Alta Vista Inventory Sated by Resource Number #Error 26_Mar-04 #Error Report page. 493 Packet Pg. 20 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Lindenmeler Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 5 According to Larimer County tax assessor records,this house was completed in 1920.However,an analysis of the style,form, and materials,together with a 1983 photograph,reveal that the core of this structure is a standard,barrel-roofed sugar beet workers'shanty.These structures date to the dawn of the sugar beet industry and relate to German-Russian settlement in Fort Collins, circa 1905. In general,these structures appear to have been prefabricated and moved from site to site as needed. Given a paucity of archival information,determining how long this structure has been at this location is difficult to determine. However,most,if not all,of the numerous additions appear to date to before 1960.Moreover,this additions may well have consisted of attaching other sugar beet shanties to the original structure.The outbuildings also appear to date to between 1905 and 1920.Most of the original windows,doors,and wall cladding materials have been replaced,some after the period of significance. 30. Location: moved Date of move(s) unknown V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): single dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): single dwelling 33. Current use(s): single dwelling 34. Site type(s): Residence, Sugar Beet Shanty 35. Historical background: In 1866,Miguel Gotiens and Elizabeth Stone received a patent for land they claimed containing the southeast corner of section 1,township 7 north,range 69 west.Better known as"Auntie"Stone,Elizabeth was best recognized for the Inn she operated within a cabin originally located on the site of old Fort Collins.(That cabin has since been moved to the grounds of the Fort Collins Museum.)In 1903,the Fort Collins Colorado Sugar Company constructed its refinery just south of the Gotiers-Stone property,the company purchased the quarter section soon after the completion of the factory to build a small reservoir.The Fort Collins factory eventually became part of the Great Western Sugar Company,an amalgamation of refineries In Colorado, Nebraska,and Wyoming.At first,the sugar company and beet farmers used Germans from Russia as laborers,many of whom settled In the Buckingham and Andersonville neighborhoods adjacent to the factory in Fort Collins.However,changes in immigration policies following World War I forced the company to look elsewhere for labor.It began Importing Hispanic single men and families from the American Southwest and Mexico,which proved costly to growers and producers.Great Western realized that It had to offer migrant workers an Incentive to remain in Fort Collins all year.One way to do this was to offer affordable,comfortable housing.Thus, in the summer of 1922,Great Westem,in the words of Its corporate magazine, "launched an important experiment near Fort Morgan."There It constructed 13 adobe homes at a cost of$75 each.The experiment was a success;the following year the company built 42 adobe homes in colonles throughout northern Colorado and Nebraska,and 200 the next year.Great Western in 1923 announced plans to build a"Spanish Colony"northeast of the sugar factory in Fort Collins,on the former Gotlers-Stone property. It offered Hispanic laborers a 50-by-85-five-foot lot,which could be purchased through the company's generous Installment plan:the resident paid nothing the first year and$40 annually for the next three years,thereby reimbursing the company for the$120 worth of labor and materials expended in the house.And In the fifth year,the resident paid$25 to$50 for the lot.Moreover,Great Western paid the property taxes and withheld interest charges during those five years.In return,the company could,If It perceived misconduct,eject any family from these adobe homes within 30 days.The company also wanted workers to construct their own homes,so it hired Felipe and Pedro Arellano,of northern Now Mexico,to build six,two-room,white-painted model adobe structures,with many more to follow.Great Western furnished straw,lime,and gravel and,later,lumber for the roof.In a matter of weeks,tiny adobe houses appeared in the neighborhood.Soon,residents referred to their settlement as"la Colonia Espanola"or"la Colonia,"for short. Alta Vista(meaning"high view")took on a distinctively Hispanic flavor. Some areas of what would become Alta Vista,however,developed before the colony,particularly those areas near the northeast comer of Vine Drive and Lindenmeler Road.Local tax assessor records indicate that this particular house was built in 1920.However,an analysis of the style,form,and materials,together with a 1983 photograph,reveal that the core of this structure Is a standard,barrel-roofed sugar beet workers'shanty.These structures date to the dawn of the sugar beet Industry and relate to German-Russian settlement in Fort Collins,circa 1905.In general,these structures appear to have been prefabricated and moved from site to site as needed.Given a paucity of archival Information,determining how long this structure has been at this location Is difficult to determine. Moreover,no building permits exist for properties outside city limits at that time and warranty deeds do not provide enough information to confirm a date of construction.Warranty deeds do Indicate that William Youder owned the property for some period before 1956.Either in 1955 or early 1956,Edward W.and Lucy Hemandez owned the property and then sold it to Josephine A and Antonio Griego in August 1956.According to local tax assessor records,the house was remodeled in 1957.Johnny Lee Griego lived here through most of the 1970s,possibly with Josephine A Grtego,who currently owns and resides at this address. 36. Sources of information: Buckingham,Mdmonville,Me Vista Inventory Sorted by Resource Number #Error 26�1i/W #Error Report page -04 Packet Pg. 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Lindenmeler Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 6 Residentel Property Information,Latimer County Tax Assessor's Office. Warranty deeds,book 986, page 217;and book 1026,page 411. Twitty,Eric.The Sugar Beet Industry In Fort Collins[historic context].Westminster,Colo.: SWCA Environmental Consultants,2002. Thomas,Adam.Hang Your Wagon to a Star: Hispanics in Fort Collins,1900-2000[historic context].Westminster, Colo.:SWCA Environmental Consultants,2002. Thomas,Adam.Work Renders Life Sweet:Germans from Russia in Fort Collins,1900-2000[historic context]. Westminster,Colo.:SWCA Environmental Consultants,2002. Fort Collins, Loveland,and Larmer County Directory.Salt Lake City: R. L.Polk Directory Company.Published annually;consulted 1933 to 1995. Community Services Collaborative.Bava Neighbor-hood:Architecture and Building Survey.Fort Collins: Fort Collins Planning and Development Department,1983. Buckingham,Andersonville,Alta Vista Inventory Sorted by Resource Number #Error 26 bler-04 #Error Report page 495 Packet Pg. 22 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Lindenmeier Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 7 VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes n No �1 Designation authority: Date of designation: 36. Applicable National Register criteria: A.Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history. S.Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,or method of construction,or represents the work of a master,or that possess high artistic values,or represents a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual distinction. F—,! D.Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G(see manual). =] Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria. Fort Collins Standards for Designation: Architectural Significance (� The site,structure,object or district portrays the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style;embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural- type specimen;is the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the development of the city or contains elements or architectural design,detail,materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation. Geographical Significance The site,structure,object or district,because of being part of or related to a square,park,or other distinctive area,should be developed or preserved according to a plan based on a historic,cultural or architectural motif or due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood,community or city. Historical Significance F]j The site,structure,object or district has character,interest or value as part of the development,heritage or cultural characteristics of the city,state or nation;is the site of a historic event with an effect upon society;is identified with a person or group of persons who had some influence on society;or exemplifies the cultural, political,economic,social or historic heritage of the community. Not Determined n Significance of the site or structure has not yet been determined. More data needed. Not Significant The site or structure does not meet any of the local criteria(identified above). 39. Area(s)of Significance: 40. Period of Significance: ca. 1905-1953 41. Level of significance: National: U State L] Local 42, Statement of significance: This property Is significant under Criterion A for its association with the early development of the Atta Vista area and the sugar beet Industry.Moreover,It is important for Its relationship to German Russian and Hispanics laborers,both which resided at this address.The property is also significant under Criterion C because It is an sugar beet workers'shanty with an accompanying and German-Russian outbuilding complex.Despite numerous additions and remodeling,the house still embodies the spirit of working-class vernacular architecture, growing organically with need and financial ability.Properties such as this one were commonplace In the Buckingham,Andersonville,and Alta Vista neighborhoods prior to massive urban renewal projects in the late 1970s and'80s.This Is the only remaining property of this historical integrity in the sugar factory neighborhoods.it should be considered Individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties,and as a Fort Collins Local Landmark.The property Is certainly a contributing resource within any potential National Register,State Register,or Local Landmark district. Buckingham,Andersonvllle,Alta Vista Inventory Sorted by Resource Number #Error 25-Wr-04 #Error Report page 496 Packet Pg. 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Lindenmeier Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 8 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This circa 1905 residence displays a moderate degree of physical integrity,relative to the seven aspects of integrity defined by the National Park Service and the Colorado Historical Society: location,setting,design,materials,workmanship,feeling, and association.While the principal structure was most likely moved to this site and has been extensively modified,It maintains the spirit of German-Russian and Hispanic vernacular architecture.Moreover,the property retains its associated complex of outbuildings.The structures on this lot retain sufficient integrity to covey their significance. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Individually Eligible Local landmark eligibility field assessment: Individually Eligible 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes W No Discuss: The Alta Vista neighborhood retains a high concentration and continuity of buildings and structures, linked historically and aesthetically,which collectively possess sufficient integrity and signtficance to quality as a National Register Historic District,as well as a Fort Collins Landmark District. The neighborhood is significant for Its association with the sugar beet Industry and its labor practices in northern Colorado,and with the Hispanic community In Fort Collins. The neighborhood is also architecturally significant for Its collection of vernacular dwellings. Of special note is Alta Vista's concentration of adobe-brick structures— one of the northernmost groupings of domestic adobe-brick architecture in North America—many built by the Great Western Sugar Company and purchased under the company's employee installment plan. Alta Vista also contains a significant collection of historic outbuildings. These include barns,garages,chicken coops, summer kitchens,and privies,many of which cannot be found elsewhere In Fort Collins. If there is National Register district potential,is this building contributing: Yes 66 No N/A ❑ 46_ If the building is in existing National Register district,is it contributing: Yes No WA W VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers): BAVX15:8,12(house); 9(privy); 10(guest house); 11 (shed) Negatives filed at: Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins,Colorado 80521 48. Report title: Buckingham,Andersonvllle,Alta Vista Inventory 49. Date(s): 01/10/03 50, Recorder(s): #Error 51. Organization: SWCA,Inc. Environmental Consultants 52. Address: 8461 Turnpike Drive Suite 100 Westminster,Colorado B0031 53. Phone number(s): (303)487-1183 Budongham,Andersonrlile,Alta Vista inventory Sorted by Resource Number #Error 26-Mar-04 #Error Repon page: 497 Packet Pg. 24 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 741 Lindenmeier Road 5LR10638 (Resource number) Architectural Inventory Form Page 9 SITE SKETCH MAP 014 AL A VIST ST 11 810 AL ST 804 ALTA VISTA ST Cn Q Cn MAIN ST Q J48 AL VISTA Q 1017 E= MAIN ST 0305 LINDENM ER w 7 2 ALT VISTA Q O ° �- 0 o Q 38 AL A VISTA 1023-1025 Lf 1 UNDENM R R MAIN ST L� o E] J F34JATA VISTA ,T37 UNDENM lER RD Z 2 ALTA VISTl�1U E::P � 729 UNDENMEIER RD w o w ALTA VISTA P RK 2 >>) z OF w F9R0 z � J I— 712 p AL A VIST ST ¢ (!) ❑ Z ¢ ¢& > W 7016 W W W W AL A VIST R 5 ❑ 5 z ST F1 d Buckingham,Andersonville,Alta Vista Inventory Sorted by Resource Number #Error 26-Mar-04 #Error Rer)ortpege 498 Packet Pg. 25 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 t9 — i v3 J J S-e het t -t �1 v rr d ►�, , rAy asp 11 sc,�,� V�✓Lw, vu l c-G� k S h � av[ �®-�= Gvi,c. Fes^-cl. t �r Se (44) e� e-f-•[ N/,Y i.vvu t e Lc k a svo -�nos ' 113A1S yYret r rc,14 J s�o G► s k �/ Cow ✓mac /-./.a� s 4. a dw wcl s f - Packet Pg. 26 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 (C." f e4 t c,� d aw- �f d vrvsa/-emu scl"h CN) z lyres! c.�•d ,mac 4 I%,LIV wok -v ,,ter ' 1-4-4e, ��I L+�,cJ �r �w cj,� �vo✓' S �� v7'r���� � -J'�/l�r.i,/Y��. 76 hit vL Cf S c! ✓s 1 i T �t Cc z i-t,/r ✓ '�S IJ 1;�,� �°' G-t.c-�Y of �o,if s7 !.f �i•�� �o f d v�..�f< < / /� �4� • J a ..s .Z, e,- l J CAPS C( �)OV. 00 �1� r � S y �, F a c w a►1 � k,!r c�c7"r : n t h 'L`� w�V ��t4 foe w Ufh-. Packet Pg. 27 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 C�Ocv-) Gt o �...-� oar �,,,a►f S � �r^-e-r...�t �f J vY o v .L Iit�Q Y�L�.- ��.� r,� � ��c!/ C4 dog.-cv- 7/L{t4 ��v� (,-- 7" S„�C � A � 4c✓ t��t Er Z y.r5 0l d n re rrfuy �� 6 N5 W�)4 � etc- &F pv-t'- 1 �- W4 S C -1 [,e ef; hc,�, Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 OAHP 1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date _Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY _Determined Eligible-NR _Determined Not Eligible-NR _Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form _Determined Not Eligible- SR _Need Data _Contributes to eligible NR District _Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.10638 Parcel number(s): 9701400014 2. Temporary resource no.: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Josephine A. (Josefene) Griego House 6. Current building name: Josephine (Josefene)A. Griego House 7. Building address: 741 Lindenmeier Road 8. Owner name and address: GRIEGO JUAN MICHEAL SANTANA 3761 MOUNT FLORA ST WELLINGTON, CO 80549 Packet Pg. 29 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO National Register eligibility assessment: Individually eligible State Register eligibility assessment: Individually eligible Fort Collins Landmark eligibility assessment: Individually eligible Historic District eligibility assessment: Contributing IL GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W NEl/4 of SEl/4 of SE1/4 of SEl/4 of section 1 10. UTM reference (NAD27) Zone 13495102mE 4494078mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins NAD 83 WGS84 Year: 1905 Map scale: 7.5 12. Lot(s): A Block: N/A Addition: 741 Lindenmeier Road Year of Addition: 1905 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The Josephine A. (Josefene) Griego house is located on a middle lot on the west side of the 700 block of Lindenmeier, east of Alta Vista street. A wooden privacy fence runs along the back half of the property on all sides of the lot. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan(footprint, shape): Irregular Plan 15. Dimensions in feet: 27' x 46' (Estimate) 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s): Asphalt 18. Roof configuration: Other Roof 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt 20. Special features: Fence 21. General architectural description: Packet Pg. 30 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO The Josephine A. (Josefene) Griego House is unique in this neighborhood. The Griego House is located on a northern lot on the west side of the 700 block of Lindenmeier Road, east of Alta Vista Street. The Griego House is a one-story, irregular plan, German-Russian sugar beet shanty. The organic growth of the house shows at least two additions, each with its own distinct roof line. Based on current Larimer County assessor records, the walls are made of wood with asphalt shingle siding. The asphalt siding obscures the foundation. The extremely low- pitched gabled-roof is clad in asphalt rolled roofing material. From the street, three heating vents can be seen protruding from the roof. The facade (east elevation) contains two windows. The window to the south is boarded up and the window to the north has wood behind the glass, obstructing the view in or out of the house. The northern fenestration is a wood sliding window with no lintel or sill. The main entrance is on the gabled portion of the building and is blocked by a tree, however,it appears to have a metal storm door covering a wood panel door. The shed roof extension to the south of the gabled section is clad in the same asphalt shingles, also obscuring the foundation. It has the same asphalt rolled roof material as the gabled portion of the house. The window on the east elevation is a wood two-lite vertical sliding window with no lintel or sill. The south elevation has an entrance flanked by two windows. Both windows have wood surrounds and are boarded up. The entrance has evidence of a screen door made of wood, but the screen is gone. Behind the screen door is a wood panel door. The additions to the south and east of the building's original core evidence a process of organic accretion and expansion over time. This addition's foundation is obscured by a pile of dirt in the dirt driveway and not visible for this survey. The addition is clad in wood siding and has a traditional, humped roofline specific to German-Russian sugar beet shanties. At the roofline, what appears to be a wood pallet is exposed. In general, the building's condition is poor. The shingle siding is detaching in some Packet Pg. 31 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO areas, especially on the facade. The facade also shows signs of damage, and vines and volunteer trees grow out of the building. The boards over four of the five windows, the tree blocking the main entrance, and the poor condition of the roof indicate that the building is likely vacant. 22. Architectural style/building type: Other Style (See local origins of the Beet Shanty in sections 21 and 35) 23. Landscaping or special setting features: A large tree obstructs the main entrance on the facade, indicating that the shanty is vacant. The house's shallow setback from a traffic-heavy street that lacks sidewalks makes the property difficult to access on foot. The yard contains mature native vegetation. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: 1) A gabled-roof shed with a south-facing entrance sits directly west of the house. The foundation of the shed cannot be determined due to limited access to the property. The shed's roof is clad in asphalt shingles. A shed roofed addition extends from the shed's west elevation and is made of vertical wood planks without cladding. The roof of the addition is corrugated metal. 2) The privy is on the southwest corner of the property. The privy is made out of painted horizontal wood planks and has a side-gabled roof covered in rolled asphalt roofing material. 3) Per Larimer County Assessor information, a shed/guest house is located at the property's northwest corner. The fence and debris in the yard obscure the shed/guest house's foundation. The shed/guest house has a gabled roof and horizontal wood siding, as well as wood corner boards painted green. The roof is clad in wood shingles. The shed/guest house has evidence of a green paneled wood door and a window with white bars on the facade, as well as a rambling shed-roofed addition on the south elevation, with window openings on the east elevation. Packet Pg. 32 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual: 1905 Source of information: Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Compass: Colorado's On-line Cultural Resource Database. Accessed March 31, 2017. 26. Architect: N/A Source of information: N/A 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: N/A 28. Original owner: Unknown Source of information: N/A 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Built in 1905, the original core of the Griego House consists of wood frame siding and a plaster interior, per Larimer County Assessor Records. Asphalt shingles cover the structure's exterior, obscuring the original building materials. Two additions evidence the original structure's accretive growth over time: one on the south of the property and the other directly south of the first addition. The first addition's exterior is consistent with the asphalt shingles covering the original building, while the second south addition is clad in wood siding and has a shed roof covered in asphalt rolled roof material. At the roofline, what appears to be a wood pallet, is exposed. Unfortunately, the historic record does not indicate specific dates for these additions. Packet Pg. 33 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO 30. Original Location: Yes Date of move(s): N/A V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Domestic-Single Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Vacant/Not In Use 34. Site type(s): Residential 35. Historical background: With the passage of the Homestead Act in 1862, the United States promoted resettlement to immigrants far and wide. This legislation was an opportunity for German- Russians to immigrate to the United States and pursue land ownership and economic opportunity. When combined with rising tensions in Russia, the Homestead Act's promise of farmland successfully attracted German-Russian immigrants to the United States. German Russians maintained a tight-knit, agrarian society in their communities in America. While many chose to settle in the American Midwest, some continued farther west, settling in Northern Colorado. Beginning in 1880, young German-Russian men sought work for the Kansas Pacific Railroad (later Union Pacific)in Colorado. While working for the railroads brought the first German-Russian immigrants to Colorado, many others found employment in industrial agriculture, specifically cultivating sugar beets. The sugar beet industry exploded during the first half of the twentieth century. In 1909, seventy-nine thousand acres of Northern Colorado's farmland consisted of sugar beets. The Great Western Sugar Company drove sugar beet production in the region by constructing several factories across Colorado. The Fort Collins Sugar Beet Factory opened in 1903 as an independent venture, and The Great Western Sugar Company purchased the factory several years later. Known as "Sugar Tramps," German-Russian sugar beet workers were known for their loyalty, work ethic, agricultural skill, and for "having the reputation of being unusually honest." Through their labor in the beet fields, the Germans from Russia helped build a flourishing and prosperous community in Fort Collins. Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO German-Russian beet workers and their families lived in housing near the beet fields, as well as on small parcels of land at the outskirts of town. There, they built small, distinctive dwellings called "shanties." The sugar industry's demand for a predictable pool of field laborers attracted a steady stream of Volga Germans to Fort Collins, who soon built their own shanties. The Griego house is the only surviving example of this style of home along what is now Lindenmeier Road. As German-Russians became more affluent and purchased their own land, they left a shortfall of field labor, which was exacerbated by a stymied flow of European immigrants to the area during WWI. In Fort Collins, beet farmers made up this shortfall by recruiting Hispanic migrant laborers to work the fields. Although likely built by German-Russians, this residence later housed Hispanic migrant workers as well. The surrounding neighborhood now bears a distinctly Hispanic appearance due to Great Western's development of La Colonia (today, the Alta Vista neighborhood) in 1923. Great Western encouraged workers to construct small adobe houses next to the beet fields, and provided financial support to its Hispanic field workers in order to encourage them to remain in the Fort Collins area permanently. Though the Griego family currently owns the residence at 741 Lindenmeier Road, the property is currently vacant. 36. Sources of information: Historic Landmark District Designation Nomination Form. City of Fort Collins, 10. 2009. Thomas, Adam.Hang Your Wagon to a Star:Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 (Westminster, CO: SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003). 5-6. Clark, Dustin. "Industrialization and the Rise of Windsor" (paper presented at the December 2016 Windsor City Council meeting, WIndsor, Colorado, December 5, 2016). "German Russian Shanty— Circa 1880— 1930," Historic Centennial Village (Greeley: The Friends of Lincoln Park Library, no date available). Taken from 1903 —Windsor Sugar Factory, "The Company: From Humble Beginnings to Packet Pg. 35 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO Domination" 114. "Sugar Tramps," Chapter Ten in Foot Prints in the Sugar(Hamilton Bates Publishers, 2016). Taken from http://gwsfootprints.com/Pate 5.html. Kenneth W. Rock, "Colorado's Germans from Russia: An Initial Inquiry," 5. From the Germans from Russia Collection by Sidney Heitman, Agricultural and Natural Resources Archive, Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins, CO. 21 October 2016. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: N/A Date of designation: N/A Designating authority: N/A 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. 3 8A.Standards for Listing in the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties: Criteria for consideration of properties for nomination and inclusion in the Colorado State Register includes the following: A. The association of the property with events that have made a significant contribution to history; B. The connection of the property with persons significant in history; C. The apparent distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, or artisan; D. The geographic importance of the property; E. The possibility of important discoveries related to prehistory or history. Packet Pg. 36 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO 3813.Fort Collins Standards for Designation: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. - Does not meet any of the above City of Fort Collins criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Agriculture; Social History; Architecture 40. Period of significance: 1905-1960; 1905-1967; 1905-1967 41. Level of significance: Local 42. Statement of significance: 741 Lindenmeier Road is significant under Criterion A for Agriculture from 1905- 1960, as well as for the Social History from 1905-1967,in accordance with the National Register of Historic Places 50-year rule. This residence is significant to agricultural history due to its association with the sugar beet industry as a residence constructed for sugar beet field workers, first under the Fort Collins Sugar Factory and later under the Great Western Sugar Factory. This structure is also relevant to the Social History of German-Russians, as well as that of Hispanics, as individuals from both ethnic groups lived in this residence. 741 Lindenmeier is also significant under Criterion C for Architecture from 1905- 1967, in accordance with the National Register of Historic Places 50-year rule, because it is a sugar beet shanty. Sugar beet shanties were once a common type of structure in the Buckingham and Andersonville neighborhoods, but urban renewal projects have largely eradicated these historic structures from the landscape. Although some sources Packet Pg. 37 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO report that Fort Collins's last sugar beet shanty (209 Third Street) collapsed in 2015, this residence is an overlooked example of an architectural type that many thought had completely disappeared from this area. As such, it should be considered individually eligible on the National Register of Historic Places as well as at the State and Local levels. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This residence retains a moderate degree of physical integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, per the National Register of Historic Places. The residence has remained in the same location and retains integrity of setting and association with the surrounding agricultural fields as well as proximity to Dry Creek and the Ames Ditch. Despite numerous additions, the residence retains the character of vernacular architecture, growing organically according to the needs and tastes of its residents, and using inexpensive,locally available materials and captures the influence of both German-Russians and Hispanics in its vernacular architecture and complex form. It has also retained its historic outbuildings. This structure retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility assessment: Individually Eligible State Register eligibility assessment: Individually Eligible Fort Collins Landmark eligibility assessment: Individually Eligible Historic District eligibility assessment: Contributing 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes Discuss: Despite being constructed well before the rest of the Alta Vista neighborhood, this structure would certainly contribute to a potential historic district, as well as being eligible for individual designation. This structure documents the early years of sugar beet cultivation in Fort Collins, as well as the period of time The Fort Collins Sugar Company, an independent sugar beet refinery founded by local Fort Collins Packet Pg. 38 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO businessmen, was in operation. Great Western later purchased the factory, and the ethnic makeup of its agricultural labor force shifted over time. While German- Russians likely built this structure, Mexican field laborers also lived at 741 Lindenmeier. In response to labor shortages during WWI, the beet industry recruited Mexican migrant laborers to work in the beet fields to replace former German- Russian laborers who had prospered, purchased land, and become beet farmers in their own right. While Great Western established La Colonia (today, the Alta Vista neighborhood) in 1923, it is clear that some Hispanic laborers resided in and expanded older structures—such as 741 Lindenmeier—on nearby land, while others chose to build their own adobe-brick houses on Great Western's model with the assistance of its employee installment plan. If there is N.R. district potential, is this building contributing or noncontributing? Contributing 46. If the building is in an existing N.R. district, is it contributing or noncontributing? N/A VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: Main page: 741 Lindenmeier_1_lookingNW.tiff Figure 1: 741 Linden meier_1_lookingNW.tiff Figure 2: 741 Lindenmeier_3_lookingSW.tiff Figure 3: 741 Lindenmeier_4_lookingW.tiff Figure 4: 741 Linden meier_5_lookingNW.tiff Figure 5: 741 Linden meier_10_lookingNW.tiff Figure 6: 741 Lindenmeier_13_lookingW.tiff Figure 7: 741 Lindenmeier_14_lookingS.tiff Figure 8: 741 Linden meier_15_lookingE.tiff Figure 9: 741 Linden meier_18_lookingS.tiff CD filed at: All digital forms of the photographs are housed at the Public Lands Packet Pg. 39 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO History Center - Colorado State University. All photographs taken by Dustin Clark, February 2017. 48. Report title: Alta Vista Neighborhood Historic Resource Survey 49. Date(s): March 2017 50. Recorder(s): Natalie Walker, Katherine Oldberg, Dustin Clark 51. Organization: Colorado State University 52. Address: Department of History, Clark B 356, Campus Delivery 1776, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 53. Phone number(s): 970 491-6335 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO Sketch Map 6 yet p 'S �trlp�.�Me�4- e. R-ct. 3 t } 805 zLI ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 � � s j ! � zs a J *t- l TP V`t ! 14 �5 Iz � E-SNED�bv�ST�-to��SE / *All 18 Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO photographs are housed in digital form at the Public Lands History Center - Colorado State University. Only 9 photographs are presented within this form. Location Map . 1 / �� 1 /'•�� � tiltl 1 • ?• / / . CAN J?. : �. ■ 1 Alta Vista 1 ` �. ifs \ ` 1 1 ,r 7 .a �I -�.`�`+�' Tl... 9 VINE ~ DR1Y� Nwt-i art}s' bORLING jAnde7jo v tle \ t Buckin auk l I .. ' `Park 1• `' 41 at ram, ,• 1 fl I1�■ - �• � Y Mr- 461 l Ibr a 11 �~ JS� ` I� • _ `a• _-_ f ���III OR40 ,i It I I -1 I.-.....' II• T' '\ I�tJuU5f71 . .....:...._di i �1 1 - --CSU Campus BM Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO Photographs •- fit. .:� --- ,_:.` ,�: - �� .��.,/l�. Sr�F�:,fla»i�,rr. �,u.1 'Frl:^":ie �'.�• .. f :1'F�ir . .. -. - ._ . Figure 1: Southeast corner of facade Packet Pg. 43 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO J NortheastFigure 2: 1 of facade Packet Pg. 44 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO w s� 'ram Figure 3: Facade, east elevation Packet Pg. 45 InventoryITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural • 16 •- Road., • • CO !��, ,.} �r►�� ���-�I..},.��i®��� �4� t"1-4 ' i�'�� {�y'�jrr '' X � ,y��.-��'Ei Figure � key \�/ Y1,' �e ,,., J���F� •'�q-.1� � " ' : Southeast cornerof facade, showing LindenmeierRoad 1 Packet .• 46 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form1• •- Road., • • • r � � Figure 5: w F Northeast1 of Shed ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.1063 •- Road., • • CO 44. •H!i'�- �Yt�y. !�lei�~ � �- _ - • ql� Figure 6: y - I���1 ► "ice'¢ �,�� . , i j Facade, east elevationhouse Packet .g 48 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT InventoryArchitectural •nn 5LR.10638 741 Lindenmeler Road., Collins, � ,.�,�r��tea, '��' �,',`�. •�%fi g �e� �, � _ , Figure 7: North elevation of privy 1��r .a 1`I r 'R�,�il� �' ��� 7�'[• '� � .vIf- �ii�� ./Yr����R► �� ���,,. 'i. ) t q��'TY�� ~ ` `9! '�i',Kg�4' �� �`l1gi �`r�f i •e�i f Packet • •• 49 tTTt ,,• r �� ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.1063 8 741 Lindenmeier Road., Fort Collins, CO @W-45- r i Figure 8: Lean-2 on west elevationof shed Packet 50 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.1063 •- Road., • • CO AN Figure s 1 Packet: Northwest corner of house . ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 HISTORY 1776 CAMPUS DELIVERY FORT COLLINS, CO 80523 v COLORA00 STATE UNIVERSITY 970.491.6335 1 970.491.2941 0 February 10,2022 To Members of the Ft. Collins HPC and other interested parties: As the lead CRM and Historic Preservation faculty member and Director of Graduate Studies in CSU's History Department, I write this letter to offer our support and assistance with preservation efforts for the 741 Lindenmeier property in Ft. Collins, Colorado. Our department has one of the oldest Master's public history programs in the U.S.West, and our concentration in CRM& Historic Preservation has close to a 100% job placement rate. One of the keys to our successful training of graduate students in the field of CRM/Historic Preservation is to provide students with experience working on as many real-world projects as possible. In line with this ethic of job training is our commitment to working with and for our local communities. In the spring of 2017, students in my graduate seminar in Historic Preservation completed a service learning project that resulted in a draft cultural landscape study of the Alta Vista neighborhood,including documentation of the historic shanty at 741 Lindenmeier. This extremely rare example of a residence built by the Germans from Russia population who worked in the Sugar Beet Factory was a resource that our class recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register. Our program is committed to providing the current or future property owners of the historic building located at 741 Lindenmeier with an array of assistance. Working through class assignments and/or internships, our students could provide such assistance as completing National Register, State Register, or Local Landmark nomination documentation; drafting a preservation plan; developing historical interpretation; and/or assisting with exhibit and collections development of a museum in or about the historic shanty. I am happy to answer any questions interested parties may have about possibilities for future contributions that CSU graduate students might make to the documentation,preservation, or interpretation of the building currently located at 741 Lindenmeier. Sincerely, Dr. Sarah Payne Associate Prof. History Colorado State University Sarah.payne@colostate.edu _ r Colorado State University Packet Pg. 52 Agenda Item 3 STAFF REPORT - • . 2022 Historic - •n Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES AND OTHER STAFF-ISSUED DECISIONS AND LETTERS, JANUARY 6, 2022 TO FEBRUARY 3, 2022 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 (HPC), 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 HPC 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 HPC 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 sections 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 January 6, 2022 to February 3, 2022. There is no staff presentation this month, however, staff will likely provide one in March regarding the 255 & 261 Linden Street project and other relevant projects underway at this time. FStaff Design Review Decisions & Reports—Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision Basement egress windows on east elevation. Report issued — 312 Locust St. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic met SOI January 10, 2022 District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Standards. Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Basement egress windows on north and west Report issued— 931 Remington St. elevations. Contributing property to Laurel met SOI January 19, 2022 School Historic District(NRHP). Reviewed by Standards. staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Reroof of rear garage (wood shingle to asphalt 408 W. Mountain shingle). Garage is a contributing property— Ave. main house has asphalt shingles. City Approved January 27, 2022 Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Item 3, Page 1 Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 3 In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic Report issued — 817 Mathews St. District(NRHP). Reviewed by staff under met S February 1, 2022 Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Standards. Roof replacement(tar&gravel to TPO membrane). Substitute material appears similar, 1016-1018 Morgan resolves maintenance issues w/tar-and-gravel Approved February 1, 2022 St. roof type, and is minimally visible from the street due to low roof pitch. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Removal of current finishes for restoration to historic finishes; masonry&concrete repair 255 &261 Linden (primarily on 261), window rehabilitation and Street replacement of 4 windows on 255 (non-historic). Approved February 3, 2022 Contributing properties to Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations— Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision N/A Note:In the last month, staff has provided preliminary&conceptual guidance for several projects, including draft patio projects for 605 S. Mason (Avo's, formerly the Home Bakery), and 212 W. Laurel(the Rainbow, formerly a 1st National Bank neighborhood branch), both of which are Landmark-eligible.As of February 3, no requests for final approval have been received. 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 Date Results Results? Finalized N/A 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. Note:Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small ce11/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do not appear in the table below. 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. Item 3, Page 2 Packet Pg. 54 Agenda Item 3 Lead Agency& Property Date Location Description of Project Staff Comment Comment Issued N/A Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary 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) Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower's installation. These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers.This report section will summarize activities in this area. Between January 6, 2022 and February 3, 2022, staff processed a total of 2 5G/Small Cell tower requests. Of these, both were to replace existing street lights. Item 3, Page 3 Packet Pg. 55 Agenda Item 4 STAFF REPORT February 16, 2022 Historic - •n Commission PROJECT NAME 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, FINAL DESIGN REVIEW, REHABILITATION, ADDITION, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants' project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and to issue, with or without conditions, or to deny, a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building, demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Alexandra Haggarty (legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) RECOMMENDATION: This is a final design review in which the applicant is seeking approval via a Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior project components based on the City's requirements and standards, for designated City Landmarks. Staff finds the current proposal has elements that meet the Standards, specifically the modification and rehabilitation of windows on the main house, and the demolition of the non-historic 1968 garage for a new structure at the northeast corner of the lot. However, staff also finds that the proposed addition does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation sufficiently and has provided an analysis below. 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 and the City to issue other necessary permits to complete the project. In this case, the applicant is requesting a final decision on design review of proposed plans to under Municipal Code 14-54(a)at this meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The William and Violet Jackson Property was designated as a City Landmark on December 2, 2014. That designation included the full property, and specified that the main 1922 residence and 1942 garage constructed by the Jacksons are historic features, while the 1968 two-car garage is not. The property was designated under Standard 3 for Design/Construction, specifically as an "excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century." Item 4, Page 1 Packet Pg. 56 Agenda Item 4 The proposed project includes construction of an addition totaling 887 square feet. It also includes demolition of the non-historic 1968 garage and construction of a new, 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Character-defining features for this property discussed in the nomination form include: • A low pitched, open, front-gabled roof including exposed rafter tails. • Simple, rectangular massing under a single, front-gabled roof form, indicative of Craftsman Cottages of this style. • Outer brick walls set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward and two distinct bands of darker brick near the foundation. • Craftsman-style front porch including two, open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles and supported by brick pillars • Wood, one-over-one sash windows of varying sizes with matching wood storm windows. • Two distinctive brick chimneys • A c.1942 single-car garage at the northwest corner of the lot. [nomination form is Attachment 2 to this packet] ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1922—construction of the original house • 1942—construction of the single-car garage • 1947—reshingling of the house • 1968—addition of two-car garage at northeast corner of the lot • 2000s—minor restoration of exterior, including removal of aluminum storm windows with current wood 2007—reroof of buildings on the property HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: Since designation in 2014, this property does not appear to have undergone significant Design Review until the current project. Below is an administrative history of this application: • January 12, 2021 —demolition permits for both accessory structures (one historic, one not) received. • January 19, 2021 —building permit requested for main house with addition • February 4, 2021 —video conference with owner and contractor to discuss City Landmark requirements and where project did not meet Standards. • February 25, 2021 —video conference with owner and contractor about review process • March 17, 2021 — project scheduled for conceptual review but rescheduled due to late hour at request of owner • May 11, 2021 —follow-up meeting with applicant's contractor to further explain how project did not meet Standards. • June 28, 2021 —follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to explain how project did not meet Standards. • October 27, 2021 —follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to remind on project review process and Standards. • November 19, 2021 —Conceptual Review (Round 1)with Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) • January 22, 2022—Conceptual Review(Round 2)with HPC HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A- Unknown Item 4, Page 2 Packet Pg. 57 Agenda Item 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK:The applicant is seeking a final design review decision for the following items: 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home (Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 76 square-foot rear mud porch slated for demolition). 2. Replacement of all historic basement windows with egress-compliant window units and infill of west- facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Staff has been in consultation with the applicant since January, 2021 with a previous iteration of the project. Consultation has included five meetings with the applicant to explain the design review process, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the requirements for design review for projects on City Landmarks. Four of those meetings were related to a previous design of the project shown in Attachment 7 that did not meet the Standards. One meeting was held in preparation for the November conceptual review discussion before the HPC, where staff indicated that the plan set certainly improved, but still did not meet the Standards in key areas. Per the applicant's request, all iterations of the project drawings, including the original building permit submittal from January 2021, are included as extra attachments. The HPC also submitted requests for additional information regarding how projects such as this (additions on residential City Landmarks) had been reviewed in the past, with specific interest in feedback from the State of Colorado (via the State Historic Preservation Office). The City of Fort Collins maintains a federal certification for its historic preservation program (known as CLG status, a "certified local government")that allows the City to qualify for certain special grant opportunities, and for private Landmark owners in Fort Collins to qualify for the Colorado Historic Tax Credit for rehabilitation projects. A key condition of that certification is that our design review process must be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties("the Standards"). The Standards expect, and provide guidance on, the variation in the application of those Standards based on the specific significance and historic features of a given property. That significance and important historic features are typically documented via a nomination form, and in Fort Collins, also the ordinance passed by City Council designating the property. Minor variations are also expected between communities based on local needs, limits to local review authority imposed by the governing body (in this case, Fort Collins City Council), existing local codes, community priorities, local architectural history, and local climate and environment. Furthermore, the Guidelines and various publications issued by the National Park Service over the life of the Standards have evolved over time and continue to evolve in light of new research, new building technologies, and current practice in historic preservation. For this specific case at 1306 W. Mountain Ave, staff has provided an analysis based on the historic significance of the property, it's character-defining features, and current guidance regarding the application of the Standards for Rehabilitation. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY A previous iteration of this project scheduled for conceptual discussion at the March 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting was rescheduled with the owner's consent due to the late hour when the Commission got to the item on the agenda; the rescheduled discussion was later tabled at the owner's request. In advance of that conceptual hearing, staff received comments from seventeen (17) members of the public, all in opposition to the project, mostly due to the scale of the proposed addition. The plan for the addition has been significantly altered since that time. The property has been posted with a sign since November 2021 due to the ongoing status of this application. Leading up to, and since the November 10, 2021 Work Session, sixty-four (64) public comments were received from forty-four (44) individuals, with all but one in opposition to the project in relation to the addition's size and scale. Forty-three (43) of those comments, from thirty-nine (39) individuals relate to the current iteration of the project proposed for approval, thirty-eight (38) individuals against and one (1) in favor. Item 4, Page 3 Packet Pg. 58 Agenda Item 4 STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: As provided for in City Code Section 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 most relevant review criteria under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. The City of Fort Collins adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties both as a requirement to maintain a federal certification for the City's historic preservation program, and as a way to establish a consistent and predictable methodology for how exterior projects can be approved on City Landmarks. With adaptive reuse being the most common treatment of historic buildings in Fort Collins, almost all projects, including this one, are reviewed under the Standards for Rehabilitation. Those Standards, and their accompanying, recently updated guidelines (2017)from the National Park Service, provide a framework for decision-making that recommends certain types of actions, and recommends against certain types of actions, based on the historic significance of a property, and the needs arising from the modern use of that property. The Standards are intentionally not prescriptive in approach due to the diversity of historical significance, diversity of historic features, and broad range of potential project types that may come forward for review. The Standards instead create consistency and predictability through a standardized decision-making process that preserves the essential historic characteristics and features of a property while accommodating changes both minor and major on an historic property. Applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: Standard Code Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Met(Y/N) Standard A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires SOI #1 minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial Y relationships; The property will remain in residential use. However, staff notes that the size and scale of the addition inclines toward inconsistency with this Standard. National Park Service "Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions to Historic Houses,"notes that "in cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate an owner's programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identified." The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal SOI #2 of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships N that characterize a property will be avoided. Designated as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage, the building is characterized by its small size and compact massing compared to larger Victorian and modern homes. Its simple rectangular form under the front-gabled roof, and other Craftsman-style features including exposed rafter tails,the styled brick exterior,wood sash windows,and prominent brick chimneys together characterize the property. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home —As Bulletin 37 notes,the expansion of modest scale houses can be particularly challenging in order to create an addition that is compatible with the historic building's size, scale, massing,and design.The addition, as proposed, would alter the massing of the building as viewed from Mountain Avenue.While the addition is on the rear,and is at a lower height than the historic roof line,the visible east bump-out at the rear and significant additional space makes it difficult for the project to meet this Standard, as it would change a small cottage with a larger open yard into a larger house with significantly less surrounding open space on the lot,and would alter the building's characteristic simple, Item 4, Page 4 Packet Pg. 59 Agenda Item 4 rectangular massing into an irregularly-massed building more typical of Modern-style Ranch homes or earlier Victorian-era homes. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window, and replacement with two small one-over-one windows—Some of the exterior doors and most of the windows appear historic, although the storm windows were new(restored in the early 2000s by the previous owner).Treatment of the basement windows is common in this context and appears to meet this Standard (the basement windows are not a character defining feature).The modification of the west bathroom window from one historic unit to two non- historic is not ideal, but by itself may be considered consistent with this Standard due to its location on a side elevation,the reduced visibility of this window,and considering the context of the proposed preservation and rehabilitation of most of the remaining windows on the historic building. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot—The 1968 two-car garage is not a contributing historic resource for this City Landmark and could be demolished without compromising the property's significance.The design of the proposed new garage seems generally compatible with the property's historic character.The roof orientation along a north-south axis is in keeping with the overall character and spatial organization of the site. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. SOI #3 Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding N/A conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right SOI #4 will be retained and preserved. Y The primary historic feature proposed for removal is the rear porch. While this feature appears to date from the property's historic period and represents a common adaptation to historic residences in Fort Collins, staff does not believe the porch is a character-defining feature based on the significance of the property for Design/Construction as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage. While staff generally encourages retention of rear porches whenever possible, in this case retaining it is not required in order to meet this Standard. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples SOI #5 of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Y The project as proposed in the current(February 2022)version, meets this Standard. The plan has been modified from previous iterations to avoid demolition of the primary exterior wall of the house at its northeast corner. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home —While the size, location,and design of the addition remains problematic because it alters the character-defining rectangular design of the cottage, its installation does not appear to require the removal of any character-defining elements of the property.Therefore,this project component meets this Standard. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows—While the historic status of doors on the property is mixed,the windows appear to be historic with new (c.2000s)matching wood storm windows and appear to be in sound shape for repair. Replacement of basement windows in bedroom areas for egress Item 4, Page 5 Packet Pg. 60 Agenda Item 4 compliance is a regular part of building rehabilitation and meets the Standard. While the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation is not recommended, it does not appear to conflict with this Standard. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot—While the 1968 two-car garage does not characterize the property,the 1942 one-car garage does as noted in the Landmark nomination. As noted previously,the overall design and massing of this garage is generally compatible with the overall property. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the SOI #6 severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new Y feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home —N/A 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows—While some of the doors on the residence are original and some are later alterations,the windows appear to be original with new(c.2000s) matching wood storm windows and appear to be in sound shape for repair,which is proposed. Replacement of basement windows in bedroom areas for egress compliance is a typical component of building rehabilitation and meets the Standard.While the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation and loss of the rear-most east window is not recommended,the overall plan for windows on the residence appears to meet this Standard. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot—N/A Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the SOI #7 gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will N/A not be used. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such SOI #8 resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Y The proposal includes excavation for the foundation and crawlspace under sections of the addition. Based on the construction date of the property, the disturbed nature of the soil, and distance away from natural waterways (beyond 200 ft), it is unlikely that excavation would uncover significant archaeological materials from the pre-contact or Euro-American settlement periods. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy SOI #9 historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be N 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. Generally, this Standard calls for additions to meet three main requirements: to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate.While components of the addition's design meet these requirements, some conflicts remain under this Standard. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home —The addition as proposed has elements that meet some of the requirements noted above.The roof height of the addition is below the historic roofline, helping to subordinate the massing of the addition to the historic building.The siding of the addition is proposed as lapboard which helps differentiate the addition from the historic building without disrupting the compatibility.The window selection for the addition are simplified versions of the historic Item 4, Page 6 Packet Pg. 61 Agenda Item 4 windows. However,the new addition adds significant square footage to the existing house, making meeting the"subordinate" requirement difficult without the use of offsetting design features such as a hyphen that are typically used to allow for larger additions that retain the original building's characteristic form, massing, and scale. The size of the addition disrupts the defining,symmetrical massing of the property, and is large for a property of this type(a small residential cottage).The bump-out of the addition by 7.75 ft on the east is significant for a home and lot of this size and disrupts the historic massing and orientation of the main house,creating further compatibility conflicts. Additions, especially onto small historic homes,should be at, or inset from,the historic sidewalls of the historic building.Where this is not possible, using a hyphen, courtyard, or other interrupting feature is recommended to connect the new construction to the original building and clearly differentiate the new construction.While the current design is close to meeting this Standard, necessary modifications remain to offset the new construction from the old in order to meet this Standard and retain the character-defining features of the building. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows—The removal/replacement of the basement windows should not conflict with this Standard.The removal of the window near the northeast corner as part of the addition,and the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation is not recommended, but the minimal impact on the property's overall historic character and character-defining features, does not appear to conflict with this Standard. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot—The proposed new garage is generally compatible with, distinguishable from,and subordinate to,the existing property and appears to meet this Standard. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in SOI #10 such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of Y the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In these revised plans, this Standard appears to be met. 1. Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1,097 square foot home —While the addition conflicts with Standard 9 in significant ways, it appears compliant with Standard 10 as no demolition of character-defining exterior walls is proposed in the revised plans. 2. Replacement of all basement windows with egress-compliant window units, removal of a window on the east wall, and infill of west-facing main floor window and replacement with two small one-over-one windows—Replacement of basement windows in bedroom areas for egress compliance is a regular part of building rehabilitation and while not strictly reversible, is not altering the essential form and integrity of the property and meets the Standard.While the modification of the bathroom window on the west elevation is not recommended, it does appear to meet this Standard for the same reasons as the basement window modifications. 3. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-square foot garage at the rear of the lot—No historic resources appear to be affected by this aspect of the project. Item 4, Page 7 Packet Pg. 62 Agenda Item 4 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 1306 W. Mountain Avenue was designated as a City Landmark by City Council ordinance on December 2, 2014 based on its architectural significance under Standard 3 (Design/Construction). • The proposed rear addition to the main house at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue (item 1), does not meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation due to loss of character- defining features of the property resulting from failure to meet Rehabilitation Standard 2 and 9, two of the four most relevant Standards for a proposed addition. • The proposed modification of the basement windows to create egress-compliant units (item 2), and demolition of the non-historic garage for the construction of a new, detached garage (item 3), meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Item 1 of the proposed project, a rear addition to the main house, does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation in several key aspects, as identified in the analysis table above, and that Items 2 and 3, replacement of a non-historic garage with a new detached garage and alterations to the existing basement windows, do meet the Standards. Staff recommends the following: • Approval of a certificate of appropriateness for Items 2 and 3, for the basement window alterations and demolition and replacement of the rear, 1968, non-historic garage. • Denial of a certificate of appropriateness for Item 1 for the proposed rear addition, finding that it does not meet Standards 2 and 9 because the size and layout of the proposed addition disrupts the historic massing and scale of the building that are character-defining features of its historic importance, and that it is not subordinate to the historic house in overall scale, due to the bump-out of the east wall toward the rear by 7.75 feet and the overall size of the addition. SAMPLE MOTIONS This is being presented to the Commission as a Final Design Review. The Commission may adopt a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, and construction of a new garage at, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS AND DENIAL OF OTHERS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for proposed items [list items for approval with brief description of proposed work] at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval for items [list items for approval with brief description of proposed work] because they do not meet the following Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why.] Item 4, Page 8 Packet Pg. 63 Agenda Item 4 The Commission further finds that other than the stated standard(s) not met, the denied alteration(s) meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, and construction of a new garage at, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, provided the following conditions are met: [list condition(s) in detail and how satisfaction of each condition contributes towards meeting particular Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation] This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, and construction of a new garage at, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the following Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why for the basement windows, garage, and rear addition.] The Commission further finds that other than the stated standards not met, the denied alterations meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Landmark Nomination form 2. Current Plan Set for project(addition and new garage) 3. Overall project set of photos from applicant 4. National Park Service Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions to Historic Houses (also available online, HERE) 5. Public comments received 6. October 18, 2021 Drawing set w/renderings (for reference only) 7. March 2021 Original Drawing set(for reference only) 8. Copy of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the adopted standards under which this project is being reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. 9. Staff Presentation Item 4, Page 9 Packet Pg. 64 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Ol Planning, Development&Transportation Services F=Cityort Collins Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 N College Avenue P.O.Boxox 580 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 2, Swett's Addition, City of Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): William and Violet Jackson / Robert Bailey Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Robert Bailey Phone: 970-484-5411 Email: ecoregions(@cs.com Address: 1306 West Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 or P.O. Box 512, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 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: Mitchell Schaefer, Historic Preservation Intern; Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: kmcwilliams(a)fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: Prepared 2 September 2014. Revised 08-2014 PackVaPg 165 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 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 includes two contributing resources, the Craftsman bungalow home built in 1922 and the one-car garage located on the northwest corner of the lot, which William G. Jackson constructed in 1942. The two-car garage, constructed in 1968 by Robert Waldron, located southeast of the one-car garage and northeast of the home, does not contribute to the significance of the property due to its age. SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR 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. Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. Significance: ❑ Standard A: 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: 1. ❑ A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. ❑ A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. ❑ Standard B: 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. ® Standard C: 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. ❑ Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity: ® Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. ® Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. ® Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. ® Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. ® Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. ® Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. ® Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It 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. Revised 08-2014 PackVaggP266 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period. This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home is an excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century. Its front-gabled roof, overhanging eaves with exposed roof rafters, false purlins, and iconic 19-by-7-foot porch are only some of the stylistic aspects that make up approximately one-third of all Craftsman homes in America.' This home retains an abundance of its exterior and interior integrity. The home stands in the very location where it was originally built in 1922, and has excellent integrity of materials, workmanship and design. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made great efforts to restore the home to its 1920s character, and in doing so, provide a living snapshot into the past of the Fort Collins community. HISTORICAL INFORMATION This Craftsman bungalow home was constructed very likely in 1922. In September 1921, William Glenn Jackson, the vice president, advertising manager, and secretary for the Fort Collins Express-Courier(now the Fort Collins Coloradoan), purchased Lot 2, Block 2, of the Swett's Addition to the city for$500.00.2 On June 3, 1922, Jackson obtained a ten-year loan for$3,000.00 for construction materials.3 Jackson hired Walter A. Knight, a building contractor living in Fort Collins, to build the house, and on June 21, 1922, Knight obtained a permit from the city to construct a "Five-room brick bungalow" for$4'000.00.4 William Glenn Jackson, the only son of William and Della McMillan Jackson, was born on June 5, 1884, in Ohio. By 1888 the family had moved to Colorado Springs. The younger William attended schools in the area, and, on July 18, 1907, at the age of 23, he married Grace Violet Sanders in that city. The 1910 federal census shows that Jackson had begun his newspaper career, working as a reporter in Colorado Springs. By 1918, when William registered for the draft, he and Violet had relocated to Fort Collins, and were living at 1133 Laporte Avenue. The 1920 census found them still at that address, along with their two young sons, William Frank and Glenn V. In 1922, the Jacksons moved into this Mountain Avenue residence, where they lived until at least until 1927. In 1930, the family was living in Eugene, Oregon, where William Jackson worked in newspaper advertising. Soon after, the family relocated to Estes Park. In May 1931, William G. Jackson and Dean Kirby became owners of the Estes Park Trail. Jackson bought Kirby out in August 1934. Former secretary of the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce William Dings became editor the same year. Jackson's son, William F. Jackson, took over as the newspaper's editor in 1938. After living in Estes Park for many years, William and Violet Jackson returned to Colorado Springs, where they remained until William's death in 1966 and Violet's in 1973. When the Jacksons left this Mountain Avenue home in the late 1920s, they chose to rent the property out rather than sell. Over the next nearly thirty years, at least seven different tenants lived here. The occupations of those residents ranged from lawyers and editors to gas inspectors and "sheep commissioners." In 1942, Jackson acquired a building permit to construct a 12' X 20' ' Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture (New York: Knopf, 2013), 567. 2 Warranty Deed, September 16, 1921, Conveyance No. 41, Abstract of Title to Lot 2, Block 2, Swett's Addition to Fort Collins, in possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3 Mortgage Deed, June 3, 1922, Conveyance No. 44, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1922(Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1922), 85. 4 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 1027, June 21, 1922. Pack P 67 Revised 08-2014ag�3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 "frame one car garage" on the northwest corner of the lot; the estimated cost of labor and materials was $200.00.5 In 1947, Jackson re-shingled the home.6 In October 1949, the Jacksons sold the Craftsman home to Gordon and Evelyn Heumesser. Gordon Heumesser was employed as a steward for the Elks Club, and Evelyn Heumesser worked as a bookkeeper.' The Heumessers remained here until 1963.$ In November of that year, they sold their home to John H. Rust Jr., a machinist, and his wife Dorothy.9 The Rusts financed their new home through the Fort Collins Federal Savings and Loan Association for$12,800.00, and remained here for five years until selling it to Robert "Bob" and JoAnne Waldron in 1968.10 The same year that the Waldrons purchased the home, they also paid $1,000.00 to construct a 22' x 26' two-car detached garage on the property.11 Bob Waldron, a World War II veteran, met his future wife, Joanne Bancroft in 1947, while both were working in downtown Fort Collins. The couple was married on February 22, 1948, and raised two daughters, Suzanne (Henderson) and Gwen (Felt). Bob worked at Paramount Laundry and then at Colorado State University Food Services, retiring from this position in 1972. JoAnne retired from Steele's market in 1991, where she worked for 34 years. Bob Waldron passed away on December 6, 1999,12 and JoAnne on September 11, 2002. The current owner, Robert Bailey, purchased the home in 2001. Bailey, an ecological geographer and writer, is employed by the U.S. Forest Service.13 Since purchasing his home, Mr. Bailey has made great pains to restore it to its original 1920s Craftsman style both inside and out. "Fortunately," he stated in an American Bungalow article he published in 2011, "the exterior needed little work." He did, however, replace old aluminum storm windows with wood frames to fit the period, and in 2007 he paid to tear off the existing roof and replaced it with asphalt shingles.14 In an effort to "bring back the spirit of the original construction" Bailey has done extensive interior work including re-installing the original bathroom sink and toilet (which he found in the basement), removing the carpet to refinish and improve the pine flooring, and repainting much of the interior. Even much of Robert Bailey's furniture fits the beautiful 1920s style of this beautiful brick Craftsman home.15 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1922 Architect/Builder: Walter A. Knight, Builder Building Materials: Brick, Wood Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow Description: This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home retains much of its original integrity of design, workmanship and materials, and stands as a wonderful example of the west-coast Craftsman style. The low pitched, open and front-gabled roof includes overhanging exposed roof rafters and is topped by asphalt shingles. The outer brick walls are set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward. Two distinct bands of darker brick are set in a repeating pattern with only rowlocks exposed and pairs of specialty cut smaller bricks edge all corners of the main house. The lower band of rowlock bricks sits flush with the outer layer of brick as it wraps around the house, including the front porch, and forms the lintels for the basement windows. The 5 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 6968, May 6, 1942. 6 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 9851, May 12, 1947. 'Warranty Deed, October 31, 1949, Entry No. 65, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins City Directory 1952 Colorado Springs: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1952), 131. See Fort Collins city directories, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963. 9 Deed, November 4, 1963, Entry No. 70, Abstract of Title. 10 See Fort Collins city directories, 1964-1968. 11 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 12395, June 10, 1968. 12 Obituary of Robert Waldron, Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. 13 Julie Estlick, "Back to Life," Lydia's Style Magazine, September 2008, 34. 14 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. B0703533, June 5, 2007. 15 Robert Bailey, "The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective,"American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72-83. Pack P 68 Revised 08-2014ag�4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 higher-placed and corbelled band runs around the house forming the bottom sill of the first-story windows and connects with the cement cap of the porch's wall structure. An undated addition to the kitchen on the rear (north) elevation sits on the northeast corner of the home and opens to a rear porch. The foundation is unexposed, but the base of the front and rear porches are constructed of cement. The front (south) elevation includes two open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles, one as part of the larger roof and the other covering the porch. The open and covered porch runs only a partial length of the front elevation. Its brick walls are set in Flemish bond capped by cement and lead to the front entryway. The porch's gabled roof is supported by two brick pillars set in stretcher bond that rise from the porch's brick walls. These pillars may have been repaired or installed sometime after the original construction, but building permits reveal no information concerning their addition. The porch's gable has a slightly lower pitch than, and is symmetrical with, the front gable of the home and includes the exposed and overhanding rafters typical to Craftsman homes. Two decorative purlins are found below the soffits on either side of the porch's gable. The steps leading up to the porch, along with the main entryway, is slightly asymmetrical and located just to the east of the center of the south elevation. The front entryway is protected by a glass door with wood rails and opens inward while an accompanying screen door opens outward. On either side of the front entryway are double-hung sash windows in cream wood frames that the current owner replaced after purchasing the property in 2001. The steps leading up to the porch are made of poured cement and adorned with decorative metal hand rails. Both of the east and west elevations are simple with little elaboration and continue the Flemish brick bond with the two distinctive dark-brick bands. On the west elevation four single pane windows that are nearly flush with the ground are surrounded by cream wood frames and provide light to the basement. Three double-hung sash windows and one single-pane window for the bathroom make up the first-story windows on the west elevation. Each of these windows is surrounded by cream wood frames. The three larger double-hung windows use the upper band of rowlock-patterned bricks as their sills. The east elevation bears a brick chimney set in corbelled Flemish bond before it pierces the roof, but set in standard, or running, bond there above without any corbelling or decorative patters above the roof line. This elevation bears four separate windows, one located just to the south of the chimney and three to the north. The only window located to the south of the chimney is a double-hung sash window surrounded by cream wooden frames. Like almost all other first-story windows it uses the higher-set band of rowlock bricks as its sill. The first, and smaller, of the three windows located north of the chimney is a double-hung sash window. The second window is comprised of three double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and divided by two cream wooden mullions. The third and northern-most window has its own row of dark bricks for a sill that also bear only rowlocks in a uniform pattern, but is separate from the band that extends around the entire house. This window has four lights arranged in two double-hung windows separated by a single cream wooden mullion. Two, double- pane windows are flush with the ground and, like those on the east elevation, provide light for the basement rooms. The rear (north) elevation includes the same low-pitched gable as the front also finished with shingles, but also includes a wood-frame addition to the brick structure on the northeast corner of the home. The only window on the north elevation that is set in the brick structure is located west of the addition and is a double-hung sash window set in a cream wooden frame and it also uses the higher-set rowlock band of dark bricks as its sill. The partial hipped-roof addition protrudes from the northeast corner of the home and provides additional space within the kitchen. This addition very well may have been a later addition as the current owner informed Historic Preservation department staff that when he restored the wood flooring in the kitchen he found a portion of the wall that is now covered by the restored wood floor. Its outer walls are finished with vertical wood siding without a rake and the roof rafters are open and exposed on the west and east elevations of the addition itself. The northern exposed rafters are hidden by the rain gutter than runs the entire length of the addition's northern roof. It also bears a door with light pane and a screen door on the outside that lead out to the back porch and backyard. West of the rear entryway on the addition are two double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and separated by a cream wood mullion. The back porch is entirely composed of cement andlback P 69 Revised 08-2014ag�5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 surrounded by a simple metal pipe railing. The steps to the porch are found on both the west and east sides and have since cracked away from the rest of the porch structure due to ground settling. The one-car garage included within this landmark designation is located on the northwest corner of the property and was built by William G. Jackson, then the owner of the property, in 1942. The car door faces north and opens into the alley. It is a front-gable structure with overhanging, exposed roof rafters and asphalt shingles. The four elevations are covered with light brown drop siding and all edges are protected with cream wood corner boards. The car door is symmetrical with the gable and made up of eight green wood panels and surrounded by a cream wood framework. The entryway is located on the east elevation in the southeast corner and is painted to match the car door. It has two wood panels within rails and is surrounded by cream wood framework. The east elevation includes one four-pane window with cream wood frames and a wooden sill to match. A similar four-pane window is fond on the south elevation and is slightly offset to the west from the center of the gable. The two-car garage on the property built in 1968 by Robert Waldron is located to the northeast of the home and to the southeast of the one-car garage described above. This structure is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. Revised 08-2014 Pack'OaggO670 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Abstract of Title of Lot two (2) in Block two (2), of Swett's Addition to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado; in Larimer County, Colorado, compiled by The Fort Collins Abstract Company. In the possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. Bailey, Robert. "The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective." American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72-83. Ching, Francis D. K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995. City of Fort Collins building permits, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. City Directories of Fort Collins, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. Estlick, Julie. "Back to Life." Lydia's Style Magazine (September 2008): 32-34. Family Search: William Glenn Jackson. https://familysearch.org Federal Census of the United States: 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1940. Accessed through www.heritageguestonline.com. "JoAnne Waldron." (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, September 13, 2002. McAlester, Viriginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. "Robert Waldron." (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. Revised 08-2014 PackVaggP771 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: 1. Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; 2. Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this j� day of Apt . , 20� Ro (J'ER 7— Owner Name (please print) I Owner Signature State of )ss. County of L& r,1lre.ej ) Subscribed and sworn before me this �I �" day of_ ,r , 20 lL , byye�b�-vim}- Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Le d'.,'-.4.4, Not ry MARGARET R CLANCY 4 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO ' NOTARY ID#20134040425 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 06,2017 r Packet Pg. 72 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Cityof Community Development&Neighborhood Services Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134-fax fcgov.com LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 10, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 1306 West Mountain Avenue CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Robert Bailey, Owner REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado BACKGROUND: The William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, located at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, is being nominated for Landmark recognition for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C, for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The Jackson/Bailey house is a classic example of the Craftsman style, popular in Fort Collins during the early-twentieth century, with many noteworthy architectural details. Constructed in 1922, the building's distinctive features include varying colors of brick set in a beautiful Flemish bond, exposed roof elements, a prominent front entry, and a substantial front porch. The first of two automobile garages was constructed in 1942; as a simply designed single-car garage, it illustrates a time when many Americans were purchasing personal vehicles for the first time, and contributes to the significance of the property. The second garage, constructed in 1968, is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made extensive efforts since his purchase of the property in 2001 to restore the exterior and interior of the home, and is pursuing this Landmark designation. The property's context is that of an early twentieth century residential neighborhood. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling, and the Jackson/Bailey property relates to and contributes to the neighborhood's context. COMMISSION ACTION: The Landmark Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the request for Landmark designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, 1306 West Mountain Avenue. REVIEW CRITERIA: Municipal Code Section 14-5, Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, provides the criteria for determining the eligibility of a property for Landmark designation. It states, "Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered." Standards for determining significance: Packet Pg. 73 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 A. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either(or both) of two (2)types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. B. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are 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. C. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. D. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. 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. f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property 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. Context: The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the - 2 - Packet Pg. 74 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area.... - 3 - Packet Pg. 75 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Leland Ave d Q d c Y U z Laporte Ave d a _ > N G7 C C L N O Y > N <n a z z Site W Mountain Ave QFU Oakwood School m m N O N O > FY Q N T d Y N U Q C O N Y U R N W Oak St of 3 v City Park City Park or 1 inch = 200 feet N 1306 W Mountain Ave Packet g. E s N• ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 n Front • and SideElevations, 1 •- and • Elevations, 1 Packet .g L ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 >S f Rear • Elevation, Garages facing a '7Y 1Ct • f�f North, Packet 78 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 a - r:4 North and East Elevations, One-car Garage built 1942,July 2014 z 111 - South and West Elevations,Two-car Garage built 1968,July 2014 Packet Pg. 79 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 City.Of Planning, Development & Transportation Fort Collins Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134-fax fcgov.com RESOLUTION 6,2014 _ OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE WILLIAM AND VIOLET JACKSON/ROBERT BAILEY PROPERTY 1306 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE,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 historical, architectural, 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 historical, architectural and geographical heritage of the city and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets; and WHEREAS, the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, 1306 West Mountain Avenue in Fort Collins (the "Property") is eligible for landmark designation for its high degree of exterior integrity and for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for its distinctive Craftsman architecture; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Preservation Commission has determined that the Property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 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 Landmark Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the Landmark Preservation Commission as findings of fact. Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Packet Pg. 80 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Landmark Preservation Commission Resolution No. 6, 2014 The William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, 1306 West Mountain Avenue Page 2 Lot 2, Block 2 of Swett's Addition, City of Fort Collins County of Larimer, State of Colorado be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 3. That the criteria contained in Section 14-48 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 for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins held this loth day of September, A.D. 2014. "ki 5A2 ea Ron Sladek, Chair ATTE OE ecretary/Staff Packet Pg. 81 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 168, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATINGTHE WILLIAM AND VIOLET JACKSON/ROBERT BAILEY PROPERTY, 1306 WEST MOUNTAFNT AVENIJE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PtJRSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated September 10, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property located at 1306 West Mountain,Avenue in Fort Collins as more specifically described below (the "Property") is eligible for Landmark designation for its high degree of exterior integrity, and for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for its distinctive Craftsman architecture; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that the Property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in City Code Section 14-5 and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that the Property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owners of the Property have consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the Property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate the Property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the City Council as findings of fact. Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows,to wit: Lot 2, Block 2 of Swett's Addition, City of Fort Collins County of Larimer, State of Colorado be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code. - 1 - Packet Pg. 82 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Section 3. That the criteria in City Code Section 14-48 will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the Property will be reviewed for compliance with City Code Chapter 14, Article III. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of December, A.D. 2014. Of FgRrC" M yor l.lJ ATTEST: •':fir SE •M cn City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of December, A.D. 2014. F FORT a c M r �p• •........ 0 ATTEST: ' '•. . SEAS City Clerk R PI - 2 - Packet Pg. 83 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 RMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION Inc. "Building Dreams" 12-23-21 RE: Design Changes for 1306 W. Mountain Revised Plan set dated 12-8-2021 and consisting of 7 pages Demolition of existing brick wall: - Revised plans show there will not be any existing historic brick being removed and all brick walls can be reversible. Exterior Windows: - Revised Plans show retaining the existing windows in the home except for the removal of and fill-in in the existing bathroom. Floor plan square footage: - Revised plans show adding onto the existing home of 1097 square feet a new addition of 887 square feet reflecting a reduction of 24% from previous plans. Roof Details: - Removal of dormer on the east roof elevation based on the commission's recommendations. P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970)472-1113 • Fax (970)472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com Packet Pg. 84 ITEM 4, ATTACHMP T 2 cxISTPG�o'+ooeu noonoN io Li R. e i• i' �,• ;+.:•i... --_ e a fast. 5 ^$. i p � t exbnryr,neenocai ?1�{ �I� -n + " It Z §5 � �kBZ A m � � AodriON.Ro�ocn I aooRWN Z 4' $ c j E6 a� l.La (1 I � +A g.�2! n ozA n QPmP °off Q3 n3 ev_ 1 ii �E O O Z A O z D n<z D Hai., n rn n D N m A pp a� yy�0((11 <� Z O O N Z 70 DyDDj ail m co,(,1 N 4y`d E n� Z O L30 mpzm A$ aDBz�Q�m o Rr m�mZp tlS oo poi§ - O D 4 V _0z ' Nm-n Z i A BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. once: DRAWN SY: APPROVED: 1 AODITION&INFORWION 1292021 JD . 85 1ID6 W.M� E.HORSETOOTH R0. OFFICE',(TOI4M.tt13 V FORT GOWNS.COLD W521 G4 SURE 162 FPX', rero,0)2E313 SWETTS ADDRION FORT GOWNS,COLD 00.525 in @mmsreaticansbuction.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 ExieTnw Aoarlorl ' o I f ! �� xf y ; ji1••ij R �x 3 9 C v 3 ii(l�i. infs [rg I re"a al A i 3 3 �� --------- ----- _ to D o" cW m 03 "' � s; � ;, = w€E`•;' Sig r mmN R {i `lp I N 4 s "ji is N z �yy O - —_—______ — m m= m z I';a3 m E z x —4 0 E O D Q ekleTwr, .owrwN m zm N - r b z S'-49s" 13 TREADS a 10" EXISTING EXISTING o BASEMENT MAIN LEVEL v Q� $ o N Z f�tf X1 /� PANTRY A '- �_ ab 9 aDD x 0 1'- ro BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DnTE: DRAWN BY A PROVED: N 1E-8-E021 JD n__I._t n_ y'� ADOITONAL INFOgMATION 86 808 WEST MOUNTHN AVE. 3T5 E.HOgSETODTH qD. OFFICE:(Bl0)4R-ltt3 V FOgT COLLINS,CO 80521 BLDG<SUITE tC2 (STO)CT9d319 SWEETS AODRION FOgT SCOW- nro@armateaticonatrunlon.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 3 X 91 ZQJ A mmz mm o o A z 20 g= g a m g y m a== 3 � O € O s„ r m � A . ® � 00 7CI q YA a v 6 Z uJ m Xa n n ` Eck _ z o =b � �g 3 7i IF � Q - o ul 0 N m ° 3 3 m A ds e Z 0 og4 w m BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE: DRAWN By: l,PPROVED: nooinorvu wcoRnuno" RD. iz-R- 21 LID Packet lg 87 oFFice�WO)4 V EM (wq a�za72— aia FORT COLLINS COW— MAR. 'I,maR.Pom ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 a `o m 's II II II I z� Y m _ pY _ II m II T ; 1.7 a -4 fie, = O m r m I , . Is II tl I II s — ti II a II I II I i i i sE� m BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. D28-: DRAWN BY: nraRoveD: ADDITIONAL wFORMATION zozl dDPacket Pg 88 1 W.MDIINTAINAVE. E.H SUE102 RD. OFFICE:13N)4R-11t3 V FORT COWNS,COL03o521 FORT COLLINS LUTE OR EM (9'I%4]EA313 SWETTS AODRION FORT COLLIN9�COLO eW2E EMAIL', Info@emwteatlmneVuctlon.wm ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 i �;illlj III III � ���i ?" loll 14 m st ' if rn r � III N m Z I I m II ! —4 A i . I I i. m �I � mLi �.. m — r II �' m §I . r I I f f; !1 n m II s IN r b Z b yy L c II ► II J f I II IIl Ills f I l Ifi o i BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE: DRAWN BY: APPRDVE p U Q (n 12b2021 JD 7fA n S HORSETOOTH BD W.MOUNTNN AVE. OFFICE:ty)S)a12-t 113 V FOBTCOLLINS,COLD 30521AD 10-L-011ATION a SUITE W FA%: 1aT0)4 M13 SWiTT'SAOOITION ONG COLLINs�LOLO B0E25 EMAIL IMo@erm9eaOconsWCAon.wm ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 � ORAWL SPADE MAIN LEVEL ADDITION �^ HII y 2 R R 8 $D a4 80uj II IIiA n� I'�ino V Il z�y z �� II II n s II W II On I T ipp "c hum EB j�I;i�-- $q �sls z� y ¢§ b 9 e �z CRAWL SPADE 3a MAIN LEVEL ADDITION BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE: DRAWN BY, ARRROVED: i 12-&2021 JD Packet a c I��L 1-1�.. ADDITIONAL INFOPMATION 90 1308 W.MOUNTAIN AVE. 0i , -NOPSETOOTH PD. OFFICE:(elU7 AT2-N t3 V FOPTCOLLINS,COLD 80521 PT COLLINS, 02 (m 0)6120913 6WER'SADOTION S�COLO 80525 a@armneatlwnnmcilon.wm ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 d I - m Az-, m P sg�x�om 3�WE� Z mAr�D �OG�wNm UE- n i 4 ( i a f e mzw i pZrgeq r»» gec�e o z m r bz BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. Dnre: DRAWNEv: A11R2 n V 12-8-2D21 JD 7f� p el .7 I AODDIONAL INFOSMATON ]sE HORSETOOTH RD. 1366 W.M� OFFICE.IeT01 n2-ttt3 J FORI GOWNS,WlA�521 EWO4 SUITE 162 (N)an-6919 swETrs nnDlnory FORT cowrvs,co6o 80525 I 1 � -� ll�ii e •� � i per .4'•��' ,((i� � :•Y. �� � r S• 1s. � � .�x�N 'j a,. to • j _ •�. ,tea i • pp. ti. 'I • ..ram .� � ' +�'��• +.'_ M tom_ 'f�� :�"' ° :. t. ITEM I ATTACHMENT r �► 'y `� -anti• `'. _ ti ,� '���A �j��'. r�•$j..b' ' ♦ _mod - c�} cam: y r •fir s., r F Packet .. • c �t } glow-Packet Pg. 95 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: Rear Additions to Historic Houses Applicable Standards: 9.Compatible New Additions/Alterations io.Reversibility of New Additions/Alterations Issue: Whenever possible, new additions should be con- Application i (Incompatible treatment): This modest resi- structed on rear elevations where they will have less of an dence began as a two-story log house. Later,the main portion impact on the building's historic integrity. Rear additions—like of the house was converted into a distinctive Bungalow-style all new additions—should be subordinate to the original build- residence. Over time,multiple additions were also made along ing in size,scale,and massing,as well as design. Additions that the natural grade at the rear of the house. Prior to rehabilita- feature a higher roofline,that extend beyond the side of the tion,these later additions were quite deteriorated. building,or that have a significantly greater footprint than the original building are usually not compatible. The expansion of modest scale houses or those in prominent locations(such as a corner lot) can be particularly challenging. Standard r states that"A property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and envi- ronment."In cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate the owner's programmatic needs,a more suitable building should be identified. Rear additions that meet the Standards are compatible in de- sign,yet differentiated from the old building,often through a process of simplification. For example,if the original house features narrow clapboard siding, multi-light double-hung sash windows and an elaborate decorative cornice,the new ad- dition could be sided with different clapboards,one-over-one r double-hung sash,and a less detailed cornice. New materials need not match exactly the historic materials but should be A appropriate to the building type, compatible with existing materials,and unobtrusive in appearance. � I Rear additions that do not require significant removal ofexist- ing materials may help retain the house's historic appearanceand character. Connecting the new addition to the historic _ �+ building with a modest hyphen can limit removal of historic materials,drastic structural changes,and irreversible changes to the original building. A hyphen can also more clearly dif- ferentiate new from old construction.Rear additions can also provide the opportunity to make a building accessible,rather Top andAbove:This historic house had been altered numerous times in than constructing ramps on a more prominent elevation. the past--including multiple additions to the rear of the building. REAR ADDITIONS Packet Pg. 96 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 When the project began, the existing rear additions were determined to be beyond repair and were demolished. A re- placement addition of a similar size to those removed would likely have met the Standards. However, the new addition constructed on the rear doubled the size of the structure as it ` existed before the rehabilitation. As built,the cladding,open- ` ings, and rooflines of the new addition were appropriate to „ I I L•� 1 the building's historic character. Yet this was not sufficient to overcome the effect of an addition substantially more massive than the additions that were demolished. With two full floors, a footprint that was much deeper than the previous additions, - a new deck extending from the rear and side elevations,and significant grade changes at the rear,this work competes for The size of this new rear addition—incorporating two floors and an ex- attention with the historic structure to which it is attached and tended depth--combined with substantial changes to the site overwhelm has seriously impacted the property's historic character. the modest historic house. Application 2(Compatible treatment): This large brick house was converted for use as offices. As part of the rehabilitation a new addition was constructed at the rear of the house. With a brick ground floor and a clapboard upper level set beneath a roofline that was lower in height than the original structure,the rear addition's design was both distinct from,and compat- ible with,the size,scale,massing and architectural features of the historic house. The use of varied materials on the addition (brick below,clapboard above)was handled with restraint in a manner that did not compete visually with the main house. The addition provided space to locate new systems for the entire structure as well as accessibility to the historic house at grade, making exterior ramps unnecessary. A hyphen(with a lower roofline and narrower footprint)separated the new addition from the old,further distinguishing the various periods of construction and reducing the addition's massing. The hyphen required only a minimal amount of distur- bance to the rear wall of the historic house and left the plan of the main house intact. If the addition were ever removed,the house's historic integrity would remain undiminished. Right: The house prior to rehabilitation. "S Below right: Drawing of proposed rear addition and hyphen,show- ing how the new construction was subordinate in size to the historic house. 1 Below left: New addition and connecting hyphen. The new materials and fenestration complement,yet are distinct from,the historic house. it Chad Randl,Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. June 20(Rg41S2ttfte9�7 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Julie St.Croix To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaaer Cc: Laura Bailey Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: Please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal Date: Sunday,March 14,2021 6:32:34 PM Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2021, at 6:30 PM, Julie St. Croix<juliestcroix I @hotmail.com> wrote: To whom it may concern, I believe that it is important for the house at this address be preserved as a historical property. I was privileged to go on the historic home tour in 2008 with my sister Veronica Lim who lives in old town. Please reject this plan for remodeling this home. Thank you for your consideration. Julie St. Croix Sent from my iPhone Packet Pg. 98 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Gina Janett To: Gretchen Schiager Subject: [EXTERNAL]Comment for LPC: Please reject conceptual design and garage demo for 1306 W Mountain Ave. Date: Monday,March 15,2021 6:41:01 PM Attachments: The Sustainable Bungalow American Bungalow Magazine.pdf Comments to LPC on Agenda Item#8 1306 W Mountain Conceptual Review of Proposed Changes I am writing as chair of Protect Our Old Town Homes to provide comments on proposed modifications to the Jackson-Bailey home at 1306 W Mountain Ave. Our group is an association of Fort Collins' residents living in east and west Old Town neighborhoods who treasure the historical architectural character of our homes and seek to preserve them. This special home is a very important Fort Collins' resource because it contributes significantly to the historic character of the residential corridor along W Mountain Avenue which is the heart of Old Town and beloved by both visitors and residents city-wide. The home is an excellent example of a 1920's Bungalow cottage that maintains all the original features and materials that make it especially important as a Fort Collins Historic Landmark. The home has been toured by many historic preservation enthusiasts and local residents during both the Historic Home Tour and private tours conducted by its former owner, Bob Bailey. The home, built circa 1922, is special in part because Bailey restored and maintained the home for many years in as close to its original condition as possible, both inside and out. A tour through his home was like going back in time to the 1920's to how Fort Collins' early residents and our grandparents and great grandparents lived. The home even has national significance as it was highlighted as the cover story entitled "The Sustainable Bungalow" in the fall 2011 edition of the American Bungalow magazine. https://www.americanbungalow.com/the-sustainable-bungalow/. See attached article. In the story Bailey described the sustainability of the "ecological design that took the form of large eaves, deep shaded front porches, and generous patio overhangs that sheltered the home from the elements". The brick walls and attic effectively provide insulation from heat and cold. Over the years of his ownership, Bailey painstakingly worked to undo bad remodel jobs and to restore the home's original character from plumbing fixtures to paint colors and furnishings. He replaced old aluminum windows and doors with wood ones. As noted by the historic survey completed in 1998, the home is "a superb example of small-scale brick Craftsman dwelling." And that was BEFORE Bailey restored it to a near original condition. But the point of the story is that the home's design is sustainable even today and bungalows are "still prized as models of gracious, affordable living, and they have proven to be quaint but durable forerunners of sustainable residential design and construction for the 215t Century." Because of the home's significance to our community's historic character, the proposal to add a very large addition to the side of the building and to demolish the 1942 garage, which was explicitly included as part of the city's Historic Landmark designation, should be categorically rejected. The City's staff of historic preservation professionals has provided the LPC with all the specific Secretary Packet Pg. 99 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation that the proposed design fails to meet. Protect Our Old Town Homes strongly urges the LPC to reject the proposed design because of the home's historic character and significance that our community treasures and which provides an exemplary example of Fort Collins early homes. Gina C Janett Chair, Protect Our Old Town Homes 730 W Oak St Fort Collins, CO 80521 970 222-5896 ginaciaolcDfrii.com Att. "The Sustainable Bungalow", American Bungalow, Fall 2011 Edition Gina C. Janett ginaciao@frii.com 970 222-5896 Packet Pg. 100 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Attachment to Gina Janett Email • Itr:it%V f Mwt w�IR 7f f r E S TO R AT I Ely IN TM[ INTEREST Of CcI �18PRESERVING►"' ► U N NG lL STORING^"' �p� R1CAN DuTTAMC �G 2p N I IMf BUNGALOW H l t� s n M &A�TIME AFFORDS. Uf!�! DA N x D p 1 N PAT T O ij5N C I A LOW VAt LAIC" Ca -- � I a fl i z� Packet Pg. 101 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Attachment to Gina Janett Email The Sustainable Bungalow I American Bungalow Magsinc https:-?w w%%.amenzzLnbumgalow'.o=n the-suswinable-bungalow! THE SUSTAINABLE BUNGALOW BY RDBERT GL B Alt EY From 15wt:71 , T V T BETWEEN 1900AND 1945,a typical middlydassAmerican home comprsed approximately L000 squarefeet and had no more than two bedrooms—one for the parents.one shared by the children—and one bathroom Tens of thousands of parents rased families in such homes.in whatsccmed to them relatively affordable comforL Today thesehomcs,survivingin inner-city suburban neigh borhoods all ovc r the country,arc considered small-suitable for a single person or,at most,a married couple.Yet they arc still prized as models of gracious,affordable living,and they have proven to be quaint but durable for erunnersof sustainable residential design and construction tar the 21stcentury. That-it turns out,is no accident.The bungalows of yesteryear have been able to last for a century because their de signers and builders incorporated many elements of an ecologi tally sensitive approach to design that made them so. With the middle-class bungalow.ecological design took the form of large eaves.deep front porches aril generous patio overhangs tha t sheltered the house from the c lane nts.Those fcatu cs helped make it what we now describe as energy efficient—easier to heat and keepcod.to my own home.aclassic 1922 Craftsman brick bungalow n Fort Coll ins.Colo.,60 miles nor th of Denver on the Great Plains dry steppe,my 19-by-7-foot porch shades the front of the home in the summer.Because the house faces south,sunlight can penctra tt the front of the house dur- ing the winter,helping to warm it_The wa its at double courses of bricks insulate the interior,helping to keep it warm in the winter a nd cod i n the summer.The attic space provides further insulation_ ofJ 3MCO21,3A5 PM Packet Pg. 102 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Attachment to Gina Janett Email The Sustanabic Bungalow I American Bungalow Magazine hUps:i N wwamaiwnbwnealo .convtho-sustainab1c-bLmgalow. A Sense of N ace I he task of ecological design is to create I and uses arid structiwesthat are deep I y adapted to particularplacvs-to the local climate,topography and flora-drawing u an IoLalbulding materials,practices and braditions_Successful ecological designs 411 1- derive in large part from understanding the natural processes that distinguish dif ferent regions,then designing strudures and land uses accordingly � f This approach is the opposite at one site-fits-all mass productiorL in which Stan- rt1U Bard templates are replicated with little regard to place Ecdogkal de5ignisnot new.Aboriginal pecplespractired itfor millennia in their vernacular architecturesA well known cxampleof NorthAmerican buildingsde- signed to fired their regionalclimatc arc the Anasazl cliff dwellingsof the Southwestern U5.These higfrmass adobe dwel lings were built in south-facing caves that afforded passive solar gain in thewinter and blocked heatgaln in the summer.Local materials were used in ways that artfu I ly maArnited human com- fort In the pueblosof Zuni.Taos,A.coma and elsewhere in the Southwestem deserts,the Anasazis'succ ssorsused adobe and thermal mass to create pueblo dwellings that were easily kept cod in the open desert Today,adobe homes in Albuquerque,even those lacking InsulatiorL stay 15 to 20 degrees coder than the middaypeak tempera- ture,often eliminating the needfor air conditioning In other regions,homes wristructed of brick like mine,have the same cffccL in regions where massing was an impractical method of thermal control,other measures were adopted.The Rocky Mountain Irstitute's 1M Primer on Sustainable Building provided general guidelines on using buildingshape and or irritation to,f or«ample,capture sunlight for passive solar heating and lighting in cold aril temperate climates Eaves and windows c an be olaced so tha t Not rier su nliP_,ht reaches into the dwelling but summer s un l ig ht wi ll not_ Deep covered porches provide additional shading tram their overhangs and sheiter outdoor gatherings during hot spei is. Ecological design practices can also have the effect of enhancing a regions(or,for that matter,a nelgh borhoodsl sense of architecturalidentlty-its visual diaracter-which has becomeso sorely degradedover the past century at subur ban sprawl.for architects and builders who arc sensitive to regional ecology,a structure's materials,colors and vis ua I style asser t its"fitness'-its appropriateness-for its bu i It c nvi ron men t while s im ul tancou sly enhancing the environmentaltabrL Restorinig andUving in aSustairubleBungalow Over the past 30years,encouraged in part by Incentives to restore historic properties and protect historic neighbor-hoods.mgrants from the suburbs have been moving back to older urban communities.for many,like me-the comforts of home are amplified IN links to history.Living in a house like mine helps me satisfy my desire to make sustainable uscofrmurces.(I'm sfiN driv- ing the Volkswagen Bug I bought new in 1964.)Wfii lc I may rely on h ig it tech appliances in almost every room of the house,the objects of mygreatest affec bons are traditional artifacts Imbued with a sense of history:an old enamel top kitchen table from the Great Depression era my great-grandmother's rocker,Jade itc glassware,an Arts and Crafts side table.a Navajo rug_ My compact.1.093-square-f oot,single-story bungalow is located in the 1910 SwtAts Addition.one of several areas 2 of 4 3/1 V2021,3:45 PM Packet Pg. 103 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Attachment to Gina Janett Email The Sustainable Bungalow I American Bungalcnv Magazine hUM:�;Nw-w.arnQlcanbtmgaiow.comthe-sustainable-bungalcn that developed a long West Mountain Avcnucduring the first haft of the 20thcentury as Fort Call ins expanded westtoward City Parkand GrandviewCermetery.The homesdoublrgabled frontand unique mix of red,yellow- buff a nd dark-brown brick work make it stand out in the neighborhood,rich in bu ngalov-6,whkh expo le rxed its peak growth at ter the First World War.Today it is par tot the city's revivi rig Old Town.near Colorado State U rivers tty.A restored 1919 trol Icy operates on West Mountain on weekend a fternoons f rem May through September. From myhome-I don'tnecd acar to make most local daily or weeklytripsAneighbor hood grocery is two blocks away-T he urivers ity.a I ibra rye rest au rants,toff cc shots and downtown shopping are with n wal ki rig or bik ing dis- tance C lase by ar e a park and an d cmerntary sc hooL T hese features arc a ttr act ing others as pa rt of a yr een move- men t to renovate and build in Old Town I am the sixth owner of the bungalow.whkh was built for W.Jackson in 1922 at a cost of S4.000.I was already III v- inginamid-1920sCraftsman style bungalow when it became available 10ycars ago-Itteatures original Southern yellow pine floori rig and built in drawers and cupboards convenientl y aLcesised from the hallway L)4--twm-n the bedrooms and bath An undivided living-dining room a kitchen,and par bat-width front parch complete the plan- T here is no entry hall:the f rant door opens directly into the living room The f ram i rg and d adding of the one-car "Model A'garage in back are wood.A clothesline stretches between two poles in the backyard.In a s mall gardern- vegetables r i pen. Fortunately.the exterior needed little work Windows are doublesashed;to restore sustai nab i lit y,I replaced old aluminum storm windows and doors with wooden onus,which arc(orrect for the period and more energy efficient I ns ide,rm trying to bring bath the spirit of the original construction-The procrss.now almost aumple4c,has en- tailed acombination of undoing poor remodeling Jobs to restore the home's original dnaractcr and add irig plumbing fixtures,furnishings and paint colors from the bungalow era. I refinished thebeautiftll pine f1mrs that w poreserved tsidel wall-to-war carpet thrVughuutthe house When I removed the carpet 1 discovered that a wa 11 separating the kitchen from the back porch had been removed some- time in the past,leaving a gap in the f loor ing.I wove in matching flooring sa tvaged from another older home to fill the gap-I saved or xg inal hardware from au pboa rds.door sand windows.and retained original I ig ht fixtures.where possible or located fixt iresfrom the period.In the basement I found theoriginal bathroom sink and toilet which 1 reinstalled.The medieinecabinet was missing.and the recess inthe wall had beenclosed up.so I bought a repro- duction from Rejuvenation in Portland Ore.Several two-panel door were also missing;I found suitable replace- ments at an architectural salvage(cimpany in Drnver- I*xL after ccnsuking Robert 50nweitzer.the authority an bungalow colors,I turned my paintbrush onto the plaster walls of every room in the house. �• UnfortunatcN,a previous owner had pal rite d every room white,including the j 1 wood trim and doors.Rathcr than strip the wood down I decided,in corsu lta- tion with Schwcitzcr.to paint ita color to complement the walls. i 11 The Idtchenhadbeenremodcled in the 1950s.and a subsequent owner had installed butcher-block countertops and painted every other surface white. Rather than compktiM rip outeverything and start over.I decided toinstall � linaleum countertops with metal-trim edging and used a'cream-and green" paint scheme typical of that era.(For the countertops.1 consulted with Tim Counts author of the Summer 20011No.301 American Bungalow article 3 Of A 31S2(V-1.3:45 PN Packet Pg. 104 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Attachment to Gina Janett Email The Sustainable Bungalow�American Bungalow Magazine https:/�w-w-A'.amai:anbvnigabw•.ccm tl:Ns sainablrb 1gabw• 'Creating a Cl as sic Bungalow Kitcheri 1 I found a 1950 Writgomery'Na rd cledric range to complete the look. The f urniture is eclectic,most of the pieces from the early 20th century.A f ew pieces handed down from my great grandparents reflect the ambiencr of the bungalow era.Fundamental in the Arts and Crafts philosophy is the idea of creating things by hard,and in this spirit I display American Indiano bjects:Navajo rugs,Hopi pots and katsi-nas. and Pima baskets.The original paintings and vintage prints are by local artists. Throughout.)wasguided by Tim Counts again,here try his Fall 1997(N,16)AB article"The Affordable Bungalow Interior'Ne points out that the early owners of these houses didn't fill them with expensive furnishings such as Stickfey f umfture T heirgoa I was to acate dwellings that were both artistic and affordable- Now 89 years old.my home was buIt to Iast.l t is truly as us tainabk-,piece of architecture-'a superb c xampic of small scale brick Crattsmandwelling acrording to the suryryor who evaluated it in 1998for the Wc515idc Neighborhood Survey_One day,I hope to pass it on in a little tit batter condition than it was in when I found it.Its time has come- i • I Robert G.Willey,PhD,is on ecobgicnig®grapherand author who works far the Rocky Mo nton Research Stotion,U_S. Forest Service,n Fort Coffins.Cob. This arbde draws on his book Ecoregion-Based Deign for Sustafna fity(Sprirgo 2002).tine thanks his dauShter.Lard Badry for her assistance with this arbde. sofa 3/15l21'J21,3:45 PN Packet Pg. 105 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Veronica Lim To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaaer Subject: [EXTERNAL]Proposed project at 1306 West. Mountain Date: Monday,March 15,2021 5:40:07 PM It has come to my attention that the new owners of 1306 West Mountain have intention to add an addition to the home and tear down the two garages,thus changing the home and the property significantly. I am a long-time friend of Bob Bailey,and am an Old Town resident myself. I understand his intention to preserve the home through historic designation. The home is a fine example of a 1922 historic bungalow,and sits on one of our premier historic avenues. It has even been featured in American Bungalow magazine with its small,simple design. It would be a loss to compromise the integrity of historic 1306 West Mountain. Please do not approve the proposed project! Sincerely, Veronica Lim Packet Pg. 106 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Andrew McMahan To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaaer Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 w mountain Date: Monday,March 15,2021 10:39:31 AM Please reject the development proposal for 1306 west mountain avenue. I believe that it is incompatible with the property's historic designation. Andrew McMahan former resident of the Carolyn Mantz Neighborhood, and current resident of a (non officially designated) historic property in north Fort Collins' GMA. 200 gregory rd, fort collins, co 80524 mcmahanaj@yahoo.com Packet Pg. 107 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Laura Bailey<laurabailey2l@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:27 PM To: Karen McWilliams<KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com>; Gretchen Schiager<gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: Please reject remodel proposal for 1306 W. Mountain Dear Commission Members: I am the daughter of Dr. Robert Bailey,the community member who owned the Jackson-Bailey home on 1306 W. Mountain for almost two decades until his passing in 2019. 1 inherited the home and carefully cared for it until July of 2020, at which point I sold it to Brian and Barbara Berkhausen. I am also a long- time Fort Collins resident and a real estate owner with three of my own properties here in Fort Collins. I would like to provide feedback on the proposal to alter the Jackson-Bailey home and ask that you reject the proposal before you and all similar proposals in the future. I speak as a both community member and as someone intimately aware of the value and history of this home. First I'll say that I believe there is plenty of room for new and old homes and large and small houses in our town and for limited remodels in Old Town under appropriate circumstances.That said,the extreme changes being proposed by the new homeowners are boldly incompatible with this home's historic designation and the obligation the city has to honor the Interior Secretary's standards for treatment of historic properties.The city report shows the homeowners proposal is deeply and broadly incompatible with those standards. Even a largely scaled back version of this plan would be quite incompatible. This home, a superb example of small-scale bungalow architecture, has become well known as an intact and living reminder of yesteryear. It is so special that the national architectural magazine American Bungalow featured the home as a 12-page cover story. It was also featured in a piece on historic homes in our local Style magazine and was part of the Poudre Landmarks Foundation Historic Home Tour in 2008.This publicity was based on the home and premises being authentic, intact and undiluted by excessive modern architectural changes. My father spent years ensuring the home's authenticity and made the required effort to earn landmark protections. For that reason, among others, I considered the city's commitment to adhering to the protective standards as an important factor when deciding to sell the home,vs. keeping it in our family. My strong expectation was that the city would not approve plans that would alter the visual aesthetics of visible portions of the home,the overall integrity of the premises and the protected 1942 garage. I would also like to attest that my realtor ensured we received acknowledgement that the new owners were aware of the historic designation before going under contract. I also personally handed them a copy of the full designation materials and chatted with them about historic designation during the closing. While I respect reasonable homeowner choice when balanced with the good of the community and immediate neighborhood, in this case the new homeowners did have the necessary information to make their choice before purchase of the home. If they felt this home was unacceptable,there were many others without historic landmark designations available on the market last summer, including many in Old Town. I can also attest that the home is in very good shape and the 1942 garage is in good working condition and also quite visible from the public alleyway where many neighborhood residents walk and jog. Older elements, such as windows, are there by design; the beautiful old glass double-paned windows were Packet Pg. 108 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 intentionally restored to fit the period.And several prospective buyers and a realtor commented on their special beauty when the home was for sale. (Please note attached images of 1306 W. Mountain for the most accurate representation of the home and garage.) You'll also notice something special about the lot as well. While it is narrow by today's standards, it is green and full of nature.The architects of this home would have intended for nature to be a selling point of the design since Bungalow architects wanted to blur the lines between home and nature with the iconic deep-set patios and green space between houses and throughout the yard. The proposed additions would engulf the lot and almost completely consume the side and back yard, permanently altering the overall aesthetic of the property which is currently historically accurate. The new additions are so large,they would dominate and overshadow the original historic elements of the home and profoundly decrease the originality of materials. (Excluding the 1960s garage,the home and premises are probably about 95 percent original). Ironically,this proposal would destroy the very identifiers (the small footprint, quality brickwork, simplicity of the rectangular design,yard-to-house ratio)that makes the home an exemplar of small- scale West Coast bungalow architecture and that earned the home landmark designation in the first place.Those characteristics represent hallmarks of the Bungalow architectural movement that rejected the larger and fussier Victorian homes of the day. The preservation and designation of this gem was a gift to our community, one that has the potential to last and benefit historic Mountain Avenue for future generations while still providing a high-quality living experience for current and future owners.That gift should not be thrown away based on short- term appetites and trends. I support the commission applying the Secretary's standards and ask that you not approve this plan or any future plans that significantly damage the aesthetics, land-to-hardscape ratio, and original historic materials of the home and historic garage. Sincerely, Laura Bailey,4731 Crest Rd., Fort Collins Y ,l��,`'i• '� Y� � - T /n .�. nil 21 J - Garages facing North,July 2014 Packet Pg. 109 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: pkclmbr@digis.net To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiager Cc: pkclmbr(adigis.net; laurabailey21(agmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL]please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal Date: Tuesday,March 16,2021 2:31:04 PM Having been homeowners on West Mountain Avenue since the 1970's, we take very seriously the historical landmark designation of the City of Fort Collins. We feel this has been a significant benefit to the character of the neighborhood, as well as preserving the distinctive characteristic of this architectural type and period which allowed the 2014 designation of 1306 West Mountain Avenue as a City Landmark. The proposed additions to the side and rear of the house would be highly visible from the street and compromise everything that the historical landmark designation is designed to achieve. With so many homes on West Mountain Avenue having been renovated to the detriment of their original character, it is especially important that houses like 1306 West Mountain Avenue, be preserved. Therefore, please deny the 1306 West Mountain proposal. Robert and Mary Ann Bjornsen Packet Pg. 110 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaoer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please reject proposal for Jackson-Bailey House Date: Tuesday,March 16,2021 10:36:16 AM To: Landmark Preservation Commission I'm writing to ask that you deny the proposed alteration of the historically designated Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 W. Mountain Ave. This is an iconic house that is one of the few remaining intact examples of a Craftsman Bungalow style which was an important American architectural movement in the 1920s. Few of these houses (built following the first World War) remain in Fort Collins and this is arguably one of(if not the) best examples. Recognized by American Bungalow magazine as an irreplaceable icon, this house was featured as the cover story (written by Bob Bailey himself). The characteristics for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins landmark include it's small size (a defining characteristic of the style), it's simplistic rectangular footprint, the well preserved details such as the original brickwork, and the two original structures comprising the entire property. While a modest remodel might be appropriate, the one proposed is not. It is so extensive and so large that it will eliminate the historic character that the designation was intended to preserve. The size of the addition would subsume the small house. The addition on the side and back will be highly visible from the street and will overwhelm the architectural details and characteristics of the original house. The proposal would destroy most of the original exterior brickwork and the essential architectural details that characterize the Bungalow style. The 1942 historic garage (built by the original owner) was one of the explicit features protected in the landmark designation, the demolition of this garage should be denied along with the addition as proposed. As noted in the staff report, this proposed alteration fails to comply with most of the with the standards set by the Secretary or the Interior and going forward with this enormous alteration would be a grievous loss to the community. Dr. Bailey restored the home to its original 1920s style (both inside and outside) and the designation of his home as a city landmark was a great source of pride for him. This designation was a generous gift to the city of Fort Collins and should not be discarded. Please ensure that this legacy continues and that the integrity of the designation is upheld. Thank you, Michelle Haefele "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."—Plato Packet Pg. 111 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Per Hogestad <per.hogestad@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:41 PM To: Karen McWilliams<KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com>;Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com>; Gretchen Schiager<gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: LPC hearing, 1306 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission, Karen McWilliams,Jim Bertolini, Comments to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission on the proposed modification to the Jackson-Bailey House for commission meeting of March 17,2021 Agenda Item #8 As a former Longtime Landmark Preservation Commission member,Architect associated with the Design Assistance Program and resident of the Historic Sheely neighborhood I am interested in the preservation of our city's past and the benefits of preservation to the city. I am concerned with the proposed addition and demolition to the locally designated Jackson- Bailey House, 1306 W. Mountain Ave. If the commission moves to final hearing on this item tonight I urge that the members vote to unanimously deny the application to construct the addition and demolition of the historic garage. In your deliberation please consider that the addition will cause the substantial loss of distinctive historic material and finishes, a loss of historic architectural form and character, and the erosion of context leading to the loss of neighborhood continuity. Further please find that the proposed addition design makes no attempt to relate to the simple rectangular plan of the Bungalow.The simplicity of understated detail of this historic structure is completely lost in the overly complex and overwhelming design. It is rare to find a structure with this level of integrity.This landmark should without question be protected as intended by the existing landmark designation status. It is unusual to be able to definitively date accessory buildings. In many cases the accessory buildings are simply included in the nomination with little documentation. Here is a dated well preserved garage that enhances the understanding and interpretation of the overall site and social context.The proposal to completely demolish this designated structure is at best a total disregard for the designation and the preservation program itself. Proposals of this degree of impact on preservation fortunately do not occur often. In this case the commission must consider the individual structure and the neighborhood impact but also the impact to the city's landmark preservation program as a whole. Thank you for your participation in the city's Landmark Preservation Commission and your consideration of this letter. Per Hogestad 1601 Sheely Dr. Fort Collins Packet Pg. 112 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: MerryRun To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaaer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please reject 1306 W. Mountain Proposal Date: Tuesday,March 16,2021 6:39:49 PM I am writing to urge you to not allow the enlargement of the historic Jackson-Bailey house at 1306 Mountain Avenue. The planned addition would destroy its historic character as a small scale 1920s brick craftsman Bungalow Cottage. This small home is a jewel that was designated as a City Landmark by the Landmark Preservation Commission in 2014. Allowing the Jackson-Bailey house to be enlarged would also set a bad precedent for the enlargement of other small historic homes. The charming 1942 garage is also of historic importance and should not be demolished. Please deny the proposed project plans and all future similar plans. Sincerely, Carole Hossan 504 Edwards Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 m e rry ru n Qto a d away.net Packet Pg. 113 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: wjacobi@fcconnexion.net To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaaer Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 West Mountain Ave Date: Tuesday,March 16,2021 2:52:36 PM Dear Landmark Preservation Commotion Members. I have reviewed all the materials provided by the city on the proposed changes to the home at 1306 West Mountain Ave. I have previously toured this home on historic home tours and found the home a perfect example of an Bungalow that has not been altered over the years. The proposed demolition of parts of this home and the addition of two-story structures to the east and north are not at all in keeping with the original bungalow structure. The home was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark because it was essentially an unaltered home. The submitted plans do not preserve the character of this home and I fully support the city review that states the plans are not acceptable. I strongly urge the Landmark Preservation Commission to deny the current plan for the home at 1306 Mountain thank you. William Jacobi 2725 McKeag Drive 40 year resident of Fort Collins Packet Pg. 114 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: S Mondia To: Gretchen Schiaaer; Karen McWilliams Subject: [EXTERNAL]comment on 1306 W Mountain proposal,urging the LPC reject it Date: Tuesday,March 16,2021 11:32:32 AM Comment to the Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO As a resident of West Mountain Avenue and as a supporter of the historic protection programs of Fort Collins, I am writing to comment on the proposed changes to 1306 West Mountain, a designated City Landmark, and to urge you to reject this proposal at the March 17th Land marksPreservation Commission meeting. The assessment of the city staff is clear and fairly complete.This proposal will destroy most of the elements which made this structure eligible for designation in the first place. Beyond the individual architectural features of this home, its original size, compact form, and simple geometric shape is a key element of this structure.The proposed remodel will eliminate the very essence of this home. I want to emphasize that the damage that these proposed changes will extend beyond the physical impact on this individual home. Mountain Avenue is clearly the premier prewar historic street of Fort Collins, from the downtown, past St Thomas Church, the Avery House,the sugar beet mill era cottages, 1306, and ending at Grandview Cemetery, with the trolley running down most of its distance. The street has always been changing, architecturally, and will continue to change. But so few of the individual homes which have been afforded any recognition, let alone protection.The previous owner of 1306 chose to do the work required to have his home recognized and designated. It is the contribution that 1306 makes to this neighborhood which amplifies its value and which makes its importance really matter. I don't fully understand the legal and administrative ramifications of a home owner seeking and obtaining City Landmark status for their home, but I'd to like think that it creates a moral, if not legal obligation for the city and the Landmarks Preservation Commission to guard the qualities of the home which made it a Landmark building.The staff report is clear that almost every thing which the current owners propose to change about this structure is incompatible with the historic elements of 1306.They are perhaps more importantly incompatible with the historic neighborhood context in which the home exists. I urge you to reject this proposal at your March 17, 2021 meeting. Eric Smith, 1216 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins Packet Pg. 115 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: William Whitley To: Gretchen Schiaaer; Karen McWilliams Subject: [EXTERNAL]Please reject the proposal for 1306 W Mountain Date: Tuesday,March 16,2021 8:25:42 PM Regarding the upcoming hearing on 1306 W Mountain: I am asking you to reject the proposed conceptual and project plans for altering the home and demolishing the garages at 1306 W Mountain(item#8 on your agenda).The proposed addition is more like an appendage,and larger than the existing house.The project would require demolition of a significant portion of the original structure,and both garages. This project goes against everything the Landmark Designation was created to protect.This home was meticulously restored by the previous owner over a long period of time,in an effort to save a classic example of a craftsman bungalow cottage and promote sustainable living on a modern scale.Bob was adamant about this. The listing realtor should have taken care to explain the benefits,responsibilities,and limitations of a landmark designation;if not,it was a clear dereliction of their duty,and their responsibility to their profession and the city. This should not be just another old small house that someone can buy and then destroy because it's too small. If you allow this,you are exposing*every other landmarked structure*in Fort Collins to the same fate. William Whitley 618 W Mountain Ave Fort CollinsCO 80521 (The Crose/Scott/Dickey House) Packet Pg. 116 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Nancy York To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaaer Subject: [EXTERNAL]please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal Date: Tuesday,March 16,2021 11:49:40 PM Landmark Preservation Commission Folks, It is inconceivable to me that this historically designated Fort Collins home, which was so expertly and thoroughly restored, would become structurally altered if approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Such a vote would besmirch the very classification of historic designation and undercut the purpose of this Commission. This particular home was legitimately recognized by American Bungalow magazine, Please honor this home and recognize the category of"historic designation." Best regards, Nancy York Packet Pg. 117 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Laura Bailey<laurabailey2l@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:39 AM To: Karen McWilliams<KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com>; Gretchen Schiager<gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject:A few more images for 1306 W. Mountain comments Hi Karen and Gretchen, Would it be possible/advisable to add these photos to the other two I sent and have them included in my comment materials for the Commission? If it's not overkill, I think they tell a fuller story of the condition of the home.The images I sent yesterday are great and should be included as well, but these new photos I'm sending are bit more current (from June 2020). 1 think it's key that there be no mischaracterizations that suggest the home,windows and 1942 garage are in anything but very good condition. So I've included an image of a window that is representative of the character of all the restored windows in the home.These window are beautiful and in good condition with perhaps a few normal imperfections from age (and with the possible exception of some paint needing be cleaned off some of the pull ropes to make closing and opening easier.) Note that the cracked window on page 245-246 of the report was actually in excellent condition when I sold the home last summer so it's impossible to know why it is cracked now. I am including an image of that window here. I've also included a current photo of the 1942 garage that the new owners proposed to demolish. It shows the garage in fine condition and quite visible and adding to the charm of the back alleyway which is also visible from McKinley. Again if this is overkill, please let me know. Otherwise I'd love to include them. Many thanks for your help. See you this evening. Laura Bailey 4731 Crest Rd., Fort Collins 970-430-9493 F tr s x� 4 1- Packet Pg. 118 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: KEVIN COOK To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaoer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please reject 1306 Mountain Avenue proposal Date: Wednesday,March 17,2021 9:44:38 AM To the Landmark Preservation Committee: I am writing to both ask and to encourage you to decline approval for remodeling the Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 West Mountain Avenue. I met Bob Bailey on a professional basis in 1988. Through our mutual professional interests we developed a close personal friendship that included many hours of conversation about the need to preserve aspects of cultural heritage. Many times Bob posed three rhetorical questions: How do we know how far we have come if we don't know where we started? How do we know where we are if we don't know where we started? Is it too much to ask to preserve by reasoned care-taking the historical character of at least one neighborhood out of hundreds? With such points of consideration, Bob worked carefully and deliberately to preserve and to maintain the house he called home and to do so by preserving the structure as a landmark by which future generations could meaningfully engage those questions. Other houses in other neighborhoods have already been modified or have gone without essential maintenance to preserve their original character. Remodeling them would fit more with the neighborhoods they are in and would not betray the good-faith efforts of a man who believed in preserving a special part of history for future generations to embrace. Remodeling the Jackson-Bailey House would destroy an element of cultural history that could never be honestly recovered. For these reasons I encourage you to decline approving the remodeling of the Jackson-Bailey House. Respectfully, Kevin J. Cook (970) 617-4455 Packet Pg. 119 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 1"email from Sally Dunphy: From: Sally Dunphy<sally.dunphv@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:46 PM To: Karen McWilliams<KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal While I respect a property owner's right to live in a home which meets their needs, it seems to me — based on the plans for alteration —the current owners of the historic property at 1306 West Mountain would be better served had they chosen another home to purchase. I see the responsibility of any person who purchases property designed as historically significant as that of a caretaker who, in buying the property, has accepted responsibility to maintain the integrity and features of the property which give it its unique, unspoiled character. I feel strongly that this alteration of 1306 would not merely dilute, but utterly overshadow and therefore destroy the features which make this home a true example of an unspoiled bungalow. Please reject the 1306 West Mountain proposal. -------------------------- 2nd email from Sally Dunphy: From: Sally Dunphy<sally.dunphy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:57 PM To: Gretchen Schiager<gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal I was dismayed to hear of the plans to alter the home at 1306 West Mountain. I had imagined the historic designation, richly deserved for a home which has been on the local historic home tour and lavishly featured in the national architectural publication "American Bungalow', indicated a true understanding of the significance of the home as it currently stands.The proposal I viewed would alter the scale of the home (an important aspect of bungalow architecture) and make it a mockery of the movement which inspired its design and scale. I do not mean to sound bitter, but if historic designation is a one-owner-only thing, easily circumvented, why bother? If people buying historic properties can simply treat those properties as if they've purchased a lot with a partial tear-down there is a problem. Please reject the 1306 West Mountain proposal. Sally Dunphy 970-217-0871 Packet Pg. 120 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Susan Peak<peakandpeak@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 20214:37 PM To: Karen McWilliams<KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bob Bailey's Mtn.Avenue Bungalow Re the expansion of this authentic house on Mountain Ave... What a pity to learn that the new owners of this gem want to move in and undo all of Bob Bailey's restoration work. I don't understand why people buy these smaller well kept houses along the avenue and then totally remodel and expand them. Perhaps the buyers should have purchased the house right across the street.....all the room anyone could want without destroying a bit of history. Susan Peak 1415 W Mountain Ave. Packet Pg. 121 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Kendal Stitzel To: Karen McWilliams;Gretchen Schiaoer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Reject Proposal for 1306 W. Mountain Ave. Date: Wednesday,March 17,2021 8:13:02 AM To the Landmark Preservation Commission: I have read about the proposed changes to the historic property 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, the so-called Jackson-Bailey home, and I urge you to reject these changes because of the huge adverse impact on a historically designated property. My concerns are as follows: • The size of the addition is huge. This scale of change alters the simple and beautiful Craftsman design of the 1922 home. I am told that the house, as is, was once featured in a national architectural magazine as a fine example of this style. It would no longer be such a historic example if these changes are accepted. • The large addition would dramatically alter the visual appearance of the house from the sides and even from the street, further violating the historic nature of the property. • Lots of the original brickwork would be destroyed. As the owner of a historic property myself, I can attest that modern brickwork can seldom equal the qualities of the original work. • Even though they were added later, at least one of the garages in the back yard was part of the historic designation, yet the proposed changes would see it torn down. This proposal seems to "mansionize" most of the historic character out of what is now a beautiful and simple example of Craftsman architecture. If the owners want a large house, it seems there are many alternatives versus destroying the historic nature of an Old Town landmark. There seems little point of a historic designation if such massive changes are permitted for designated homes. Super-sizing a historic home and destroying parts of it is not in keeping with the character of old Fort Collins or in the spirit of the property's historic designation. I hope you will keep the historic and the visual integrity of the Jackson-Bailey home intact by rejecting the proposed changes. Sincerely, Kendal Stitzel 1412 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-214-8279 Packet Pg. 122 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Laura Bailey <laurabailey21 @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 11:56 AM To: Historic Preservation; Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for 1306 W. Mountain Ave. hearing Dear Commission: I am the daughter of Robert Bailey,who owned 1306 W Mountain previously and who worked with this commission to have the house designated. I'm also a long-term resident of Fort Collins and someone who is fairly well acquainted with Westcoast craftsman bungalow architecture. I inherited this home after my father passed away in 2019. 1 choose to sell the house having been advised by three separate realtors that the historic designation carried enough weight that any additions, should they be allowed, could not be obvious from the street, could not significantly alter the historic aesthetics of the home or have high visual impact; any future changes to the home had to be in accordance with very specific standards that matched or were highly compatible with the home's historic aesthetics. It was my father's passion to restore this home to its 1920s glory and to have it designated so that future Fort Collins residents could enjoy a window to our town's past. Had I believed that future owners could make such drastic changes as the Berkhausen's have proposed, I certainly would not have sold this historic treasure. For my part, I made sure my realtor was careful to communicate the historic designation multiple times before we entered a contract with the Berhkausens. And I personally handed the Berkhausen's a complete copy of the designation paperwork upon closing,which they gladly received. Frankly, I have been surprised and deeply disappointed that they have proposed and continue to propose such extreme changes that seem to flout our town's landmark designation program. The demolition of such a large portion of this home's original brickwork and walls to make way for a large, aesthetically incompatible addition that engulfs much of backyard and spills into the side yard encroaching on the neighbors property would have seemed profoundly wrong to my father who understand that the small, rectangular layouts of bungalow architecture and the green space surrounding the home were intentional as a direct rejection of the larger,fussier homes of the Victorian era. Bungalow architects also intended to bring nature into the homespace via the large front porches and the relatively ample lot size of the day.Thus,the ratio of green landscaping to home is indeed important to the historic accuracy. I inherited my father's appreciation for craftsman homes and have co-written and edited numerous articles about bungalow architecture for the national American Bungalow magazine, which also featured his home as a full-spread i Packet Pg. 123 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 cover story in 2014.As such, I am keenly aware that this latest proposal would irrevocably undo the hallmark small-scale bungalow characteristics for which this home was designated. The large addition would destroy the small, symmetrical character of the home and the land-to-building ratio that bungalow architects sought to achieve in the 1920s.The proposal would double the size and above-ground footprint of the home, and alter the symmetrical, rectangular lay-out. The plan would forever destroy a large percentage of the brickwork and original structure of the home.And it would fill in an extensive part of the natural grounds, changing the intentional small cottage/large natural space aesthetic to something quite different from what makes this home and property such a superb example of small-scale West Coast bungalow architecture. Ironically, all of these changes are quite antithetical to the characteristics and values for which this home was designated. This sort of proposal seems shortsighted and wildly dismissive of the values the home and the historic landmark program.Thus, approval of the Berkhausen's current proposal or any similar iteration would create a concerning precedent for our town's historic designations program. I personally find great value in the commission's mission and work I thank you for following your commitments on 1306 Mountain Ave.,to date. I encourage you to continue to do so by holding strictly to the Interior Secretary's standards and not allowing this incompatible proposal, or any similar iteration, to move forward. With sincere thanks, Laura J. Bailey 4731 Crest Rd. Fort Collins, CO., 80526 2 Packet Pg. 124 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Michelle Haefele <michelle.haefele@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 11:14 AM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for the Historic Preservation Commission Attachments: 2021-11-12-letter to LPC-Jackson-Bailey House 1306 W Mountain Ave.docx Mr. Bertolini, please convey my comments (below and attached)to the Commission. Thank you, Michelle To: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission While the revised proposal for the alteration of the Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue is less egregious than the prior proposal, it still does not adequately protect the historic resources for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Craftsman Bungalow movement espoused a rejection of the ostentatiousness of the Victorian era by embracing smaller houses, simple designs and interior arrangements,with yards and large porches to allow residents more connection with nature. The proposed alterations would reverse this deliberate design and would diminish the characteristics for which this iconic house example of the style was designated. Few of these houses (built following the first World War) remain in Fort Collins and this is arguably one of(if not the) best examples. Recognized by American Bungalow magazine as an irreplaceable icon, this house was featured as a cover story(written by Bob Bailey himself). The characteristics for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins landmark include its small size (a defining characteristic of the style), it's simplistic rectangular footprint,the well preserved details such as the original brickwork, and the two original structures comprising the entire property. While a modest remodel might be appropriate, the one proposed is not. It is still too large and visible from the front of the house. A more appropriate addition would be of a single story confined to the back(without the projection out to the side).This would preserve more of the original exterior brickwork and the essential architectural details that characterize the Bungalow style. As noted in the staff report,this proposed alteration still fails to comply with most of the with the standards set by the Secretary or the Interior and going forward with this enormous alteration would be a grievous loss to the community. Dr. Bailey restored the home to its original 1920s style (both inside and outside) and the designation of his home as a city landmark was a great source of pride for him.This designation was a generous gift to the city of Fort Collins and should not be discarded. Please ensure honor Dr. Bailey's legacy and require that any alterations faithfully preserve the integrity of the designation and the iconic Craftsman Bungalow style. Thank you, Michelle Haefele "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." — Plato i Packet Pg. 125 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 To: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission While the revised proposal for the alteration of the Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue is less egregious than the prior proposal, it still does not adequately protect the historic resources for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Craftsman Bungalow movement espoused a rejection of the ostentatiousness of the Victorian era by embracing smaller houses, simple designs and interior arrangements,with yards and large porches to allow residents more connection with nature. The proposed alterations would reverse this deliberate design and would diminish the characteristics for which this iconic house example of the style was designated. Few of these houses (built following the first World War) remain in Fort Collins and this is arguably one of(if not the) best examples. Recognized by American Bungalow magazine as an irreplaceable icon,this house was featured as a cover story(written by Bob Bailey himself). The characteristics for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins landmark include its small size (a defining characteristic of the style), it's simplistic rectangular footprint, the well preserved details such as the original brickwork, and the two original structures comprising the entire property. While a modest remodel might be appropriate,the one proposed is not. It is still too large and visible from the front of the house. A more appropriate addition would be of a single story confined to the back (without the projection out to the side).This would preserve more of the original exterior brickwork and the essential architectural details that characterize the Bungalow style. As noted in the staff report,this proposed alteration still fails to comply with most of the with the standards set by the Secretary or the Interior and going forward with this enormous alteration would be a grievous loss to the community. Dr. Bailey restored the home to its original 1920s style (both inside and outside) and the designation of his home as a city landmark was a great source of pride for him.This designation was a generous gift to the city of Fort Collins and should not be discarded. Please ensure honor Dr. Bailey's legacy and require that any alterations faithfully preserve the integrity of the designation and the iconic Craftsman Bungalow style. Thank you, Michelle Haefele Packet Pg. 126 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Veronica Lim To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 West Mountain Ave. Date: Friday,November 12,2021 1:12:05 PM Greetings,Aubrie, 1306 West Mountain has official Historic Designation. The current owners purchased this home knowing this. The proposed alterations and additions are not in keeping with the Historic Designation. Surely the proposed changes to the property should not be allowed. Thank you for conveying my thoughts to the Commission. Sincerely, Veronica Lim 108 South Whitcomb St. Fort Collins,Colorado 80521 Packet Pg. 127 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: paiae noon To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 west Mountain Date: Saturday,November 13,2021 9:32:55 AM Hello I live at 1307 West Mountain Ave and highly recommend you not allow this modification of a historic structure. Mountain Ave is a historic area and already some very inappropriate remodels of historic properties have been allowed to the detriment of this district. Citizens of Fort Collins love this street...Halloween, tour de fat, parades, running races all come down mountain Ave . It's a precious resource for our entire community. Let's stop the degradation of its historic value. I don't mind thoughtful appropriate additions that enhance a historic structure but not additions that ruin it. Please don't permit this. Paige and Barry Noon Packet Pg. 128 11/15/21, 12:08 PM Mail-Aubrie Brennan-Outlook ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 [EXTERNAL] Reject requested changes at 1306 West Mountain Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com> Sat 11/13/2021 3:53 PM To: Aubrie Brennan <abrennan@fcgov.conn> Historic Preservation Commission - I am writing to ask you to reject the remodel proposal for 1306 West Mountain Avenue, which was designated as a landmark in 2014. The proposed changes are absolutely incompatible with the home's protected designation nor, as I understand it, do the requested changes meet Department of Interior standards for changes to a landmarked home. The proposed changes are incompatible because they would double the size of the house and destroy the aesthetic value for which this type of architecture is known. Furthermore, the changes call for demolishing a significant section of the back half of the cottage and its historic brickwork. Changes of the type being proposed would be contrary to the standards that have been followed by the Commission and would act as a damaging precedent for other landmark homes. We used to live in the 1100 block of West Magnolia, and we would walk our dog all over the Mountain neighborhood, so I am familiar with this property. Changes of the type being proposed are not consistent with the historic integrity of the landmark homes in this neighborhood. Please reject the proposal. Vicky McLane 1607 Ticonderoga Drive Packet Pg. 129 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZmMGViNThkLTcxMDUtNGFjYiO4Y2FkLTM5MmEyNGJjOTZkNAAQAA5dKlRoN3JJjoQZZJjb pl... 1/1 11/15/21, 12:02 PM Mail-Aubrie Brennan-Outlook ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 [EXTERNAL] 1306 W. Mountain Historic Home Susan Seneshen <seneshen@telus.net> Sat 11/13/2021 12:00 PM To: Aubrie Brennan <abrennan@fcgov.conn> Hello, As a resident of Fort Collins for over 30 years and owner of a home in Old Town, I want to see the historic and architectural integrity of the 1306 W. Mountain home honored according to the guidelines set out by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Department of Interior's Standards for changes to a landmarked home. These designations have been created by people in Fort Collins who understand the character and history of our community. The designations are there to protect the community and prevent outside interests from negatively impacting the collective aesthetic. Just as when you go to dinner at someone else's home (pre-COVID)you follow their customs and guidelines-take off your shoes at the door, etc. The newcomers to our community need to adhere to our stated guidelines when considering changes to the 1306 property. Susan Seneshen Packet Pg. 130 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZmMGViNThkLTcxMDUtNGFjYiO4Y2FkLTM5MmEyNGJjOTZkNAAQAAj5JuJSzStCuVXsLyLXpyY... 1/1 11/15/21, 12:11 PM Mail-Aubrie Brennan-Outlook ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 [EXTERNAL] Jackson-Bailey Home on West Mountain Avenue jacko@frii.com <jacko@frii.com> Sun 11/14/2021 4:37 PM To: Aubrie Brennan <abrennan@fcgov.com> Hello I write to express my thoughts and feelings about the proposed addition to the Jackson-Bailey home at 1306 West Mountain Avenue. I do not approve of the proposed addition to this house. This house is a lovely, well cared for expression of the time it was built. To remove/ demolish a significant amount of the structure in order to double the size of the house does not fit with the guidelines for preservation of historic homes. Usual additions to historic homes are to the rear of the building, and are accessed by opening up window and door areas, not demolition of walls. Additions are also meant to be much smaller than the existing structure. If the current owners of this house wanted a 2,500+ sq.ft. house, they should have just purchased one. Please act to preserve the character of this fine home by not approving the requested addition. Thank you, Jack Armstrong Fort Collins, Colorado Packet Pg. 131 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZmMGViNThkLTcxMDUtNGFjYiO4Y2FkLTM5MmEyNGJjOTZkNAAQACgYdgMgUIJDtn%2Fc5z7 cl... 1/1 11/15/21, 12:10 PM Mail-Aubrie Brennan-Outlook ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 [EXTERNAL] Comments to Landmark Preservation Commission Robert Viscount <rrviscount@yahoo.com> Sun 11/14/2021 3:34 PM To: Aubrie Brennan <abrennan@fcgov.conn> To: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission: I urge you to reject the proposed remodel for 1306 West Mountain Avenue. This craftsman bungalow cottage is one of the few remaining examples of homes that were built in the 1920s, after World War I. It was designated as a landmark in 2014 and has been featured on historic home tours. The proposed remodel would destroy the aesthetics of the building by adding an extensive addition to the side and back of the house. This multi-story addition would dominate the property, and the basic simplicity of the bungalow would be lost. For several years I was a motorman on the Birney Car 21, and I enjoyed hearing the comments from passengers as they not only rode the historic trolley but also saw the history of Fort Collins preserved in the homes that line Mountain Avenue. We need to work to preserve this living history that we are so lucky to have. Robert Viscount Golden Meadows Neighborhood Packet Pg. 132 https:Houtlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZmMGViNThkLTcxM DUtNG FjYiO4Y2FkLTM5MmEyNGJjOTZkNAAQADCN WzeRrnxBpXX5EXjCEi... 1/1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Gretchen Williams To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 W Mountain Ave historic designation Date: Sunday,November 14,2021 8:16:12 PM I urge the historic designation of this 1920 bungalow style house at 1306 W. Mountain Ave, the Jackson-Bailey House. It is important that we recognize and preserve our architectural heritage before it perishes. Once gone, it is gone for good. We should cherish and protect the structures representative of the past before they are all gone, especially when there are significant past owners and/or residents associated with them. This structure is one that can and should be preserved for those reasons. I sincerely hope that the elected representatives of the City of Ft. Collins do the right thing and protect this example of an important era in the City's architectural and civic history. Thank you for your careful and sincere consideration of preserving Ft. Collins' past. Gretchen Williams 484 Gilpin St Denver, CO 80218 Packet Pg. 133 11/15/21, 12:45 PM Mail-Aubrie Brennan-Outlook ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 [EXTERNAL] 1306 Mountain Avenue Proposal Loretta Bailey <lorebailey@comcast.net> Mon 11/15/2021 10:42 AM To: Aubrie Brennan <abrennan@fcgov.conn> > To Whom it May Concern: > I am writing regarding the proposal to build an addition to the Historic Landmark house at 1306 Mountain Avenue. This quaint bungalow is a historic landmark and part of our town's history. It should be protected as such. > The proposal before you is extreme and would permanently change the look and feel of this historic home to an unreasonable point. The historic details that will be damaged cannot be returned once they have been lost. > I believe a historic designation should be treated seriously. These days there are fewer and fewer intact historic homes in Fort Collins. While I can understand that some homeowners in Old Town want to renovate or enlarge their older homes, I do not think such largescale changes are at all appropriate for historically designated landmarks. The character of our Old Town is one of the special things about our city and needs to be preserved in some small way. Ensuring that historic landmarks are actually protected from largescale changes is one way to get that job done. Please follow the standards and reject this extreme proposal. > Thank you, > Loretta Bailey Packet Pig. 134 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZmMGViNThkLTcxMDUtNGFjYiO4Y2FkLTM5MmEyNGJjOTZkNAAQAGKkPDYSWAlKvS83cr qY... 1/1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Joel Danforth <joeldanforth@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 10:16 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment for hearing on 1306 W. Mountain To Whom it May Concern: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed renovations at the historic landmark home at 1306 W. Mountain. The home perfectly represents a piece of 1920s Fort Collins bungalow architecture and the commission was wise to protect it as a landmark. As I understand it,the addition and other changes being proposed would double the size of the house and require demolition of a significant amount of historic material. While some thoughtful renovations may be acceptable to landmark buildings, the proposed plan would add a rather large addition on the side of the home. This will alter the look of the house beyond the style that was indicative of this time period and architecture. The plan seems to alter the home so significantly that it would rob our community of a historic resource and a piece of charm that makes old town neighborhoods so special. A proposal,that is so out of sync with our community and your standards for historic homes and must be rejected. Regards, Joel Danforth i Packet Pg. 135 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Sally Dunphy <sally.dunphy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 4:31 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 W MOUNTAIN AVE - Please reject this inappropriate proposal I am wholly opposed to the proposed alteration of 1306.The proposal would alter the structure so significantly the historic value would be greatly reduced.The plans appear not to have taken the nature and character of the home into account. I believe the home deserves respect and hope your recommendation supports the values our community places on preserving our history. The home at 1306 Mountain Avenue is on the historic trolley route, near our beloved City Park, and a prominent example of the life of our city as it developed. One need not live in the neighborhood to understand and appreciate its value. Historic designation cannot be meaningful if that designation applies to only the owner who originally sought the designation.The integrity of the entire process is undermined, becomes meaningless, if it is a one-owner-only! It must carry forward. I do understand property owners have rights. With those rights come a responsibility for honoring rules of the community they've voluntarily joined.Just as we respect and abide by laws, zoning restrictions and HOA covenants, so too should the current occupant(s) of a historic home respect and abide by the limits that designation entails. I hope the current owners are able to find their way to a plan which honors the home and meets their needs. Sally Dunphy 970 217 0871 (m) Packet Pg. 136 11/15/21, 12:39 PM Mail-Aubrie Brennan-Outlook ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 [EXTERNAL] HPC Comments: 1306 W Mountain Conceptual Review Gina Janett <ginaciao@frii.com> Mon 11/15/2021 7:05 AM To: Aubrie Brennan <abrennan@fcgov.com> Dear Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing to urge the Commission to reject the conceptual plans for changes to the Jackson—Bailey home at 1306 W Mountain. As you know, our city has a long tradition of valuing the historic buildings and architecture of our earliest European settlers who founded Fort Collins.The residents of Old Town, whether newly arrived or long term residents, treasure the historic style and character of our community's earliest houses. Please reject the conceptual plan because it does not meet Fort Collins' City Code and the Secretary of Interior's Standards. The design features that are most egregious in terms of the standard include but are not limited to: - An almost doubling of the size/square footage of the house. Craftsman homes are characterized by their rectangular footprint and compact size, in part, because they were built for people with modest incomes; - The massing and scale of the proposed addition on the side of the house does not meet the standard that additions should be smaller, subordinate, and less visible than the main house. - The demolition of walls in the northeast corner of the home violate the rules that require the original building and its materials to be preserved in as close to its original state as possible. - A major change of how the property appears from the street. Filling the empty lawn with a large addition would be readily visible from the street and would detract from the simple rectangular character of the landmarked home. Finally,this home isn't just an old house. It is a home whose previous owner treasured its original historic architecture and character so much that he went to the time, money and effort to have it designated a Historic Landmark so that it would be permanently protected and preserved. This designation by a previous owner in line with the rules and standards in City Code should be respected.The proposed conceptual design does not adequately meet these standards and should be rejected. Gina Gina C.Janett 730 W Oak St. Fort Collins,CO 80521 970 222-5896 ginaciao@frii.com Packet Pg. 137 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZmMGViNThkLTcxMDUtNGFjYiO4Y2FkLTM5MmEyNGJjOTZkNAAQAD6agAHx7Op3nAx2JdYwbx... 1/1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Bill Jenkins To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the landmark Jackson-Bailey home from destructive remodel proposal Date: Monday,November 15,2021 3:20:22 PM Hello commissioners, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed rebuild of the home at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. Please do not let t his property lose its value as a Landmark home. The addition would double the size of the home and take away its historic significance. The proposal would go against the standards followed by your commission. Please consider not approving the proposed changes to this home. Thank you, Bill Jenkins Ft. Collins Community members are invited to submit public comments by Monday November 15th against a proposal that would destroy the historic integrity of a well-known Fort Collins landmark bungalow at 1306 W Mountain Avenue. (The Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission will vote on this item on Wednesday, Nov. 17.) The Landmark Preservation Commission (now called Historic Preservation Commission) designated this small craftsman bungalow cottage at 1306 W. Mountain Ave as a landmark in 2014 for its superb exemplification of small-scale 1920s brick craftsmen homes that became popular in the Swetts addition of Mountain Avenue after WWI. The home was not only featured on the historic home tour, but was featured as a full-spread cover story in the national American Bungalow architectural magazine. However, a California couple recently purchased the home and have proposed changes that are incompatible with the home's protected designation. Specifically, they are asking to add an extensive addition to the side and back of the house that would ruin the very historic aesthetics for which the home was designated. They submitted another proposal that has already been rejected by the Historic Preservation Commission and this is their second submittal. The proposed changes do not meet the Department of Interior's Standards for changes to a landmarked home. Packet Pg. 138 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Why is the proposed addition incompatible with the home? • It would double the size of this small cottage house and irrevocably ruin the simple, rectangular aesthetic for which bungalow architecture was known. • The addition would engulf much of the historic property and be highly visible from the street, damaging the overall historic character of this snapshot of 1920s Fort Collins. • It would also demolish a significant portion of the home back half and its historic brickwork. • The proposal goes against the standards followed by the landmark commission, and if allowed it would set a dangerous precedent for other landmark homes. Approval of this proposal or any similar iteration would not only take away from the charm of Mountain Avenue, it would undermine the public's trust in the historic designation Packet Pg. 139 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 November 15,2021 Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission As a resident of West Mountain Avenue and as a supporterof the historic protection programs of Fort Collins, I am writing to comment on the proposed changes to 1306 West Mountain,a designated City Landmark,and to urge you to rejectthis proposal at the November 17th Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The assessmentof the city staff is clear and fairly complete.This proposal will destroy important elementswhich made this structure eligible fordesignation in the first place. Beyondthe individual architectural features of this home,its original size, compact form,and simple geometricshape is a key elementof this structure.The proposed remodelwill eliminate the veryessence of this modest bungalow home. I wantto emphasize thatthe damage thatthese proposed changes will extend beyond the physical impact on this individual home. Mountain Avenue is clearly the premier prewar historic street of Fort Collins,from the downtown,past StThomas Church,the Avery House,the sugar beet mill era cottages, 1306 itself,and ending at Grandview Cemetery,with the trolley running down most of its distance. The street has always been changing,architecturally, and will continue to change.But so few of the individual homes which have been afforded any recognition,letalone protection.The previous ownerof 1306 choose to do the work required to have his home recognized and designated. It is the contribution that 1306 makes to this neighborhood which amplifies it value and which makes its importance really matter. I don't fully understand the legal and administrative ramifications of home ownerseekingand obtaining City Landmark status fortheir home,but I'd to like think that it creates a moral, if not legal obligation for the city and the Landmarks Commission to guard the qualities of the home which made it a Landmark building.The staff report is clear that proposed changes of this structure is incompatible with the historic elements of 1306.They are,perhaps more importantly,incompatible with the historic neighborhood context in which the home exists.This is an important case which tests whether Fort Collins is going to uphold the meager protections afforded the historic elementsofourcommunity. I urge you to rejectthis proposal at your November 17,2021 meeting. Eric Smith 1216 West Mountain Avenue Packet Pg. 140 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Shelly Terry To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 W Mountain preservtion Date: Monday,November 15,2021 8:46:03 AM Historic Preservation Commission: The integrity and promise to communities, states and the nation that there is in place a means to preserve and then protect the 'living' history of our heritage is at stake in the hearing before the Commission on the house at 1306 W Mountain Ave. This home is obviously a structure worth saving and protecting as evidenced by its designation, national attention as a perfect example of bungalow architecture of the post-WWI era, and a beautifully well maintained addition to the history of Ft. Collins. Everyone can be proud that we have this home preserved since so many of this era have been lost or altered. If we cannot continue to hold fast to designations with each challenge then other owners will be emboldened to act as if it means very little and I fear a time in the not to distant future that could become true. HOLD FIRM and don't let this hard fough t right to protect history be diluted.. Respectfully, Shelly Terry 817 W Mountain Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80521 shelly.terry@mygait.com Packet Pg. 141 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: William Whitley <william.whitley@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 4:32 PM To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Jim Bertolini; Maren Bzdek Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 W Mountain Ave November 15, 2021 To the Landmark Preservation Comission, Once again I am asking you to reject the proposed conceptual and project plans for altering the home at 1306 W Mountain. Referring to page 72 of this month's packet,the proposed alterations to this house *do not meet applicable rehabilitation standards*, and so should not be allowed. My wife and I live in a landmarked house at 618 W Mountain Ave,the "Crose/Scott/Dickey' house (and attached garage).The reasons which influenced us to designate our home were twofold: a financial incentive in the form of tax credits (to assist in the costs of restoration), and the desire to preserve an historic structure for posterity. This home is a singular classic example of a modest craftsman bungalow cottage, and was restored by the previous owner to promote sustainable living on a modest scale.The proposed alterations would irreparably alter the historic fabric of this designated house, and would potentially invalidate the protections which the Landmark Designation was created to protect. If you allow this to happen,you are exposing *every other landmarked structure* in Fort Collins to the similar fate. William Whitley 618 W Mountain Ave Fort CollinsCO 80521 Packet Pg. 142 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Shelly Terry To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL]comments on 1306 W,Mountain/11/17 Date: Thursday,November 18,2021 7:17:36 AM Historic Preservation Commission: Speaking before you last night against the proposed addition to the Bailey house I feel I came on strongly against all additions to HD homes and even used too strong a negative word with regard to the current plans for addition to this home. I do find the plan totally unacceptable in that the size and roof line give the visual message that I am looking at a house where a historical front area has been added, not left to mark the 1920 era of bungalow construction. I am not against additions on HD homes. It is in the interest of this living, thriving area that families (w/new and different needs) move in and care deligently abt the condition of the homes and the history of the area. I worked to have my cottage home designated knowing that going forward a family would love it, but need more space. I relied on the HD requirements to keep the addition in p roportion to the home. I was very heartened to hear Meg Dunn talk abt 33% increase in the footprint be a guiding measurement. I do not know if this email will find its way to you or into the record, but hopefully it can amend my remarks and add to the email I sent to the Commission on 11/16. Respectfully, Shelly Terry 817 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, Co 80521 970-484-0892 Packet Pg. 143 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Shelly Terry To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL]comments on 1306 W,Mountain/11/17 Date: Thursday,November 18,2021 7:17:36 AM Historic Preservation Commission: Speaking before you last night against the proposed addition to the Bailey house I feel I came on strongly against all additions to HD homes and even used too strong a negative word with regard to the current plans for addition to this home. I do find the plan totally unacceptable in that the size and roof line give the visual message that I am looking at a house where a historical front area has been added, not left to mark the 1920 era of bungalow construction. I am not against additions on HD homes. It is in the interest of this living, thriving area that families (w/new and different needs) move in and care deligently abt the condition of the homes and the history of the area. I worked to have my cottage home designated knowing that going forward a family would love it, but need more space. I relied on the HD requirements to keep the addition in p roportion to the home. I was very heartened to hear Meg Dunn talk abt 33% increase in the footprint be a guiding measurement. I do not know if this email will find its way to you or into the record, but hopefully it can amend my remarks and add to the email I sent to the Commission on 11/16. Respectfully, Shelly Terry 817 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, Co 80521 970-484-0892 Packet Pg. 144 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Derm Collosus <dermcollosus@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:08 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Dear Historic Preservation Commission: I urge you to reject the latest proposal for an addition to the historic home at 1306 W. Mountain.This size and nature of this proposed addition violates the Interior Secretary's standards for historic preservation. Not only would it nearly double the size of the home(additions are meant to be small and subordinate according to the standards),but it would destroy the simple rectangular layout and large,natural space that defines the home.The secretary's standards are clear that additions and renovations should not alter the character defining features of historic homes.This proposal would do just that. It is clear that this newest proposal is very similar to past proposals in the manner in which in disregards the secretary's guidance. Letting it move forward would undermine the integrity of the historic landmark program and set a terrible example for the future. I appreciate the work you've done to protect a portion of our town's historic heritage and ask you to continue to uphold the standards that help make our Old Town special. Joel On Tue,Jan 18,2022 at 10:04 PM Derm Collosus<dermcollosus@smail.com>wrote: 1 Packet Pg. 145 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Veronica Lim <veronica lim@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:24 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 West Mountain To the Commission: I respectfully request that the Landmark Designation of the home at 1306 West Mountain Avenue be upheld. Otherwise, what is the point of historic designation? I own my home at 108 South Whitcomb, where my entire block from Mountain Avenue to Oak Street is historically designated. I value the charm, the unique character of the Old Town area. I see this character being eroded every time a new owner is granted an exception from the requirements of Landmark Designation. Old Town represents the very soul of Fort Collins. Are we going to allow that soul to be gradually destroyed? Veronica Lim 1 Packet Pg. 146 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Laura Bailev To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment on 1306 W. Mountain Ave. proposal Date: Tuesday,January 18,2022 7:54:51 AM Jim- Here's my letter for the meeting. Some others may be coming as well. Regards, Laura Dear Commissioners: As the previous owner of historic landmark home on 1306 W. Mountain Ave., I would like to voice my opposition to the latest proposal to add an incompatible addition to the side and back of the home. Not only would the addition ruin the historic aesthetics and damage historic material,but it would violate the spirit and the letter of the Landmark Designation, setting a dangerous precedent for the future of our Landmark program. While I understand the applicants are entitled to request reviews of proposed alterations, this is now the third proposal they've submitted that is obviously and extremely out of sync with this commission's feedback and with the Interior Secretary's standards. The homeowners have had ample meetings,public hearings and specific feedback from this commission to steer them in directions that would comply with the standards while helping them achieve more living space. It is now clear that they are not hearing the feedback this commission has so clearly provided. The most current iteration,while less extreme than the previous two, still almost doubles the size of the home (specifically the plan increases the home size by about 80 percent), and retains the incongruent bump-out that ruins the symmetrical cottage shape of the home. This addition would still be highly visible from Mountain Avenue. (The staff report notes that additions should be subordinate and inset or flush with the home). At the November 2021 commission meeting we heard the applicant Brian Berkhausen explain how he feels the home is not suitable for his individual lifestyle preferences. That is something any reasonable homebuyer would have considered before buying a historically landmarked home. If the commission approves the current proposal, this case could gut the validity of the landmark program in the public's eye all together. In no time, realtors will be telling clients the landmark designation doesn't carry much weight. While the Berkhausen's may not appreciate small-scale sustainable living that this restored home affords, many individuals consider smaller homes like this one to be highly desirable-- Packet Pg. 147 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 and yet increasingly hard to find in Fort Collins. This proposal would replace yet another one of our town's smaller homes with a larger, much more expensive home during a time when simple, small-scale sustainable living is increasingly needed and desirable among a growing subset of homebuyers. You may recall my father Robert Bailey worked with this commission to earn the historic designation for this home. He recognized that his house was a superb example of small-scale West Coast craftsman architecture. And while he wanted to see its value preserved for future generations, but he also believed deeply in the value of small-scale living. Ironically, the proposed plan would alter the very characteristics that make this home such an iconic example of both. I ask you to please apply the secretary's standards fully and reject the current proposal or any future proposals that do not comply. Thank you for your time and your commitment to honoring a small slice of Fort Collin's history. Sincerely, Laura Bailey Packet Pg. 148 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Sally Dunphy <sally.dunphy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:32 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment for 1306 W. Mountain-please deny Please ask the current owners of 1306 W Mountain to stop squandering taxpayer money by engaging the city's time and resources with these repeated requests to violate the Standards and intent of landmark designation. I am in awe of the patience and respect city staff and the commission members have shown in carefully and repeatedly explaining the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and in offering suggestions which address the homeowners' needs while adhering to those Standards. I begin to see the respect goes in only one direction. It is now becoming clear the homeowners have no regard for the integrity of the historic designation process,the staff and committee's time,the architecture of the home itself, nor for the trust they undertook in purchasing a designated home. The homeowners have been able to succinctly articulate their needs and the ways in which this home fails to meet those needs. I find it surprising they purchased a property which clearly falls so wide of the mark. It gives rise to the suspicion that the home buyers never intended to honor the home's special attributes and significance. I do not believe it is homeowners' goal to create a permanent breach which will completely undermine the integrity and intent of the historic landmark designation in our community. I believe their goals are based in simple self-interest. Nevertheless, I strongly believe the future integrity of the historic landmark program is at stake if standards are not applied and adhered to in the case of 1306 West Mountain Avenue. Please deny this unreasonable, repetitious request. Thank you for your kind consideration, Sally Dunphy Fort Collins CO 970-217-0871 1 Packet Pg. 149 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Michelle Haefele <michelle.haefele@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:47 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Conceptual Review for the Jackson-Bailey House 1306 W. Mountain Mr. Bertolini, Please convey my comments to the Landmark Preservation Commission. To: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Once again the new owners of the designated Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 W. Mountain Ave. are proposing an alteration that would destroy the historic character that underpins the designation. The house is an outstanding example of a West Coast Craftsman Bungalow—a style which deliberately rejected the large, highly ornamented, ostentatious Victorian houses of the previous era. The Craftsman Bungalow movement embraced smaller houses, simple designs, uncluttered interior arrangements, ample windows, and large porches to allow residents to focus on yards and foster a greater connection with nature. The proposed addition is too large and obtrusive. It would overwhelm the original house, and is still visible from the front. Few of these houses (built following the first World War) remain in Fort Collins and this is arguably one of(if not the) best examples. Recognized by American Bungalow magazine as an irreplaceable icon, this house was featured as a cover story(written by Bob Bailey himself). The characteristics for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins landmark include its small size (a defining characteristic of the style), it's simplistic rectangular footprint,the well preserved details such as the original brickwork, and the two original structures comprising the entire property. While a modest remodel might be appropriate, the one proposed is not. It is still too large and visible from the front of the house. A more appropriate addition would be of a single story confined to the back(without the projection out to the side).This would preserve more of the original exterior brickwork and the essential architectural details that characterize the Bungalow style.There are several examples of discrete additions that provide more space without altering the appearance of historic(designated or not) houses. As noted in the staff report,this proposed alteration still does not comply with most of the with the standards set by the Secretary or the Interior and going forward with this enormous alteration would be a grievous loss to the community. Dr. Bailey was a friend of mine and I know how much this designation meant to him.The pictures provided by the applicant include the marker with the inscription "Circa 1922"that has had pride of place since Bob conceived of it as a way to proclaim the historic nature of his former home. He spent years working to restore the home to its original 1920s style (both inside and outside) and the designation of his home as a city landmark was a great source of pride for him as well as a generous gift to the city of Fort Collins. Please ensure honor Dr. Bailey's legacy and require that any alterations faithfully preserve the integrity of the designation and the iconic Craftsman Bungalow style. Thank you, Michelle Haefele i Packet Pg. 150 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Gina Janett <ginaciao@frii.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 7:04 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] HPC - Agenda Item 3 1306 W Mountain Importance: High Jim, Please forward these comments to the HPC for tomorrow's meeting. Hello to the Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing to encourage the HPC to deny approval of the proposed addition on the back of 1306 W Mountain.The proposed 887 square foot addition on the 1,097 square foot home clearly violates standards SOI#1 and SOI#2. The Department of Interior's standards are clear for changes to landmarked properties.Additions should be significantly smaller in size, scale, and massing than the main building.The proposed addition is 80%of the size of the current home. And if the square footage of the existing back porch is deducted from the current house size,the addition is actually even larger in comparison to the house itself. The standards recommend additions be no more than about 30%of the original home's size. The proposed addition clearly does not meet this standard. The Department of Interior's Publication 37 on rear additions to landmarks states (highlights added): "Rear additions—like all new additions—should be subordinate to the original building in size,scale,and massing, as well as design. Additions that feature a higher roofline,that extend beyond the side of the building,or that have a significantly greater footprint than the original building are usually not compatible." In addition, the proposed addition would demolish a portion of the existing building's wall and would extend the addition into the side yard, significantly changing the view of the rectangular home from the street. The property owners knew the house was landmarked and had some restrictions due to its landmark status when they purchased the property. Either they did not do due diligence prior to purchase or they made a decision to ignore the restrictions. In either case,their proposed addition does not meet the standards and should be denied. It would seem the owners need to accept the home they have purchased as is, or find a larger home for purchase and terminate their efforts to try to inappropriately modify this excellent example of a Craftsman home. Please deny the proposed addition to this landmarked home. Thank you! Gina C.Janett ginaciao@frii.com 970 222-5896 Packet Pg. 151 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Loretta Bailey <lorebailey@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:26 AM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment for 1306 W. Mountain Ave. To whom it may concern: Please reject the newest proposal for an addition to the historic home at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue (on the Jan. 19 agenda).This latest plan still contradicts the secretary's standards for historic homes. It seems to include largely superficial changes to the previous plan that was grossly out of step with those standards.This new proposal would permanently damage the historic character of one of our best- preserved homes on Mountain Avenue, our finest historic street. Your staff report clearly lays out how this latest plan still fails to meet the standards. This guidance seems to be thorough, clear and reasonable. Yet the most current proposal seems very similar to the last one and still violates the secretary's guidance in significant areas.The size and the nature of the bump-out are cited, as is the destruction of historic material. If Fort Collins is to have a worthwhile historic homes program, it seems reasonable to expect that specific standards be applied and applied consistently in ways that honor the intent of the program. Gross exemptions should not be made simply because an individual homebuyer persistently tries to circumvent those standards. I appreciate the work and guidance you've already given to try to help the homeowner understand the standards and I support you continuing to uphold those standards. If the current plan is approved, it will set a concerning example for all other landmark homes in our town, homes that people spent time and resources to see protected. Protection for these homes adds value to our community and ensures that some of the history and charm of our town remains intact throughout changing times. Sincerely, Loretta Bailey i Packet Pg. 152 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Eric Guenther <eric.e.guenther@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:30 AM To: Jim Bertolini; Aubrie Brennan Cc: Brad Yatabe; Maren Bzdek; Eric Guenther- Contact Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 West Mountain Avenue - COI and Public Comments Attachments: Guenther - COI Form.pdf, Design Review - 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO.pdf Good morning, COI Form and my Private Citizen Public Comments are attached. Please advise if you require anything else. Thank you...drive safely today, it's nasty outside! Eric E. Guenther 1308 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Cell: 248.767.5023 e-Mail: eric.e.guenther@gmail.com i Packet Pg. 153 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 To: Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission Subject: Design Proposal for 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Commissioners: Please recognize that Eric and Pamela Guenther, owners of 1308 West Mountain Avenue, strongly support approval of the proposed enhancements at 1306 West Mountain Avenue for the following reasons: • The proposed modifications largely meet Federal, State and Local guidelines for historic preservation. The street view of the property remains essentially unchanged, while the addition provides a livable and flexible solution for current and future owners. We believe the proposed modifications preserve and respect the character of the home and the important role it plays in telling the story of Fort Collins. • The current owners have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to nurture and maintain the interior, exterior and landscaping of the property in an appropriate and tasteful way. Furthermore, their ties to the community suggest a deep and thoughtful understanding of Fort Collins dynamics and an appreciation for the diverse nature of our city's architecture. We are confident in their reverence for the home and their commitment to properly preserve key interior and exterior design attributes for the education and enjoyment of future generations. • We believe it is in the best long-term interests of the neighborhood and the community to facilitate a family-friendly solution for the property. Homeowner needs and expectations change over time, and the proposed modifications represent appropriate adaptations that are very much aligned with the cultural, historical and architectural traditions of the City of Fort Collins. In seven years as residents of Old Town Fort Collins, we have observed many changes in the commercial and residential characterics of the neighborhood. We believe the proposed plans for 1306 West Mountain Avenue represent reasonable, respectful and livable enhancements to an important historic property. In the future, this approval process can be studied as an example of thoughtful deliberation and balanced decision making resulting in a solution that meets the needs of a wide range of interested parties. Packet Pg. 154 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: c M To: Jim Bertolini; Maren Bzdek;Aubrie Brennan;Mea Dun-Contact Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: 1306 West Mountain Ave Date: Wednesday,January 19,2022 4:29:13 PM HI, all -Sending again, as Jim's email was incorrect. Best, Karen Sent from Mail for Windows From: C M Sent: Wednesday,January 19, 2022 4:25 PM To: abrennan(@fcgov.com; Maren Bzdek;ibertolini(@fcgov; barefootmegPgmail.com Subject: 1306 West Mountain Ave Dear Historic Preservation Commission Members: Please do not allow these proposed alterations to the Robert Bailey Property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, as they do not comply with Chapter 14 of the City's codes and do not uphold the codified Policies and Purposes for historic preservation. The changes: 1). Do not meet each of the ten Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; meeting all ten Standards is required for approval; and 2).Do a disservice to the collective residents of Fort Collins, by failing to preserve and protect this significant resource, thereby diminishing the architectural and historical value of this and all Landmark properties in Fort Collins. Historic preservation is a Council-recognized community value, and the protection and preservation of Council- designated landmarks is a community expectation. A geographer and environmental ecologist, Bob Bailey was particularly interested in the role of smaller, older homes in promoting sustainable living. He put this passion into practice, by investing both a considerable amount of his money and time in the painstaking restoration of this 1922 home, and into words, by regularly using this restoration to write about sustainable living for the national architectural magazine American Bungalow. Mr. Bailey had witnessed several Old Town tear-downs and inappropriate remodels. To protect this carefully restored property, in 2014 Bob requested Fort Collins Landmark designation, recognizing that in doing so, he would be sacrificing both a level of autonomy and potential increased economic value. He chose to do this because he believed strongly in historic preservation. In requesting Landmark designation, Bob placed his trust in City Council and the Preservation Commission to protect his investment for the future. Please honor the City's commitments to those homeowners who choose to forgo personal gain and autonomy to preserve our heritage. Sent from Mail for Windows Packet Pg. 155 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Jim Bertolini To: Michelle Haefele Cc: Aubrie Brennan Subject: RE:Comments for HPC- 1306 W. Mountain Ave. Date: Tuesday,February 8,2022 10:31:11 AM Michelle, Thank you for submitting a comment on this item. It will be added to the Historic Preservation Commission packet for the item.The hearing for this item will be Wednesday evening, February 16 at 5:30 p.m. held exclusively virtually via Zoom. There will be a public comment period for this item at which you are welcome to provide any additional information.The agenda is posted, with a Zoom link at the top, here: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/historic-preservation JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolinia-fcaov.com From: Michelle Haefele<michelle.haefele@outlook.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 10:25 AM To:Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for HPC- 1306 W. Mountain Ave. Mr. Bertolini, Please convey these comments to the commission. Thank you, Michelle To: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission As you know, the Jackson-Bailey house at 1306 W. Mountain Ave. is an outstanding example of a West Coast Craftsman Bungalow—a style which deliberately rejected the large, highly ornamented, ostentatious Victorian houses of the previous era. Robert Bailey thoughtfully and faithfully restored the house in order to achieve the great honor of a Fort Collins Landmark Designation. He clearly intended for this designation to protect the historic character that defines the house in perpetuity. The proposed addition should be denied. Any alteration to this consensually designated house should be concealed in such a manner that the overall appearance from the street is that of the original structure. The Craftsman Bungalow movement embraced smaller houses, simple designs, uncluttered interior arrangements, ample windows, and large porches to allow residents to focus on yards and foster a greater connection with nature. Few of these houses (built following the first World War) remain in Fort Collins and this is arguably Packet Pg. 156 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 one of(if not the) best examples. Recognized by American Bungalow magazine as an irreplaceable icon, this house was featured as a cover story (written by Bob Bailey himself). The characteristics for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins landmark include its small size (a defining characteristic of the style), it's simplistic rectangular footprint, the well preserved details such as the original brickwork, and the two original structures comprising the entire property. While a modest remodel might be appropriate, the one proposed is not. It is still too large and visible from the front of the house. A more appropriate addition would be of a single story confined to the back(without the projection out to the side). This would preserve more of the original exterior brickwork and the essential architectural details that characterize the Bungalow style. There are several examples of discrete additions that provide more space without altering the appearance of historic (designated or not) houses. As noted in the staff report, this proposed alteration still does not comply with most of the with the standards set by the Secretary or the Interior and going forward with this enormous alteration would be a grievous loss to the community. Bob Bailey was a friend of mine and I know how much this designation meant to him. He spent years working to restore the home to its original 1920s style (both inside and outside).The pictures provided by the applicant include the marker with the inscription "Circa 1922."There are a few others signs like this around town, based on a design that Bob conceived of as a way to proclaim his pride in this historic home. The designation of Bob's home as a city landmark was a generous gift to the people of Fort Collins, and we must ensure that we honor Dr. Bailey's legacy and require that any alterations faithfully preserve the integrity of the designation and the iconic Craftsman Bungalow style. Consider what will be lost, irretrievably, if the historic character is destroyed. Thank you, Michelle Haefele "We remember, not just for the sake of yesterday, / But to take on tomorrow." —Amanda Gorman, "New Day's Lyric" Packet Pg. 157 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Mary Humstone To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation; Laura Bailev Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Tuesday,February 8,2022 12:29:17 PM To the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission: I urge you to vote no on the proposal to add an oversized side and rear addition to the locally landmarked Jackson-Bailey home at 1306 W. Mountain Ave., and to any other plans that would significantly alter the overall design and character of this Craftsman home. The addition as proposed would alter the simple design that was a hallmark of the Craftsman Cottage—a one-story, rectangular, gable-roofed building with an offset gable-roofed porch — by extending the roofline and adding a large building mass to the side of the house. Besides the inappropriateness of the location and design of the proposed addition, its size alone should disqualify it from consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission. The owners propose to increase the size of the house by 80%, far beyond what could be considered acceptable by historic preservation standards. I am concerned not only for the fate of this particular precious landmarked building, but also for what approval of this proposal would mean for the future of Fort Collins' landmark ordinance. Homeowners like Bob Bailey go through the process of landmarking to have assurance that their historic properties will remain historic in perpetuity. If this proposal is allowed to go forward, what message will that send to owners of potential landmarks in the future? Just last month the City Council voted to allow demolition of an extremely significant home on Mountain Avenue, the Jessie Moore House. How many more of our historic homes are we willing to sacrifice to new owners who want to live in a "quaint" neighborhood but want to do whatever they please with their own homes. The Jackson-Bailey House is protected by city ordinance. The Historic Preservation Commission must honor its obligation to Bob Bailey and all other property owners who have enrolled their properties as Fort Collins Landmarks. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Mary Humstone 4420 Bingham Hill Rd Fort Collins, CO 80521 humstone(@gmail.com Packet Pg. 158 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Susan Seneshen To: Aubrie Brennan;Historic Preservation; Larua Bailey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Tuesday,February 8,2022 2:47:29 PM urge you to vote no on the proposal to add an inappropriate and large addition to the Landmark Jackson Bailey home at 1306 W. Mountain Ave., and to any other plans that would significantly alter the small-scale cottage character for which this Craftsman bungalow was designated. My partner and I did a large addition to another home in Old Town that did not have HISTORIC DESIGNATION. We were still sensitive to the historic aesthetic of the home and the neighborhood. The fact that the Bailey home is designated and this addition is begin considered AGAIN is ridiculous. Please vote NO on this proposal. I am a teacher. I know that students keep asking the same question to do something that is not appropriate until they wear you down and you say "Yes." This only teaches them that they can do whatever they want, that there are no collective values within the culture or community, and that when they become adults that they do not have to respect the guidelines and rules. As a teacher, it takes resolve and courage to hold the line, have clear expectations, and stick to the boundaries that have been established. I share my perspective as a teacher to encourage you to hold to your resolve, follow the established Historic Preservation Standards, and vote NO on this proposal. Thank you, Susan Seneshen Owner: 623 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, CO Packet Pg. 159 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: iackoCalfrii.com To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL]Historic Preservation of Jackson Bailey home, 1316 W. Mountain Ave. Date: Wednesday,February 9,2022 3:43:51 PM Dear Citizens of FC, I urge you to vote NO on the proposal to add an inappropriate and large addition to the Landmark Jackson Bailey home at 1306 W.Mountain Ave.,and to any other plans that would significantly alter the small-scale cottage character for which this Craftsman bungalow was designated. The State Historic Preservation Office has made it clear to our city that additions should not exceed 20-30 percent of the historic home's square footage.At 80 percent,this proposal goes against any reasonable local interpretation of the preservation standards the city is obligated to follow. Approving this proposal would send a concerning message that our Historic Preservation Standards can be irresponsibly applied or circumvented all together. This beautiful Historic Home,and its'designation as such,needs to be respected for the Gem which it is! Thank you, Jack Armstrong Fort Collins Packet Pg. 160 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Sally Dunphy To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation;Laura Bailev Subject: [EXTERNAL]Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Wednesday,February 9,2022 2:18:23 PM I write to, once again, voice my opposition to the addition proposed for the Jackson-Bailey house. This has been a long road and I understand the homeowners have made substantial revisions to the plans as originally presented. I have reviewed their current proposal and strongly feel the integrity and historical significance of the home will be greatly damaged, if not destroyed,by the planned addition. This home is a gem and clearly worthy of protection. The addition is out of scale by any measure. I believe the City's commitment to preservation is truly on the line here. If such a large exception to guidelines is allowed I do not see how the integrity of the preservation standards and efforts at keeping any pieces of Fort Collins history can be sustained. Owning a historic property is not a trivial matter and should not be undertaken unless one is committed to maintaining the unique characteristics that make the home historically significant. It does not appear preservation figures into the current owner's worldview or goals. All of Fort Collins will lose a bit of its charm, a bit of its soul, if the current owner's plans are counted as more important than the community's interest in honoring and preserving parts of our history. Please vote no on this proposal. Sally Dunphy 970 217 0871 (m) Packet Pg. 161 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Kate Forgach To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Iaurabailey2l(a)gmail.com; Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House. Date: Wednesday,February 9,2022 8:56:39 AM am consistently astounded by how little our city government seems to care about preserving Foco's Old Town architecture, ensuring a variety of home styles, and making housing so expensive in this once-egalitarian area that only the rich can afford to live there. What's being proposed for the Jackson-Bailey home is an utter flouting of the historic preservation standards. As with some many of these new, million dollar homes, the owners appear to care nothing about their neighbor our town. They want to extend their additions beyond required limits. If the City, the P&Z Board and the Historic Preservation Commission continue to allow all these "variances," it seems there is little point in having any rules. Why not come out into the open and admit you care nothing for preserving our heritage because money is everything. Please stop going down this road. It can only lead to our once Choice City becoming a cookie cutter of every other city. Thank you, Kate Forgach (Former 30-year resident of Old Town until high prices forced me out) 1828 Wallenberg Dr. Kate Forgach Unicorn Hunter at Large Packet Pg. 162 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Veronica Lim To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Wednesday,February 9,2022 10:18:30 PM Greetings,Aubrie, I would urge you to protect the Jackson-Bailey House by honoring its Landmark Designation. Thank you, Veronica Lim Packet Pg. 163 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Nancy York To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation;Iaurabailey2lCalgmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL]Jackson Bailey home at 1306 W. Mountain Ave. Date: Wednesday,February 9,2022 11:54:18 AM To Whom this may concern, Please work to preserve the beautiful traditional homes in Fort Collins,and especially those in the older sections. These unique homes are numbered and when they are altered or scraped they are gone. In the case of Bob Bailey's home:Bob researched the history,the furnishes,and the style of that home and restored it to perfection with dedication.It deserves preservation as is.Furthermore it's a very livable home.It adds to the beauty and cultural interest of Mountain Avenue which must be preserved. When a citizen goes to such an effort and works with the City on historic designation,it must be respected and honored.Otherwise people will simply lose trust in the City and process. Sincerely, Nancy York Packet Pg. 164 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: DAN CARLSON To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation;Iaurabailey2l(cbamail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL]Jackson/Bailey home preservation Date: Thursday,February 10,2022 7:58:14 AM To Officials of Fort Collins Government, This email is to ask that you keep your promise in the preservation of the Jackson/Bailey home as described in Laura Baileys letter. Dan Carlson Vice President Northern Colorado Model A's Sent from my iPad Packet Pg. 165 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: joan day <jed1108@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 6:55 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 West Mountain Avenue addition. I am the fifth of nine generations to have made Fort Collins my home and have had the privledge to experience this city through the eyes of each generation. I have also volunteered in Fort Collins' historical and tourism industry for over three decades. Consequently, I believe that I have an understanding of what residents and tourists alike value in Fort Collins. Generally there is a common theme of what attracts them to our city, and I can guarantee you that the city is now walking on eggs as to what the future holds for us. Mountain Avenue is possibly the best representation of the image our citizens want to project of who we are and what we were.The iconic Mountain Avenue area impresses tourists the most also. It is imperative that the ambiance of this historical area be preserved and protected. Some questionable decisions concerning the future of this area have been made recently and if we keep chipping away one asset at a time,we will soon loose that very thing that we value the most. 1306 West Mountain is a prime example of everything we are and want to be. Instead of looking at it as one addition, please, please look at the entire picture. By allowing this addition, it will be one more fallen domino that will take us to the end, Some things can never be reclaimed. Thank you for considering this recommendation . Joan Day 970-619-0720 Sent from Mail for Windows i Packet Pg. 166 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 February 10, 2022 Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission Dear Commission Members, It has come to my attention that your commission will be deliberating and deciding on a proposal to add an addition to a historic landmark bungalow home on West Mountain Avenue at your next commission hearing on February 16t". I encourage you to vote no on the proposal to add an oversized addition to one of our city's unique landmarks, the historic Jackson-Bailey Landmark Bungalow on West Mountain Avenue. I knew Bob Bailey, the former owner, and had the chance to visit this wonderfully restored home on a few occasions, which is clearly a high-quality home and a valuable window to our community's past. Bob was a friend and colleague, and his daughter, Laura Bailey, reached out to me recently asking if I would submit a letter in support of preserving this historic home as much as possible. Laura expressed heart-felt anguish about this state of affairs, and I felt compelled to help her out and do my part to protect this historic home. By consenting to a historic designation, Bob Bailey made a significant commitment to maintain the historic details and character of the home for our community. In return, he rightfully expected that his sacrifices would be honored, and his home would be protected from significant changes in the future. To allow for a disproportionate addition to the house would be a violation of Bob Bailey's trust and commitment to keep this unique home as a Landmark Home. To permit damage to the historic value of this property would put the integrity and reputation of the Landmark Program at risk. I urge you to honor the promise and intent of the Landmark Program and vote no on any proposal that does not adequately meet the Historic Preservation Standards and the reasonable local interpretations of those standards. Thank you for reading this letter and for your consideration. Best wishes, and I trust you folks will make an informed decision. Sincerely, v /L� John Kefalas Larimer County Commissioner 604 Sycamore Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 720-254-7598 Packet Pg. 167 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Vicky McLane To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation; Iaurabailey2l(d)amail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Local Historic Landmark House at 1306 West Mountain Avenue Date: Thursday,February 10,2022 12:45:04 PM Dear Historic Preservation Commission: I am writing to ask you to once again deny the proposal to expand the Local Historic Landmark designated house at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. This proposal, and others that would significantly alter this Craftsman design bungalow, are unacceptable. Perhaps more to the point, I believe that the proposed addition does not comply with State Historic Preservation Office standards which limit additions to no more than 30 percent of a historic home's square footage. The City of Fort Collins made a commitment to abide by its landmark designation of this house when it approved this status in 2014. This commitment must continue, as it is critical to sustaining the historic resources of Mountain Avenue. Vicky McLane Packet Pg. 168 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: jruberry52(cDaol.com To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Thursday,February 10,2022 11:39:13 AM To the Historic Preservation Commission: It has recently come to my attention that there is a proposal by new owners to dramatically alter the Jackson-Bailey Landmark home at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. Robert Bailey, the former owner(now deceased), passionately restored the brick bungalow and diligently worked with the city at length to designate the home a Local Historic Landmark. The changes currently proposed would make all the landmark designation work for naught. I urge you to vote no on the pending building proposal. Approving this submission would ruin this home's small-scale Craftsman style architecture and send a concerning message to other landmark homes in the city. The city should abide by its promises to protect landmark homes from significant changes and avoid setting a dangerous precedent in such matters. Thank you. Joan Ruberry Fort Collins, Colorado Packet Pg. 169 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Carolina Westers To: Jim Bertolini Cc: Aubrie Brennan;Historic Preservation; Laura Bailey Subject: [EXTERNAL]Jackson-Bailey House Date: Thursday,February 10,2022 9:50:51 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona imaae002.r)na imaae003.ona 1306 Mountain historical designation letter.docx Coov of the listina dated May 23.msa Cow of text communication dated May 24.msa Dear Jim Bertolini, Please submit the following attachments to the Historic Preservation Commission for their February 16 meeting. 1. Letter to the Commission outlining my involvement in the listing at 1306 Mountain. 2. Email of a screenshot of the MLS listing showing the comments regarding the historical designation of the home. 3. Email of a screenshot of a text to the buyer's agent to ensuring they knew of the historical designation of the home. Thank you. Kindly, Carolina Carolina Westers M: (970) 690-7667 f RE/MAX Advanced, Inc. 1018 Centre Ave f Fort Collins, CO 80526 carolinawesters.com In the top 2%of agents worldwide! © ® Packet Pg. 170 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 February 9, 2022 Address: 1306 W. Mountain Ave, Fort Collins Seller: Laura Bailey Buyers(current owners): Brian and Barbara Berkhausen List date: May 22, 2021/Under contract date: May 24, 2021/Close date:July 2, 2021 Listing agent: Carolina Westers with RE/MAX Advanced (970) 690-7667 Buyer's agent:Julie Mote with Doverstein Lemburg Commercial (970) 599-3554 To the Historic Preservation Commission, I am the real estate agent that listed 1306 W. Mountain in May of 2020. 1 understand the owners, the Brian and Barbara Berkhausen, are trying to get a variance to build an addition to the existing home. What concerns me is their claims of ignorance that this home was historically designated. I would like to set the record straight that the Berkhausen's were made aware of the Landmark Historic Designation of this home in numerous ways, prior to purchasing the property. 1. IN THE MILS LISTING: The listing clearly stated, "Home is a Fort Collins Landmark offering financial incentives to designated historic properties including State Tax Credits." This was defined in the Broker Remarks, which are not available to the public until the agent shares it with their client. 2. Via the literature on the table: I always provide a table of information for buyers and their agents to look at and/or take a copy of. In this instance I provided the following: a. Copies of the floorplan. b. Copies of the MLS sheet with Broker Remarks included. c. Stack of the magazine AMERICAN BUNGALOW, which features this home and the historical significance of the renovations. d. Framed photo of the list of owners and years they owned the home. e. Original historic title. f. Historic designation paperwork. 3. CONFIRMING WITH BUYER'S REALTOR PRIOR TO GOING UNDER CONTRACT: On May 24, 1 sent a text to Julie Mote, the Berkhausen's real estate agent which stated, "I'll get the counter over to you in the next hour. Also, the seller wanted me to make sure your buyers knew that the house is historically designated. They will not be allowed to make changes to the street view of the house. All exterior changes have to go through historical preservation." Their agent replied, "Thank you", confirming buyers were aware of the historic designation. 4. CONFIRMING WITH BUYER'S REALTOR DURING THE UNDER-CONTRACT PROCESS: Julie Mote and I had several conversations throughout the transaction, with at least one of them confirming the home's historical designation. 5. DURING THE CLOSING: Seller brought a full copy of the paperwork on the historical designation to the closing as a curtesy so the buyer wouldn't have to research it on his own. Before the closing began, she told him she had this paperwork, and while we were waiting for the closer to make copies of the closed file, the seller gave this paperwork to the Mr. Berkhausen. The seller saw this designation as a positive aspect of the sale and was proudly explaining the significance of the historic designation. The buyer acknowledged the paperwork and showed no surprise. In summary, the seller and myself were very thorough in assuring all parties were made aware of the historical designation. It is inconceivable to me that the Berkhausens did not know they were purchasing a home that was historically designated. Feel free to reach out for further clarification. Kindly, Carolina Westers with RE/MAX Advanced Packet Pg. 171 ORES MLS11:912707 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 1306 W MouMa„ RESI0ENTIAL-0ETACNED ACTIVE Lotaie.Fort COMM Cottwtp:tarrtw `�. AreLSubArea:On .-- ISubdMabn:Old Toom Legal:LOT 2,BLK 2,SwETTS,FTC — - DOfll 2 Tobt SgFt AN lvh. ?d92 Rases rot Sgir 1000 - _ Total Fkrbned S¢t• 1911 L ov w Level SQFt Anished Wt woo Ban" 10A4 Nam Level Sgfk 1001 UWW L vef Sgft Add Lipper Lvt Elemnbry: PL&WIR n 0 Gam"spaces: ] Ga►ape Tow DslapAsd middW)r.: L.ioa6 tuns $oft -.60 High School: pipes suit ►tlQ2 SqF t lkwrse:OOPW School District: _ ftstro NM Const:NO Lot Sgft:9.377 Appror.Acre.022 s+trild.r fiodel. Elec-COY of FTC Wall►-Coy of FTC Nell Const Nobs: Gas xo.l Energy Tasea f3.123I0t0 LOW"Casa tore cor-ports of newts sepWa a Inks P14- P714(?rOt1Q2 ze":►l a to tOW"'Orgww dwm Owwahes in 11Ma bw0l milorod burlsbw Wade forA. M Wour Maur Iryt:Yes blow an once of the bee/woo an 010 Town'1 rftOlt t00raP Iran Cwos Water Rights No Was PermN w- 1922 rut fly terns was babow r1 Anwicen Brrpabw MaparrM 110A.No ilia 0►Ip"woodw of•W ttonr we be b"isy ON No wd Memo Tea Disblet Nc �►bo-V,but"t>>tat, 0 aria erpboeve pwo odors"a to me war ens re0w4bensa plulmwp and hgtd 600a The rsupred10 19 % sodreowt..3 saAbs-7 Rtoupf, Ina. ` wicron is 1 l OreAw RewlMlct:See Documw a tab for feskew anw GAft ft= LW !fib LIB[ Ate! !Ad d&V*Sw pifan.Me Sam sr+e and Mwofb&A t iii w4or s dared n FLA 0 0 1 0 0 t ewv*Gar garaga, MOP"wdd eN�tr>,sp0w 10 be w dasd 2017 V4 1 G 0 0 0 1 tinge 2016 wain helifer,2007 roof and mat wlrtdoe Wishes,Agreed in 291C 40 her ww wotrs may eta peso woA) base wwd needs egress ar'C 1/2 t) C. 0-- 0 0 0 tam pap rsarill nut up 10 cafe am Il n%8" 0%X11e is a Fat Cr)Ln• AN Bedroom Conlonw:Ne L&ndmrR o6s"V frunoal rtowis%xis to deeWuftd twaft tt prom-ues Room- Lamm Ltt11t7Qt r&M Elm Q1"SLe"7ar Credits, 1Assbr Bd u 12 r: VWtaA Rrt"a "bom NoirR Arenyw wet of S%wiU _ — Bedroom 2 u 12 103 tr 44 Property�saprrse Dedroom 3 a 13 A Carpi %*:1 SbrVgtm trn Cowetnresow BnouorWt VWww Roof'Ce"Voelbon Oedroom 4 - Deal?%W Codegat6unq Outdoor Feahrre:Orsntpd Garage bedroom S Lecallm 0si edpOOw:Erec7een Tress.Deadtwus Trees.Lev*Lod stedroom t ftus*AAl Fac"S Ferwes_Partial Fenced Lot Nrorovemob:Shell PBVW.Ctabs, GkAws Son►aAs.May Road Access:C4 Sveel DIn4p room Y 14 10 yftd And SWIM At Pn*wty Lkw.slseaop Rood Bars Fonay room P 2J 13 Ot►w 8 -Fo►ord Ar 0rKk*ienea great room V*Wm coww ..E.fr1 cbu Rw9wow,DldwashW Rehpem or C1aWu Kltohen AA 14 14 Wbod vmbw.� .,"af�rt •Garage Dow�w Laundry V t0 B Orrw OeMV FmkoW E t: K*rAn,Saperah N"R00M Mod vwxx.*s tiring room rri ►S 4 Wood Wood Floors blubr BedroomIN&h:Shared Well►Bali FUepbc4w Lwq Am%F replooe UWW :Na us Gas Aac roan EbcJnt"01181 war Clq%WW.Ctiy Sayer 0Wn4 ohlpr Prt rile r-1P~ StuM#r)ORk. is I0 10 Canpd OOwpbd W.Owrw Oom*od PoMwNort:Dearwy a1 Deed 14Npwa Obttaauows:Laid Parrs Olatiosura ROW Plam.Ififtnol F sr h�ellr Wage:sbv*Fwnby New i):C.eaA ^ �� W �.FNA_VA ' •seft1)pplp1t01 poseeftom LA:Gamins,Welters Pborw.9M40? 1 Fan:VM22/•590111 LO:PZCAOAX T&3 oo YA:3.00 6uyM Excl:No CerArga AV RM ShovArW ShmPVTusn t07011t13•T4W ffjMMgLQp@ Wit EM:STOW EN RMdp:REAW AsfdnOed,Mc Ue SaMM N II r p P t. wfr c,er L — athrr a lea za,�y t1.a Fee 1faCk" P9 172 t->;.�-uoo•aewer0 retrde but"0urMwwed hu1 mrr.nr nd Vpee CoptrrrAr!1N670{20 tt1 9:22 To- julie New iMessage Cancel 0. AM I'll get the counter over to you in the next hour. Also the seller wanted me Packet to make sure your buyers knew that the house is historically designated. They will not be allowed to make changes to the street view of the house. That .g 9:22 " m New iMessage Cancel • Mote is pretty much true for any house over 50 years old in FC though. All exterior changes Thank have to go through historical preservation. • May 24, • • • : AM I just emailed the Packet Pg. 174 0 counter to you. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: David Haimson To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation;laurabailey2lCabgmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL]Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Friday,February 11,2022 1:48:30 PM Dear Historic Preservation Commission: I am extremely concerned by the proposed addition to the landmarked Jackson Bailey house at 1306 W.Mountain Ave,and I urge you to reject the proposal to build it. 1.The purpose of the landmark designation,as I understand it,is to preserve the architectural qualities of designated properties.The proposed addition would essentially destroy these qualities.If the property had the proposed addition already,it would never have been designated. 2.The State Historic Preservation Office has made it clear to the city of Fort Collins that additions to historic houses should not exceed 20-30 percent of the house's square footage.At 80 percent,this proposed addition goes against any reasonable local interpretation of the preservation standards the city is obligated to follow. 3.As an owner of a landmark-designated house in Fort Collins,I am very concerned about the historic preservation of my own house after I am gone.I am appalled to see someone trying to shove aside the protections that landmark designation is intended to provide.If the city allows this addition to be built,everyone will interpret this to mean that landmark designation is meaningless,and should be ignored.I urge you not to let this happen. Sincerely, David Haimson Packet Pg. 175 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Eric Odell To: Aubrie Brennan; Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL]Jackson-Bailey house Date: Friday,February 11,2022 5:42:24 PM Hello- I understand that there is a proposed addition to the house that is located at 1306 w mountain avenue. I am not deeply familiar with the proposal, or the history of the house, but I have lived in old town fort collins for over 25 years. I live here because I love the character of the area. I understand that this house has been designated as a local historic landmark. The new owners knew about this prior to their purchase, I am told. This is meaningful and is not simply a title. Important considerations must be taken into account because of this. The location where this house is is prime old town residential area. It is characteristic of many things worth preserving. We have seen many houses (that did not have this meaningful designation) in this and surrounding neighborhoods razed, altered, and otherwise changed that have ultimately degraded the uniqueness, charm and character of old town fort collins. This is something worth preserving, and from what I understand the proposed changes to this house seriously challenge what might be appropriate for this historic home and neighborhood and previously made designation. If the historic preservation standards were developed for a reason, this is it. Please review the proposed development with a critical eye, and know that the reason that the historical landmark program was developed for just this situation. You have an important role here, and your voice matters. Allowing a new homeowner to disregard an important designation for which they were apparently made well aware of prior to purchase to disregard the process and the character of old town would be a shame. Packet Pg. 176 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Susan Roaers To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Friday,February 11,2022 2:06:32 PM Hello, I'm writing in regards to the upcoming vote on the proposed addition to the Landmark Jackson Bailey home at 1306 W. Mountain Ave. I could wax poetic about the merits of Bob's home (he was a friend), or I could expound on how angry I am that people would buy a designated landmark with the intent of destroying its very nature, but these are beside the point. The home is a designated landmark. If the HPC votes to allow the addition as proposed- 80% of current square footage and location on the side- the commission should just close up shop. The HPC will have completely failed its mission to protect designated landmarks. It will have ignored its own standards, and sent the message "Landmark designation means nothing." I urge you to vote no on the proposed addition to the Landmark Jackson Bailey home, and on any future proposals which do not adhere to the preservation standards which the city is obligated to uphold. Thank you, Susan Rogers 629 W. Mountain Ave. Packet Pg. 177 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: KEVIN COOK To: Aubrie Brennan; Historic Preservation; Iaura1bai1ey21Cd)gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Preserve Jackson-Bailey House Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 1:35:48 PM Attachments: Bob Bailev House 1-a.docx 12 February 2022 To the Historic Preservation Commission: Once again (see attachment for first contact), I am writing to both ask and to encourage you to decline approval for remodeling the Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 West Mountain Avenue. The previous owner, Robert G. Bailey, devoted not only his own personal resources to maintain the Jackson-Bailey house; but he also exerted special effort to share with others his belief that preserving architecture was an important way to protect the cultural character of various historical time periods. He fulfilled this sharing by writing about preservation, and other topics, in the nationally circulated magazine, American Bungalow. In maintaining the house and registering it as an historical landmark, Bob both expressed and invested his confidence in the Historic Preservation Commission's mission and its integrity to fulfill that mission. Allowing a modification of the magnitude being proposed not only violates Bob's trust, but it dismisses the very purpose of preserving structures as elements of cultural history. can regard this situation in only two perspectives of the same point— ethics! First, the present owners exemplify a profound lack of ethics by knowingly buying a property legally and formally designated as an historical landmark but with deliberate intentions of vacating that designation to rebuild the property to suit themselves. Second, if the HPC accepts the proposal it sacrifices the community-endorsed intentions of preserving cultural history and in so doing invalidates any credibility of the organization, the commission, its mission, and the commitment to ethical decision-making. Preserving cultural history and the architectural structures that visually represent that cultural history cannot succeed by being capriciously committed to the underlying concept. Registering a house as an historical landmark with one owner then dismissing that status with a subsequent owner essentially defines the meaning of "capricious." Precious few structures like the Jackson-Bailey House remain available for preservation; by contrast, literally thousands of houses in Ft. Collins are available for upgrade remodeling and expansion. If the present owners want a larger house, they can sell the Jackson-Bailey House and buy a house not registered — and theoretically preserved — as an historical landmark. Straight to the point: if the HPC accepts the proposal to modify the Jackson-Bailey House, that action will nullify any ethical standards by which the HPC must operate Packet Pg. 178 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 and it will vacate any credibility the community has in the HPC to fulfill its mission in a meaningful way. Please, do the right thing! Respectfully, Kevin J. Cook (970) 617-4455 Packet Pg. 179 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Sharon Danhauer To: Aubrie Brennan;Historic Preservation Cc: Laurabailey2lCabgmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please protect the Jackson/Bailey house Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 8:54:31 AM Although I currently live in Loveland, where I am active in historic preservation, I ask you to please vote No on the proposal to add a large addition to the landmarked Jackson/Bailey home at 1306 W. Mountain Ave., and No on any other plans that would significantly alter the small cottage character for which this Craftsman bungalow was designated. The addition being requested is too large, too visible on the side of the house, and is placed in a way that would ruin the home's simple rectangular and symmetrical design. This small-scale Craftsman cottage architecture design is mainly what qualified the home for historic designation as a landmark. As the Commission knows, the State Historic Preservation Office has made it clear that additions should not exceed 20-30% of the historic home's square footage. At 80%, this proposal goes against any reasonable local interpretation of the preservation standards the city is obligated to follow. Approving this proposal would send a tragic message that our Historic Preservation Standards can be irresponsibly applied or circumvented all together. The proposal, if okayed, would damage yet another piece of our town's historical heritage and further decrease the historic resources and charm of Mountain Avenue. Sharon Danhauer 970-290-0169 Loveland Historical Society Board Historic Larimer County Board Packet Pg. 180 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Colleen Fitzpatrick To: Aubrie Brennan;Historic Preservation; Iaurabailey2lCa)gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 2:58:14 PM This correspondence relates to the proposal for a building addition to the Jackson-Bailey home at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. Please vote no on this proposal as the intended architectural changes would negate the home's landmark designation. If significant changes are made to a landmark home, what is the use of a home having a landmark status?Approval would ignore preservation standards. I urge you NOT to set such a precedent. Thank you. Sincerely, Colleen Fitzpatrick Fort Collins, CO Packet Pg. 181 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Asma Henry To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation;Iaurabailey2lCabamail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL]Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 10:23:10 PM Dear A. Brennan, As a homeowner on Mountain Avenue, I am writing to express my strong opposition to proposed plans to add a large addition to the designated landmark home at 1306 Mountain Avenue. This house is a beautiful and well-preserved example of an historic craftsman bungalow and the proposed addition would destroy these characteristics. As a neighbor, I have seen how it has been lovingly maintained. Please vote against the proposed addition to the Jackson-Bailey House. Sincerely yours, Asma K. Henry 1423 W. Mountain Avenue email: asmahe=&icloud.com Packet Pg. 182 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Suzanne Murrav To: Aubrie Brennan;Historic Preservation Cc: smseniorcare(ffrii.com;laurabailey2l(obgmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 West Mountain Avenue Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 9:59:58 PM Ft. Collins City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing in regards to 1306 W. Mountain Ave. also known to me as my late friend Bob Bailey's home. I am deeply concerned for this fine example of American bungalow home in Fort Collins with this request to make significant changes. It is my understanding that city designation is the highest level of protection for a home that meets criterion as a landmark designation. Bob Bailey went to great lengths to preserve the exterior and interior of this bungalow and requested this designation to discourage such changes. The property was awarded this designation for all of Bobs efforts. The proposed changes and it's grand nature would take away from the integrity of the architecture, look and historical feel. I also know that the house was highlighted in American Bungalow magazine as one of the finest examples of this type of American bungalow architecture. The changes requested greatly deter from the very integrity of this landmarked home. I feel strongly that this request is an front to the historic designation and importance of its preservation. The plans submitted are not in line with the architectural design and age of this bungalow. I ask you to review the mission and goals of the landmarks preservation and understand that this home was designated for preservation as is. Should we drop the ball and allow these changes, I would think that the committees and commissions are defunct in their responsibilities. Should the changes be allowed, I propose that it would set a new precedent that goes against every goal and every part of the mission for landmarks preservation and designation. We cannot afford to lose even one more historic home through change or otherwise and still call this area, Old Town. I am a citizen of Fort Collins since 1998 and live in Olde Towne. I walk Mountain Avenue weekly enjoy each homes historic characteristics. I delight in the historic look of our neighborhood. With each new change we lose this look and feel of our historic fabric. It was my understanding that the new owner was informed of the designation and explained the limitations prior to purchase. Therefore they committed to upholding the the look and feel of this American bungalow. It is a breach of contract to request these changes. We must uphold the constraints of designation in order to preserve this home that is integral to the charm of Mountain Avenue. We are a short distance from destroying the very essence of our old town. I ask each of you to stand up for this preservation process and deny the changes proposed. The designation status speaks volumes to preserve this home. I ask you to vote for preservation. Sincerely, Suzanne Murray Suzanne Murray 117 S. Whitcomb St. 80521 smseniorcare@frii.com 970-556-0553 Packet Pg. 183 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: David Radloff To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL]Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 12:10:24 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We ask that you honor the"Local Historic Landmark"status of the Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 W Mountain Ave by denying the request for a large-scale alteration of the house. We live in an unaltered cottage bungalow at 1120 W Mountain,and we see daily,as we walk around this historic neighborhood,the unfortunate effects of inappropriate changes to once lovely historic homes. Many of the changes along Mountain Ave would be laughable--if they were not such sad architectural blunders. Please help ensure the future integrity of this special part of Old Town Fort Collins. Sincerely, --David Radloff --Marlene Radloff --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Packet Pg. 184 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Jim Bertolini To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]I urge rejection of the 1306 W Mountain remodel proposal Date: Monday,February 14,2022 8:45:36 AM Attachments: Feb Reiect oroaosal for 1306 W Mountain.docx Sorry about that— here's the Eric Smith attachment. JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office iberto1ini(@fcgov.com From: S Mondia <super.mondia@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:26 PM To:Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] I urge rejection of the 1306 W Mountain remodel proposal formal comments attached Packet Pg. 185 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 10 Feb 2022 Re: Reject nonconforming 1306 West Mountain proposal Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission As a resident of West Mountain Avenue and as a supporter of the historic protection programs of Fort Collins, I am writing, once again,to comment on the proposed changes to 1306 West Mountain, a designated City Landmark, and to urge you to reject this proposal at the February, 2022, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The assessment of the city staff is clear and fairly complete.This proposal will destroy important elements which made this structure eligible for designation in the first place. Beyond the individual architectural features of this home, its original size, compact form, and simple geometric shape is a key element of this structure.The proposed remuddle will eliminate the very essence of this modest bungalow home.The proposal is simply too big to preserve the character of the home . I want to emphasize, once again,that the damage that these proposed changes will extend beyond the physical impact on this individual home. Mountain Avenue is clearly the premier prewar historic street of Fort Collins,from the downtown, past St Thomas Church, the Avery House,the sugar beet mill era cottages, 1306 itself, and ending at Grandview Cemetery, with the trolley running down most of its distance. The street has always been changing, architecturally, and will continue to change. But so few of the individual homes which have been afforded any recognition, let alone protection.The previous owner of 1306 choose to do the work required to have his home recognized and designated. It is the contribution that 1306 makes to this neighborhood which amplifies it value and which makes its importance really matter. I believe that the Landmarks Commission needs to do its duty to protect the qualities of the home which made it a eligible to be a landmarked building when it was accepted into the program.The staff report is clear that proposed changes of this structure is incompatible with the historic elements of 1306.The changes are, perhaps more importantly, incompatible with the historic neighborhood context in which the home exists.This is an important case which tests whether Fort Collins is going to uphold the meager protections afforded the historic elements of our community, or go backwards, choosing to not even protect already landmarked homes. I urge you to reject this proposal at your February meeting. Eric Smith 1216 West Mountain Avenue Packet Pg. 186 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Fred Snyder To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL]Jackson-Bailey house. Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 2:13:02 PM Please do everything you can to protect the Jackson-Bailey house.What is the point of getting a property landmarked if it doesn't protect its historic integrity?Go to any city in this country and you can find signs,visit historic district.It has value.Don't let our neighborhood's get blurred.Please consider this.Thank you.Frederick Snyder. Sent from my iPad Packet Pg. 187 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Robert Viscount To: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Date: Saturday,February 12,2022 11:18:02 AM Dear Historic Preservation Commission: I am writing to ask you to deny the proposal to expand the house at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. This addition and alteration to this Craftsman design bungalow is unacceptable. The proposed addition does not comply with State Historic Preservation Office standards which limit additions to no more than 30 percent of a historic home's square footage. The size and positioning of the addition would overshadow the original design of this historic building. More importantly, the City of Fort Collins made a commitment to abide by its landmark designation of this house when it approved this status in 2014. This commitment must continue, as it is critical to sustaining the historic resources of Mountain Avenue. Robert Viscount Fort Collins Packet Pg. 188 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: John Brinkmann To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation; Laura Bailey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Sunday,February 13,2022 12:07:41 PM Bob Bailey's Masterpiece There's a reason the Jackson-Bailey bungalow received historic designation and made the cover of American Bungalow magazine. Without knowing, Bob Bailey preserved and created a home remembered by millions like myself who grew up in working-class bungalow neighborhoods. Working class bungalows are small, yet they demonstrate a quality of life that is lost among excess. I can't say I ever felt deprived in that home, in any way at all. The home's small size is at its essence. Bungalows are intimate. That's part of the appeal. Major alteration of the Bailey bungalow would be a death sentence to an ikon. Such houses are rare these days. In the bungalow world, Fort Collins gets a star because of the Bailey bungalow. Please respect it. John Brinkmann. Publisher American Bungalow magazine Packet Pg. 189 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: John Gascoyne <jpgascoyne@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:09 PM To: Aubrie Brennan; Historic Preservation; laurabailey2l@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Preservation of historic home at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Dear Friends: On more than one occasion, I visited with Bob Bailey about a main goal in his life-the preservation, intact, of his home on West Mountain. I am writing now to ask to preserve his legacy for the benefit of our community. I purchased my own 1908 home at 718 West Mountain Avenue about 40 years ago. It is a smallish but, in my estimation, valuable asset to the best of Old Town. Not long after I moved in,the house was featured in the parade of homes and was well received by the many visitors. Also at some point early on, I applied for and received historic designation. At the time of the designation, I was fully aware of future building restrictions that would be imposed.To me,the tradeoff was that my own little bit of local history would be preserved, even at the expense of maximum potential income somewhere down the road. I have never looked back on my decision with any regret. I am, however,very concerned about the implications to my own situation if there is a loss of will in protecting the Bailey home. Best regards, John P. Gascoyne 970 221-4316 Packet Pg. 190 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Ed Secor To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL]Protect the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Monday,February 14,2022 7:18:01 AM Historic Preservation Commission: I am writing to urge you to reject the proposed alterations to the Local Landmark property at 1603 W. Mountain Ave. Designating any property as a Local Landmark represents a trust between the City and its citizens that the property will be maintained as a perpetual representation of a significant piece of the City's history. While such a designation does not preclude making some changes to the property, any changes must conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for historic preservation. Allowing changes that do not conform to the Standards constitutes a violation of the public trust and makes a mockery of the Local Landmark program. If subsequent owners of a Landmarked property are permitted to ignore the guidelines the program includes then there is really no reason to ever designate a property as a Local Landmark. The current owners of 1603 W. Mountain Ave. appear to have been well informed of the Landmark status of the property prior to their purchase, and so should have been aware of the limitations on alteration from the start of planning their addition, and it is clear that they have been repeatedly informed of the Standards during the reviews of their proposals. Please do not allow any alterations to this Local Landmark property that do not fully meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Ed Secor Packet Pg. 191 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Bill Spencer <billspencer03@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 6:32 PM To: Historic Preservation Subject: [EXTERNAL] Preservation of Jackson-Bailey Bungalow We are opposed to any large addition to the Jackson Baily Landmark Craftsman House at 1306 West Mountain In Fort Collins. We've been in that house and it was gem, perfectly restored by Bob Bailey to reflect the 1920s era in the history of Fort Collins. It was purchased with the knowledge that it was to remain historically accurate; a large addition would be inappropriate. Rules are rules for a reason. In this case they are to preserve Fort Collins' historic buildings. Please vote against this proposed inappropriate addition. Bill and Elaine Spencer Bill Spencer, 970-775-3542 Packet Pg. 192 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Stevens.Joe To: Aubrie Brennan Cc: Historic Preservation; Iaurabailey2l(a)gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] PROTECT THE JACKSON-BAILEY LANDMARK HOME Date: Monday,February 14,2022 12:37:55 PM Hello, We are writing to indicate our strong opposition to the proposed remodel of the above historic property (1306 West Mountain Ave.) While we do appreciate the historic character of the property and are happy to see it preserved, our primary reason for opposing it is on principal. The new owners were very aware of and accepted the restrictions on the property they were purchasing. Their acceptance of those terms at the time of the purchase should be binding and it is the responsibility of the city to ensure they are bound to those terms. The only matter really at issue here is will we as a city honor our commitments and hold others accountable to their word! Like any other deed restriction, this restriction is accompanied by a value. The owners realized that value when they purchased the property at a discount due to the deed restrictions. Releasing the owners from the restriction now that they own it would essentially represent the city transferring that value from the Bailey estate to an individual private party. That would be an injustice to the Bailey estate, as well as to all the other city residents (not that these owners are even city residents) to whom the same subsidy is not available. Similar subsidies would surely be sought after by many following such a decision. There is no hardship or definitive need involved in this situation, and as such, I cannot see a valid justification for allowing a release from the deed restrictions that they knowingly and willingly accepted prior to purchase. They would surely be able to resell 1306 West Mountain at a price that would cover their invested costs, purchase an alternative property in old town without deed restrictions, and gut or scrape to create the home they desire. We would fully support that. We realize that the information states that comments need to be received by Sunday, 2/13, however, we were not notified until that date. We also will be out of town during the live meeting and are unable to participate in that. We live at 1325 West Mountain which is almost directly across from 1306 West Mountain. We are disappointed that being in such close proximity to the proposed action, we were not informed earlier. One might indicate that we should have known given there is a sign in the front yard that notifies all the neighbors. However, we have tried to obtain information in response to those yard signs and it is not a simple process. Thank you for your time and consideration of my opinion. I hope it helps. Thanks, Joe Stevens and Alison Dickson Packet Pg. 193 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Jim Bertolini To: Carol Tunner; Maren Bzdek Cc: Aubrie Brennan Subject: RE: 1306 W. Mountain,the Jackson-Bailey House Date: Monday,February 14,2022 3:01:47 PM Attachments: imaoe001.ono Carol, Thank you for submitting a comment on this item. It will be added to the Historic Preservation Commission packet for the item. The hearing for this item will be Wednesday evening, February 16 at 5:30 p.m. held exclusively virtually via Zoom. You indicated you would be out of town, but perhaps the virtual format will help you participate if you are able. There will be a public comment period for this item at which you are welcome to provide any additional information. The agenda is posted, with a Zoom link at the top, here: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/historic-preservation JIM BERTOLINI Historic Preservation Planner Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office ibertolini(d fcoov.com Visit our website! �rt_ tins "The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those some systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more." From: Carol Tunner<caroltunner@msn.com> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:08 PM To: Maren Bzdek<mbzdek@fcgov.com>;Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 1306 W. Mountain, the Jackson-Bailey House I just received the plans for the Jackson-Bailey House on W. Mountain Avenue. I'd like to add my voice as former 20-year Historic Preservation Planner for Fort Collins. The house enlargement plans violate the Department of Interiors'Standards for additions to landmarked homes. Relaxing the rules is a travesty and will affect landmarked properties in the past and the future. It is a shame to do this to this house when Bob Bailey was the most passionate person I ever met about accurate period preservation of his house and did everything he could to preserve it down to the last detail, even with period dinner china in open kitchen cupboards. After I retired in 2007, he invited me to see the interior and sent me a copy of the article he wrote and was published in American Bungalow magazine. Packet Pg. 194 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 This points out the weakness in the local landmark designation program -it can only be upheld by a strong,well-trained Historic Preservation Commission. I pray these present members stand by the Department of Interiors' Standards. Carol Tunner, retired Historic Preservation Planner caroltunnerCa)msn.com 970-484-3957 From: Maren Bzdek<mbzdeklcDfcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:25 AM To: Carol Tunner<caroltunner6Dmsn.com> Cc: laurabailey2l(@gmail.com <laurabailey21(ZDgmail.com>; Jim Bertolini <ibertolini(@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: 1306 W. Mountain, the Jackson-Bailey House Hi Carol, This item is on the agenda for the February 16 HPC meeting, and the plans are in the online agenda packet (item starting on page 54) at https://citydocs.fcgov.com/? cmd=convert&vid=46&dt=AGENDA&docid=3526083&board=LANDMARK+PRESERVATION+COMMISS ION&docdate=FEB-16-2022. I'm cc'ing Jim Bertolini on this—he is the assigned staff member preparing the staff report for HPC discussion. If you would like to submit public comment in writing prior to the meeting, please make sure that Jim receives it. Thank you! Maren ........... . . ..... MAREN BZDEK She/Her/Hers Historic Preservation Manager City of Fort Collins From: Carol Tunner<caroltunner(@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:53 AM To: Maren Bzdek<mbzdek(@fcgov.com> Cc: Iaurabailey2lPgmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1306 W. Mountain, the Jackson-Bailey House Maren, can you quickly email me the plans for the enlargement of to Jackson-Bailey House? And when does it go to HPC? When I was working, I became friends with Mr. Bailey (I did that with all my applicants) and I visited the house. It was pristine to the period. I knew him fairly well and he would be horrified if anything was done to compromise the historic character of the house. Carol Tunner caroltunner@msn.com Packet Pg. 195 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Laura Bailey <laurabailey21 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:30 AM To: Jim Bertolini Cc: Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Realtor letter for 1306 W Mountain Oh goodness! Yes, I am resending my comments below.Thanks for letting me know. To the Historic Preservation Commission: I write to you as the daughter of Bob Bailey who consented to have 1306 W. Mountain designated as a Landmark in 2014. 1 urge you to vote no on the proposal for a deeply inappropriate addition to this home. The proposal would flagrantly violate the Interior Secretary's standards that demonstrate that additions must be small and must not damage the historic character of the home. When my father enrolled in the Landmark program, he did so with the expectation that the city would honor its commitment to protect the home from significant changes. He spent a great deal of time and resources holding up his end of the bargain by carefully maintaining the historic character of the home. He forfeited his own ability to make significant exterior changes that he may have liked to have enjoyed, and he sacrificed the potential resale value he could manifested by increasing the square footage with his own addition. My father sacrificed all of this because he believed in preserving a small piece of Fort Collins history—and in preserving it in a way that genuinely and clearly tells the story of the 1920s period his home represents. When I inherited and chose to sell the home, I did so with the full expectation that our city would follow its obligations faithfully and honor my father's generous gift. I never dreamed the city would allow for such wildly damaging changes that could threaten the future of the home's designation all together. i Packet Pg. 196 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 If the city allows this brazen proposal to move forward, it will send a clear message that the Fort Collins Landmark designation is meaningless. Other reasons this project in inappropriate for our community: • As my father would tell you, many people today value smaller, less resource-demanding homes where there is less square footage to heat and cool and where more resources are not required for construction. He believed deeply in the importance of small-scale sustainable living. The city should be mindful not to wipe out options for people who are also interested in living sustainably through smaller homes. • The Jackson-Bailey Home is a beloved, nationally and locally known home that has been on the Historic Home Tour and featured in the American Bungalow magazine. Many residents of Old Town and beyond know the home to be a charming and exceptionally accurate window to our past. This addition will muddy the simple cottage aesthetic and make that representation much less clear. • Though the home is 100 years old, it has been lovingly and impeccably maintained. It is still a high-quality home that has the ability to provide a high standard of living for numerous types of families or individuals now, and well into the future. • This home is an increasingly rare, accurate representation of 1920s Fort Collins along Mountain Avenue and a historic resource that all of our community benefits from keeping. • The proposal would turn a small cottage into something unrecognizable. It nearly doubles the footprint of the house and damages the simple, clean lines, clean roof and rectilinear style that was the very thing for which the home was designated. It does this in a way that is highly visible from the Mountain Avenue and the public alleyway in back. Mr. Berkhausen who bought the home in 2020, has described myriad ways in which he feels the square footage and layout of the home is inadequate for him and his plans for the future. It's inconceivable to me that he could not have foreseen these issues when purchasing the home. Finally, I am including a letter from my realtor Carolina Westers, who is a highly respected, veteran realtor in our community. It explains the many junctures in which the owners were informed about the designation. If approved, this plan would be a profound violation of my father's trust and a blow to the integrity of the Landmark program. Please vote it down. 2 Packet Pg. 197 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Sincerely, Laura Bailey Fort Collins, CO On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:24 AM Jim Bertolini <ibertolini@fcgov.com>wrote: Laura, Can you resend your comments? Neither Aubrie nor myself(or our general inbox, preservation@fcgov.com) has anything from you except the request to duplicate your realtors comment.Thanks! JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office iberto1iniC@fcqov.com From: Laura Bailey<laurabailey2l@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 5:03 PM To:Jim Bertolini<ibertolini@fcRov.com>;Aubrie Brennan <abrennan@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Realtor letter for 1306 W Mountain I just realized I did not include this attachment in the comments I just provided. Carolina has already submitted this letter separately, but could you please see that the MLS listing and this letter gets in with my letter as I promised. Thank you! February 9, 2022 Address: 1306 W. Mountain Ave, Fort Collins Seller: Laura Bailey Buyers(current owners): Brian and Barbara Berkhausen List date: May 22, 2021/Under contract date: May 24,2021/Close date:July 2,2021 Listing agent:Carolina Westers with RE/MAX Advanced (970)690-7667 Buyer's agent:Julie Mote with Doverstein Lemburg Commercial (970)599-3554 3 Packet Pg. 198 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 To the Historic Preservation Commission, I am the real estate agent that listed 1306 W. Mountain in May of 2020. 1 understand the owners,the Brian and Barbara Berkhausen, are trying to get a variance to build an addition to the existing home. What concerns me is their claims of ignorance that this home was historically designated. I would like to set the record straight that the Berkhausen's were made aware of the Landmark Historic Designation of this home in numerous ways, prior to purchasing the property. 1. IN THE MLS LISTING:The listing clearly stated, "Home is a Fort Collins Landmark offering financial incentives to designated historic properties including State Tax Credits."This was defined in the Broker Remarks,which are not available to the public until the agent shares it with their client. 2. Via the literature on the table: I always provide a table of information for buyers and their agents to look at and/or take a copy of. In this instance I provided the following: a. Copies of the floorplan. b. Copies of the MLS sheet with Broker Remarks included. c. Stack of the magazine AMERICAN BUNGALOW, which features this home and the historical significance of the renovations. d. Framed photo of the list of owners and years they owned the home. e. Original historic title. f. Historic designation paperwork. 3. CONFIRMING WITH BUYER'S REALTOR PRIOR TO GOING UNDER CONTRACT: On May 24, 1 sent a text to Julie Mote, the Berkhausen's real estate agent which stated, "I'll get the counter over to you in the next hour. Also,the seller wanted me to make sure your buyers knew that the house is historically designated.They will not be allowed to make changes to the street view of the house. All exterior changes have to go through historical preservation."Their agent replied, "Thank you", confirming buyers were aware of the historic designation. 4. CONFIRMING WITH BUYER'S REALTOR DURING THE UNDER-CONTRACT PROCESS:Julie Mote and I had several conversations throughout the transaction,with at least one of them confirming the home's historical designation. 5. DURING THE CLOSING: Seller brought a full copy of the paperwork on the historical designation to the closing as a curtesy so the buyer wouldn't have to research it on his own. Before the closing began, she told him she had this paperwork, and while we were waiting for the closer to make copies of the closed file,the seller gave this paperwork to the Mr. Berkhausen.The seller saw this designation as a positive aspect of the sale and was proudly explaining the significance of the historic designation. The buyer acknowledged the paperwork and showed no surprise. In summary,the seller and myself were very thorough in assuring all parties were made aware of the historical designation. It is inconceivable to me that the Berkhausens did not know they were purchasing a home that was historically designated. 4 Packet Pg. 199 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Feel free to reach out for further clarification. Kindly, Carolina Westers with RE/MAX Advanced 5 Packet Pg. 200 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Jim Bertolini From: Gina Janett <ginaciao@frii.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:23 PM To: Jim Bertolini; Aubrie Brennan; preservation@cgov.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments to HPC on 1306 W Mountain Design Review Importance: High To the Historic Landmark Commission, I am commenting on the proposed design for an addition to 1306 W Mountain Avenue. I urge the Commission to deny the applicant a Certificate of Appropriateness. 1. An identical house with an addition as proposed would not be eligible for local historic landmark designation today. The real question to be answered is: Absent landmark status, would this house with the proposed addition meet the criteria to be locally designated as a historic landmark?The answer is "no." Under ITS 37, a historic home with an overly large addition would not meet the criteria for designation. The state has advised the city that an acceptable addition would be no larger than 20-30% of the current building footprint. As such, the proposed addition is overly large and should not be approved. 2. The proposed design eliminates the simple character of the home that was the basis for landmark designation. The key characteristics that formed the basis for the landmark designation were that it was a simple rectangular building with a simple roof, and a porch with one gable. The proposed design changes this by adding an addition into the side yard making the home an L-shape design that is more complex, has greater size and mass, and a more complicated roof design. As proposed, the addition would be visible to the public from the street and the alley. Under historic landmark standards, any large addition visible from the public right of way would eliminate the building from consideration as a historic landmark. 3. A decision to approve this design in violation of the Secretary of Interiors' Standards 2 and 9 could be detrimental to the preservation of the over 1,000 residential and commercial buildings in Fort Collins that have already been designated as historic landmarks. When a property owner goes through the significant decision making and application process to have their home designated as a historic landmark, they have chosen to preserve the home's exterior"as is" into the future. They knowingly forgo possible remodeling that might be lucrative for their home's resale value. By landmarking their home, they are stating their desire and expectation that the home will be preserved as is in perpetuity. Approving the proposed design in violation of landmark standards can set a precedent allowing other landmarks to lose protection going forward, completely undermining the value of landmark designation. 4. The argument that the home is currently too small to be marketable in today's time is false. City data collected as part of the 2013 Old Town Character Study determined that 1,210 homes (36%) in Old Town east and west of College Avenue, were 1,000 square feet or less. An additional 1,340 houses (40%)were 1000-1499 square feet. Old Town's homes have had a brisk turnover with appreciating market value since the study. Additionally, the 2020 census found that Fort Collins average household size is 2.44 people/house. As such, the Craftsman home at 1306 W Mountain continues to hold its value as a modest, historic home appropriate for our community. Gina C.Janett 730 W Oak St ginaciao@frii.com 970 222-5896 Packet Pg. 201 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Loretta Bailev To: Jim Bertolini;Aubrie Brennan Subject: [EXTERNAL]Vote no to Jackson-Bailey addition Date: Tuesday,February 15,2022 10:31:41 AM Dear Commission: I wish to voice my opposition to the addition to the Jackson-Bailey home. I am Bob Bailey's ex-wife and I know this home to be quite special and worthy of protection. Over the years, Bob lived in this home and maintained it beautifully, all the way up to this death which was just two months shy of 80. That home proved to be a wonderful home for him in his retirement years. The City of Fort Collins showed that it felt the home was worthy of protection when in designated the home as a Landmark in 2014. It made a commitment to Bob and to our community. That should be honored. The proposed changes are a violation of the intent of the program and the intent of the historic preservation standards the city is required to follow. My daughter Laura Bailey deliberated carefully about selling this home after Bob's passing. Ultimately, she did so trusting that that the Historic Commission and the city of Fort Collins would hold to its commitments to honor the Landmark designation and not allow significant changes that harm the historic character and feel of the home. The changes being proposed are so large and inappropriate that it's frankly quite unthinkable that they've being entertained. Bob would be astonished. I am certain he would be concerned for the fate of other Landmarks in our town. Please stand by your obligations and oppose this addition and anything resembling it. Sincerely, Loretta Bailey Sent from my Wad Packet Pg. 202 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 PRMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION Inc. "Building Dreams" 10-18-21 RE: Design Changes for 1306 W. Mountain Revised Plan set dated 10-4-2021 and consisting of 9 pages Demolition of existing brick wall: - Revised plans show removal of exterior brick wall to be 10'-2" of the exist exterior brick wall. Exterior Windows: - Revised Plans show retaining the existing windows in the home except for one window in the existing kitchen and removal of and fill-in in the existing bathroom. Floor plan square footage: - Revised plans show adding onto the existing home of 1097 square feet a new addition of 1036 square feet with no basement below and no exterior stair entrance on the east side basement level. Overall Height: - Revised plans show the addition to be 17'-0" from grade or 2'-6" lower than the existing structure. Detached Structures: - Revised plans show retaining the existing 250 square foot garage, removal of the existing 534 square foot garage, and building a new garage of 630 square feet. P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970)472-1113 • Fax (970)472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com Packet Pg. 203 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 ° ma' e��PA ��mso - 33�- U"nAm 0 °A8 m< N 00°14'45"E n9.610' t 0_ - N O ml Iw =cc Zo - ip of a.-y z •��t o o g\ ° j { j I moo I m _ -------- ----- b s oo�s'za'w ns.uo' A �-+ o�3oQo �� 000mN� ymQ�u o°�On FA DAO oA�n b O m o K m A =80 D�~ r Z O c=0 mNX Z-N y 0+Z D= O '^ nN EOp V' m _ I -4 i z�gcQio o vz��o 3AQo�A r E � �mAlg j',wio O oRMz i i m y ZD Imi D GTiO QmL� m°yOOD g �r dry °Q""-wi p $"gIE QAoeAma�i A p O r T �;. �uDDO•iSDl�o 'o F U NA O O z k E Aom ° �hpo4�OPF z x z E>> al r Z O Dm r D�O� pm �IA��O� EEz S m 3 m r— mmHg m �• A $D3 m D r O z y Z O m Q y mm° I � iE, mw �z °Wmi o rl� BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DAB: DaAwN ev: ArraoveD: 04 (� 10-aZm21 JDPar wl RMSTEAD E.HoasEToo*x Do. EEICE:m"oian.i its fil CONSTRUC71ON Inc. eigi coiiwE mz vAx: Inv)411'11s "Buibing Dreams" S,—80525 EMAIL: b@e�msteedcansuuctlan.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 EXISTING(REMODEL) ADDITION H8111 dAsg �D day„i €c 4 • % auto. �as•.aa'ax w . a O �g� •�� � "� z R�g yea � - ��� L s t N�s m a x b ---�---- c n 0 OZ L p5 m � � r E € ga m� wa iFz S �fi b seA� m O m ; J pia z IT 0 I I .zu o, ------------- E I EXISTING(REMODEl) ylAp E �IT 6 a Z 0 bIn n oxm � oD g /� 1— mod $ g�O D rm-� { omQ �roPE I ; Ama ADDITION••REMODEL ADDITION eA � m � R R F a� 1vE � �E WEB B lad Ili R 3/12 \ $ Sm2mmim o �mm�I"o =mpmm'�ApAo �!na op ~I a& � ~OAOz! A ~AD imX zpAL�Dr'A2 �2 D � _——_———_— _— m0 Z E 11ttlI pGz OAz DI�3 p3 _ qq ZD Tml M. TI xmG� O���I D n DQim A zio >E> �'z_Ao�A_m3z n O r-4 cP an -y� W �R �DO 31 w 3Er m mm Drzp Aym N� E E= b A m O �VmsR DO p �'A 3Ez(lzp p j C m AjoB �8 n D N Teo O F qi (a rrt T m An Thn oQoPF �z z E r c @000 G,Mr, O V $ g =n ��yyy-� mFD p AAm Z�O (t A O z O m m 1�1 8r ! ®z A z o o o.uai m z m� i o„ oWml o D SOD j b i11 0 8 n N M GN I _n O A BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATB: DRAWN JD BY: ARRR D: OG 1 10-9-2021 BMST J EAD oFTlce.cnol wzn,a v CONSTRUCTgNIne. " larolare-ea,a „Bmlel�e a••m,,, EUA�: �mmp—a�oamamoa.�om IATEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 m D n i vA mmD Ay D � m ' Anm�O O D mm li A 3 D � � mz4,m�GD r mz Am as � Pc T D p5 s, 9 D Fom II A g �R 3 e Z = II D"a U3 to A a 9aa i - A ° l m fig DETACHED GARAGE m Z p A o x ®®® omZ. DOLE e ° --------------- El � m� pY [Ell 0 I3 A r ®� ® I� 1m s Z < U a - n p z v -n ° po m m r ZT g »m x A OI ®®® p -� O b Z I, II II Vildhi 6 z s II m II IL II N II m r g NN n Pi Ac m m � yA� ° s B y fi t/�V a '° log �6 Z, Zul ; � 3 O m z m 0. e e m 1 00el Im ----------------------- siz PRELKHARY PLANS II ° O n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A m BERKHAUSEN DETACHED GARAGE ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE: DRAWN av: ARRRoveo: i D4]D2, JDPacket P 06 1 w.Mourvrary AVE. STRUC D W5 E.RORSEfoonl RD. E:(—)aM-1113 FORT couws,cow ea5zl noomorvu wsoRMAnory CONSTitUCTION Inc. e�Dc,suDEoz (m)—In swETrvs ADomory -B,.Idi,g Dreams• FORT CDUIrvs�c0L0 eo525 a@ama�eaamnam¢1ian.mm ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 IXISiING ADDITION -9 a a m(P g a s m N a Ea;<R � 3 s� _ �ir a O 3 A r € €�I• ��; a� D n€��e ��� Cl — 3r ,e m Em w ul — S m n y 83 O - I � c m m X w o g mNz mO mm= mz x0° Z '" NA �Ju �n �r 71a r Z 0 O EXISTING m ADDITION ADDITION zm �r b n N - b Z 8'49a" 14 RISERS 13 TREADS®10" EXISTING EXISTING z$ EASEMENT $ MAIN LEVEL � /n n Db A n m m OPANTRY DA y —4 Zmx � 00 AZUjOA D O A s �€ w m = �D Om A O 6r �z N BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL a ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DRAT: DRAWDN BY: APP ED: 07 1mswEsr mounraN AVE RhLTEAD 3]SEHORSETOOTN RD. E:(970)4-113 V FORT cowNs,co eo5zl CONSTRU<'TION Inc. SWO4 SUITE 102 (s7o)a7—IS sWETTS AOD i "B�Ilafng Dreamy' FORT COLLINS,OOW SW05 n®arma[eeacormtruciion.cwn ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 11 M 2 m -4 Z uj A j U3 m M r m z 0 Mm -n Z m rz A T ! ; j \ y " p - ---\� \ } (P mL/. r z 2m Em < 9 \\ \_rz ij (P m m -4 FE-01 m X (p )> C) z 4 L$ m O 03 0 z U3 m 0 ® on J 6_ ........ BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL �cc� C. DAIT DRAWN BY. APPROVED: Rt ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION IN 1-2021 JD T TE E HO SETOOTH RD,DD, (970)= EiE�l = , ®- _�._.D.LO ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 G". 1"o I E II � II I I I L II I I II � r II p$s { n D � II II b "oR �I II m O II II Rill E.s. a .N. IoleN ry Ig z e ❑ llI b I IA I I Nei;;,---- I R II il ♦�: A I I • �"G �� I I F" r ° II°�y • II Fi I ; R F II I� nn"nz II II — — UNR B o e I °iM III s I jj I a I II j I I to I° to I Ito $R 16 to sm 19 BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED: m-a-zozi JD On oNMAnoN �gp NORSErooTN Ro .7 t W.MOUNTAIN AVE. OFFICE:(9i0)4Y2-11t3 - V Eom cowrvs,colo mEzt noolnoNAL wF CONSTRUC710N Inc asurt oz Ax: ryzo�nzaa�a SWETT5 AODRION ^Bodwg Dl.MN.^ PT DOWNS,COW-5 EMAIL: inb@a�msteadwnsWcti°n.wm ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 II II E r II m II u II GOR gL 6 Z 6- z HE F 7 1 II I cn ml BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE' DRAWN BY APPROVED: 1�2021 JD Pa-ket lPg. ,Iio 10118—R. 07CE:—)4-113 R—O-In RNISTE oW R_, .��-!.IUNR�. ONSTRUCT RIJI. wo)m- 5- __o. 'B,ildi.g D,=` FORT OLLINS,COW 8— E-L ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 VV DRAW MAIN LEVEL ADDITION j F- 4 ggr(P rn m UJI ---------- mp hiddhilliddh o -4 Wz R= 6 F- r m (P El m Nl- MA ci < M m 1> Z! J (30 Z Z BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL fRASTER ASR—M STEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. 1I�2 02 DRAWN BY APPROVED: In�_Hons—R.. OMCE (9M)—l", i CONSTRUCTION RLDO,LLINS102 — 01a112— BllR D.R., FORT CO COUC 8— EMAIL ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 r eQ —� -- m ______ ____ . . r ° / 4 "V 1 r ... .... ° z @DEmm00 smm— 1- m N b N O ptt�Ar�D z�z= � �z AT C1 E p mODm�Ds. Rc: g2s � s § mZ(P z1>m(P �mSP )> A r -------- ------------------ N m o- --------L Tr —— / r —d ., ---- = A b z V BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DAIT DRAWN BV: APPROVED: 10�-2ADDinoMAEwroRMAnory TEAD rD 308 W.MOUNTAM AVE, E. E.(—)art-1119 12 J FORT COWNS,C0008052t C TRUCTm Inc. ODr wrvs.D c WOa SUi HORSETOOTH RD. (Mo)Cr2-B913 swErrs AnomoN ^Baiainv D.>sns•• F c000 eoszs ca„m,te,aaoaevaaeoa.rom 1 � V Ap !•*t . .10 ry "#'� 1. =t` ' il.� �>-- •r L 1 - �� a +.Y N r7 '1 + ' %,ate � � �•« t 1 - `tom `��••�'�•�.. �. ,. - _ :,W... w Packet .g 7 EXISTING(REMODEU ADDITION s �r3. r aE b R F - m � � � A � Df� f� as •� �; € -,-� - gk8 m z° �a� . a ccc Ala A � s I" B e °°_; = a ms .g 4pa s E. ' m ��R r yoo 3 gmpzk W N z / roRnR \ weal. e Z II A 3: >5'$ off, so Off ' o oo ....... z c a" Zk d wwo •a I ' viA a . EXISTING(REMODEL) DINING rROOM�ADDI:"ION ADDITION<REMODEL ADDITION I �z o �N m z a o < 3 F am ;m i rm 2 —n O g ro ,=O r = ----------x------------- ---------------------------- OXJ %s,IN ---------------- °nSX10O O � r �A10 JJ,, +DIAp3p p3 II �TTlImmam � OCA '034100(1I Ax Dx RE F. n<O A�ni I D3 i�°'"°i<A y r� 3 3 9 I 6/13 - 6�I2 III __________ Z3A*m n Am j Cry'D3 °3 -- oQ?g A nBo' Ez :D •D b A m O W mP m Awao'm° j c n Bz rog"o ��poom 000 D� �('ZA O ��(( �i6m �6�d CB�y O mCA O�EDIi Dpg x'Z z2 ° N T Dzc A AAZ O�LA 3S�5 D E m Z m no°o A m 1 m A mwoa nA Do`vwaii�F, r m N A-Z n °Do oQ aE A� CIR� tt.nn' �B Om� ,'J Z Z O m m m a Z O O Q A ow ioouo °' n m Z o =n ° 0 0 F N m N o mm O A BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC- . DATE: DRAJD APP D: ^5 � 11-2-2020 W D g I J ,woe w.NouNrAIN AVE. RMSTEAI) TSE.HORSETo RD. o)121112 1-R-2021 PERMITPLAN V 1 FORT cool eosz, �.: ONSTRUCTION Ine. R= SUI E E:WO) wz eala SWETTSAoOInorvLO .-1306Mg Dreams' FORT DOLLINS.COLOe0525 EMAL@ermataeUconaVuction.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMffN—F 7 EXISTINCS ADDITION (,P Im 03 U3 m(P 96 m 1> se C) :1 �2 LZ C) m Pg f7l 41 m 3 ul... Lo -46 v O p oaf N ....... 13 1> -n m ------- 717 1 6 H 66 % I Rs 12 e P 6 .Tl 6 Z --T lZ-1-1 pp T=I Z.T it M, 6A EXISTING 3. T BASEMEN p o-o 21 P U3 lmz m MCI] ItIr z 4 z z M z m F m m o JA T1Tzo q 0 v M (P I Im Ni M m m (P r 6 Z Z m L 11 15 TREADS a 10" —4 6- z 6- 6 Z NEW BASEMENT MAIN LEVEL r BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE DRAWN BY PROVED: 11-2-W20 JD EAI) 1-021 PERMIT Ice' 'q- T E'ORS—H.. o,,,.E: ­­ - Pann L F 6 l.RT--N.,.-- EMAIL: w..---i— �02 CONSTRUCTION Inc. sR',ET,,T" ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 =Ei 1% mx U3 ZU3 A - 8 -4 mmz , < m mm -n z A f-Z A tp J -4 -4 m z A f,l M o 6 -0 z 12, m 0 m r r7 6- z ip— uJ m X Q U3 I> m r 0 FR L.u— DAM DRAWN �PRQVED BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. 11--on JD 1-6-M1 PERMF PA I'acket, 1 17 IEAD 171 E 4--RD.. FRCE:(DM)4M1113 .. ... OWTRWTMInc BLD� (970)472Wl3 F.RT OSLU M 102 LINS com— E— ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Eli I . 'I o II I, ¢"� - _- �� °n I I •- Irv. -. li �c R gn N g� s O o - I Q t q.,� �p EA O ' m IQ q II a e < C [ I � R I . a . r . I O Rye ° Z IN Ip - rv�tA,Er�. nnix.Ev.0 m °>i�' il g 3m IT II mpa� � e °o s�o � I I � I 3= II Pn it BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE: DRAWN BY' APPROVED: 11.2-2020 JD ADDmOrvAL IrvFORMAnOrvTE� PO 1-6-2621 PERMIT PLAN CONSTRUCTION the oRserao OFFICE:(970) -111a V CO 00521 FA%: (9)0)a]2-3 DRIONLO "MlMtllny aNmt' EMAIL in(o@ennstezdwnsducli°n.wm ITEM 4, ATTACHMEN-F 7 ------------ II f lij -------------- IIIF zoo ---------- m M -n IR II II m r m iq Fw II II I II II II BERKHAUSEN ADDITION REMODEL DRAWN BY. APPROVED ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. M—on JD 315 HORSETOOTH RD. OFFICE: 1-&2021 PERMIT PLAN19 CONSTi;U1ZTION Ina PAX: ILD' (970)472 M 3 P. 4 D—.. RT O.N.,DO..". EMAL I.--fton.—.— I I EM 4, ATTACHMEnT 7 e-E-1 MAIN LEVEL ADDITION r �gu Lu 3 ul J� 2 1 -4 (P m ul m uj 61 6 7' 7— No (P m MY -4 6 z flmu 2 BASEMENT i MAIN LEVEL ADDITION ..5.., 5 m (P mz OO �.$ �_ � � �8 0� 8 m HP 6- BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE DRAWN BY' APPWD. 11-2-2020 JD ;KTEAD I S E 4-- RD. — (E10)-1113 1�6-2L21 PERMIT 20 "'E" LA. IDITINALINIFIR F.A—LIJI cow­5 EMAIL CONSTRUCTIONInc. BI w� .5WI-1—.., ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 4 - --- ——. -- W' D, — r i 0 Or Xl a-__-----Q- r \ - (�---- 6"----� d 8'---4--4 17� ...... ... _ 0 uJ Idt i /• I p 4 p I I I 1 I m I 6 -- ---------- --A dt 1 0 — \ Ii --------------- O z BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL 3TEE oRMST1EAD CONSTRUCTION INC. DATE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED: m 11-2-2020 JD wL Pa ADDInONA�wFORMAnO" AD 1-&2021 PERMIT PLAN 308 W MOUNTAIN AVE OFFICE:(S]0)an-1113 V FORT COLLINS.COLD B0521 co► rRucTaN�nc. ULOGO 221 SURE_ (�T(I)an-3313 SWETTS PDOITON °M1M�My OFwm�• FORTCOWNS,COL0 E0525 o@armsieaticonsimction.com ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 =crap mo= � =o=I► mom. _� D11 O o�43�P OD' zy 36'-0" 36-0" 6-10' 4'd" 4:-0:' Om -77 b z ur r WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW O WINDOW WINDOW y. ca a �D <51 m O D I Op� 7y =z 1 3'. D'A ODm A OI 1za•' m-z/' 1z-4/ I m o y y yN o -za n �8o b m cF �s � .2 �I z ... , BEAM PER 51.1 a a 13'-0y" 1]'-103�y' k - - -'—.L - - - - Nr I a B D L-i O _ j� BE PER Sim1 m S I O _ L Jv EXISTING m b= u o= m om a a I ——. — — ED NOATION n CF-13 N o E 14'-3.. ]'-T' 6'-11" iS-10�" m a z vx I I ��as sy I o m - 0 cF-1z. - m="mop I� I r sp 10 Z - o cF-z9 mo, y_ 03 I so A� T O n x z HEADER HEADER HEADER ur CF�9 I o PER S1.1 PER S1.1 PER 51.1 — J r �,9'WALL m. r m $ L _ € 1v WALL o3 STAIRWELL p I4 osm — — — — --- 6 -- I "7y� u 69- o5or a Op0 N 3DF yy� yZ N�tn DDv Zy� -Zm -� tpn 4�1 OT pnyy jD? y O oz Oe0 ♦ ►$O 0 .Q - Z DSO m0 2 4 6'" O m 4g' _ gmn 4 SH m g 8 4 3 cg4mC 7 8"'s �g $-' u \\ p s s o °N m � Ly/ � „ gg His a��$ �3g�sa3g Po C .. O i? p N r Z _ D iS 411 p 41 A _o Z = OD 99599 m A 333 i= D m O €x - - °m _ n om D xm o z O O> Z d � £o o ST ZO mc'o m =m o4oNm g g CMSTEADLIE o STRUCTION FOUNDATION PLAN PROJECT LOCATION: (rY CTL ITHOMPSON 375 E.NORSETOOTN RD. ], _ BLDO 4 SUITE 192 eN . o ' (n FORT COLLINS OOLORADO 1W6WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - cn,Hwnasory rvcoRroRnTEo 04] scRNEIDFR LOT 2,BLOCK2,SWETiS Pale Pg 22 O 9] 21113FF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 3 co�.coaosza ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 \\/ � . . @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y __FLOOR . \ �} /) a \ yip: e !;■ �j T \� ._._._./i »SV,LV N - - - ._/.&mom._, l }, ceSTAIRS, « m@= m ! \ \— o ! G\ \ ® ;|/r a=w_em e - ) � o ; L _, _, / 2 } , ... ... .. / / §\) 9 ` 2 » � 2 0 � \ 2 f(0 | |q ) }im �0 m A/H m , ;!R MIlaH ;](r]!(( ! [; 51 \) ( q% _ ( f ) ` o \ > .. !�, { !|| | 1,,,.;-: )] ~)!! ;\ | ! 88/8'm .. °): ( )(;> lrl;!■ ,. - �a ;l � l;/ ) � - !/||) ) !! /.§ ,;;•/ ) ! `»#/ - \ �(; []! ij |;)9PROJ.• ` z CTLITNOMPSON OTH�,cL N wEmoRF�kNGECT LOCATION: R_ RA _ ` 71 P§ } Pj 23 ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 O pm � ON `g EXISTING EXISTING HF28 HF28 EXISTING HF28 HF28 HF28 HF28 HF28 HF28 HR xm T HF210 HF28 HF28 (2)2X10HFIY2 I TRUSS I MO X ENGINEERED TRUSSES Ny M O y G Ip I0 m `I X' MM % m E%ISTING ROOF GIRDER TRUSS G �� LVL210 GIRDER TRUSS I GIRDER TRUSS(25PAN) EXISTING PE. ING" —m— ---0 (4)2X4 COL. �--ai c O T� m yI ENGINEERED MONO_ m pN TRUSSES A T O o HF28 HF28 OF2 H8 HF28 HF28 ENGINEEREDMONO n ^o TRUSSES M n m D HF210 mO pm ps N mN0. m� o DQO OT m pO p0 y o s z 'o M> 3s p Nny Z. ^ m _ y G) p V w v r D z o.0 v o 00 a S �O 2 n a = $"N 9 0 oma m ggo 08 NApgN Aso amwe =a m € 7 0 ngNgD4D85o D y °s=o85 °FS8 o sm mna> D m IT s 3 s amp e a a a o a r a; oA—A� x� 3 s m eso° mg g H m Op m 9�-ROMM `f° 9om e CLIENT::ARMSTEAD PROJECT LOCATION: CTL ITHOMPSON E.g $ 3]SNORSETOOTRUCT ROOF FRAMING PLAN — BLOG 4 SUITE 102 CONSTRUCTION •,� (n FORT COLLINS COLORADO 1306WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE = - RaoRATEo SCHNEIDER LOT 2,BLOCK 2,SWETTS N P�I � Pg 24 N S]0-0]21„3FF FORT COLLINS, 3 co ne co aosza ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 8" 2'-0"MAX D i 8" 9'-0"MAX c r m m rzpI = I ; �N co ,14" Y ym r 9 D - sci D zm --- W co D ti W m o o m 00iOA- ~ O m z Sig zo z ai y°FB y A o o_ _ my4D m 5 8$�� Gzi�D -_--_ 1 r pxm0� zmn A�-Q il" 3: p'o m0 z> ^' i o s`yog o I r yypm 3 n o ci n� 88 00=� Q9 moy� m o m g s� o mF9Q azm mo m_o off' 8 oma >- znmym ��5y y m o -�a8o z� �m�� X ~ ~Oy m op mIm ;Om a zz zc : yv za i �rz (a vOD�> OO zm i m y @v3>�z DO O0 1>mn Cn �' Fo " �� mm� z spa �p> °'- mpn goy n omy� yn_ g`p a m xym n y a Fo z ~ m° o "z "z 8o i>= M. ® Fmxp o "om o� ps= GZj z p _ yZ' oz Qi "n s� poo y > m m - �I.n o my ma mn --- O �,�----- ---yt,r-i, o a » F o o m o x o n Z p oo m = y5 - 2 8" Y-0"MAX Z m m MAX m ---- O C Gj 7 N C II PER DfCL�RZPLANCa 31'x" Zi o mn O 'm as x:Hi y OZOm S m 1Cy pbpF(� i1 z ml D O� Q mz yz 0 AO? Qz mm8 mm pD3p� Oz ycu a� m o Om m ` A $ O o�D-m - m 55� P zx� aiii pi zi p> p AzA _Qc� _ mQ�. yzm Oe$mr n M> z ao � �x�zs ~o om $ 90 m ��pcA,�np > �" Om m o� o �o� s yQ om�9 yam yz:myo oz� 00 'm' OEM z m RS wF m m n m z P yz� ag mon���� >m " z= z y �i P ygZ =y>po� �� - myz za" _ym pz -W--- oz m m EQ. EQ. EQ. 3" i I I I I Z m S" 91-0"MAX O � 0 O 8" J Z W O D 1 m W m c m Zz c I v I S I I a 9 `L MINN. m m z p - () Z .'0 A z � I° � I I I < 1 _ _ --- ---- -I---- IH- W y� op z z o > ma oo> oZ y ym p'� C D nxgmy ?e g mmmo�om Am yA Dnmx p1 - � r r8m�u= Ss m zpr po s <mmxy- yz- m� _ m or ° p mmw m zmym� ?r mxr�p~p °m °m ZRZ A m z onm oz s po m y �p mm 3 yA ? x rp mom mo m p p > 0 M. m n pz o D x m m O pp zz z OzD m .5 IS m 3 e�3men'eS 3 'amp de$z$A 'oe - - o ;a - m - O 2 n' ..3= 3SBn�e e'S5''m'e3 �3 'ne-- Sim 2 m gs Z rg�Rd¢' .. _mm§See .. _ m3ec' m alma olr- > m n m o r0 v m 3z m 40 ' eq n m-=_8d-Rc - mg'g w'3 u_'-n_"mi d-P 3- ee�m i_ B' m () O 030 a0 O pz D - T` :. " �c ^'3n _s - -o3�u30S �m - 3� m mb2 �a - m nyyo cp cp D`: Q003_ m3m�?°cad o sm ?i =a$c uam= n _ $33m Q° z�m Tg mm �C _ a m5ea - n8 20 m a $m$5. Hml 3 ft w a m V7 o mo° yN � 3y - 3mmPsz-_ �m_ s�a1"1� a_q gg`Azd 84 '3Lmam';; mid- £. 'A `z o py yy �� f�fl m�cg3. a ,'; e.;�fe " n8 a_�.a`= 3 C/> D n Sm n> mi zma - '=aanan ?ban= 8� 3 - asa< Z z may F�' oam '- d�m`3m <va �¢ =`m3 ;a w`3 „_d3 O y4l Si n pDo aim m�A9 oOg�y3 ^am S°qg qi'-B=mEg _ �m� �, �m8 2��3172 nOo�' Sq3 8 M a Om 3 �v 0. � ��p'a m�� $3,.mm3m 03�"`S g5npo3 ma cg�m N.3m d'£ m 3cy ax ?a� m'p3o'3 - xa m.3. . z to ^r'O F >n $�m mS�n n6�m2`m e_ $3n --_- em3�n 0 v m5-mo Bg- Gn^3m 3m 'm -Qm n _ 'm3 my 3m a3 %u e m3m n m� m npB m m 3v I g- CLIENT:STRUC ION FOUNDATION PROJECT LOCATION:ARMSTEADO CTL ITHOMPSON €" 375E.HORSETCOTHRD. DETAILS AND NOTE N BLDG 4,SUITE IO] - »,=ab s FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 1306 WEST MOUNTAINAVENUE _ RroRATEo 3F scRNE contact IDFR LOT 2,BLOCK2,sWETiS .=t..,m� ly J �C O 9]0-4]]-1113FF P� Id FORT COLLINS,COLORADO nco m,coeosza {'yew` rUJ ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 O a° s•a'MAx U) A -FULL HEIGHT AO m r ° � x z ° °-0 b- ,o�mzapy �*o�m 0myz '0 °'y° Amog mm� z o O A W -o° °m '~c Z O � O°S Dz r D 0 Dr D= ° O °- - � mzZ MIN. On z m( y T �ma Ap GC7 x�i m� ng 08 c1v M°xx z° Fri 'a G °m � —i`A g� y A°p my ODvF�A qm y41 D z T oNpg i o'g oa np O Olz D zp -11 °Dpm - O m y zOn pgvp m i0 ip m -111I III' zyTy i~ A - 000m n mp - II 2 fm 4- O p : r 9 D � y z o I r III II II' � y� r -LI ILI IILI IL S^.1-I_I-1_I-1_I I_I 9-0"MAX 8" 4-011MAX I I n a.. 7-1 mll IHI C IHI�I 0 zm - -- IVI�ILI-1 � Z �yo=n " op o my '< xD o=r ma r z 10 'm m' y Fm F m ym yr i pD�� mm 6 O DDT P DO (� y vD�tj �m Og�a zaf ^— z OA A;°°�^ z0 Fgry — A T m on m - g mm � o�p Gn�oN� n$ r�z °3 z ° o" - per` m g m M p� � r mn �i _24'° ° �9> r "g °p °5 m no m -�F S� °= p r- -- 0Por z"'py yn z m y 3mo xi1 D - - z on�Dyn m0 z= `o m °m ~ ° - p p _ 24..__ a y z r y r �Po� c Z Z z D- O m x n d p I <n _ 1____1______L _____I_ � II II II II Z II II II II I I -n 0 f z Z < m oy- y�yz�O�am omxyi10 Z °' novo rmm-z0> ° nmU ; �� -0 yD z Ea.Op- �^ 0 zw>m px 90 O zpA mOm zDz yO MH Y v' - I-2 m - O eO'e-m-gm 2 �z e Z oB 3.n°.eq n me_S w'3=_"ma d._Pgn °ee v z- "'m0 m m 00 N3w a m zcm3: - a ,'; ''8F'e " _Ta8 = n °8g 3 fn ma dm.ma�nadnn 28mn_ '�;, m Paz ad'n as Aa< a Z o smmud 3 'm d" =4a 'R_=m3 as a O =amS> _s- 3e.2 R �ggn sq3 m g e o'mm38 6v� 01dw nm� c8_c nS.e'em mm A ve �au_nO3o �0 8^d 9d�m z2: wn8 Sac � $m mgaa cSn$�m2`me 3 83n8-n-obi_ xa m3 m 9S3 not u c m mn3 _ m'1 nc 83n am - m= min"ON oo.0 qNa m'a n - -P9e 'm3 m' v 3maa 3 %u e m3m n w3 Hm m npB m m 3�' " m m n I g- CLIENT:STRUC ION FOUNDATION PROJECT LOCATION:ARMSTEADO CTL ITHOMPSON €" 375E.HORSETCGTHRD. DETAILS AND NOTE N BLDG 4,SUITE 102 — P�»,=ab s FORTGOLLINS,COLORADO 1306 WEST MOUNTAINAVENUE _ RroRATEo contact JF scHNEIDFR FORT COLLINS, BLOCK 2,BWETTS .=t..,m� Idly 2C 9]0-4]2-1113FF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO nco ti,co eosza &l e P V ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 ol mo v A lkm ym O a Z m O r p x m yo z 0 o m°- N 2 -°per p n n s Fp v„ N O �$P Dp _ m p Tz ° - m i1� -0 1— Z o yy°� O p=zm� o o m y = A Z <o '� D z pp mA g� gm m1z. noz � m = zoI A y< _> p A ms 3 m °z m °m om. aPmy _ 1. 0.-* D 3P�Fpx i p yn a Vt N 0 O Z O D CAI ch C m _=pq° n0 _ �i] =oy O CE 'gap ezc p �' v mA Pp„ 2'° N m o 5'y m Z p z m 2 z a x i° a74 mO G�7 ° i ° �Oz m z[i Dw CA 02 °P° m os® s0.Z, D � p A _ 0 W o Ay m p�O o O 9zO �� i?i� -n zo"a8 D ` =U) °py O m m no no (/) rm °>900 3p�Ax ym=yam° 8z(]] .`xmo N ��trail 28'oM zo 0z1 aA y�°O Ux N zo D 9D o<o rAo ymw X D�O a' 3y� D 6 -0 Amy O D � � 0� A 00 -On I% a �a w I Idle I= co a �. dg s- °a 33=�'•'•a$ S�3e "e."-_``-sa C 3z a 'S 3 3a,Q a' m'c mv_ n a$'�'m E.a'3 'm^a -L7n33 S�'v Sm�A C7 II m ° � q Igo. m a �aaa_ =� 1 84- 3"_sp za d n3A_ s8 �, �d iic m A ��_ wih3 n.P3v 3a Sc _ Y°8 °mm4 :� m88� 3AA3u O -.33 cram^�� n3N °^Pa`-rail 3q.O Xa 9 nH3 _w S$mag N o?n3 g� 3 �' 8 _ _ = $ A min ae- o a d3 n_S RK Arcu3a ON n myc.n n FA -- n- - m' W'm I g CLIENT:STRUC ION FRAMING DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION: CTL ITHOMPSON €" 375 .HORSETOOTHRD. AND NOTES N am' FORT SUITE 10] - FORTWLLINS,WLORADO LOT2,BLOCK STAIN AVENUE -1. 3F SCHNEIDER LOT2,BLOCK2,SWETiS m RroRnTEo P� Pa, 27 N FORT COLLINS,COLORADO nco i.coeosza 9]0-4]]-1113FF ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 22'-0 n (2)2X11HF N2 (2)2Xi0 HF It2 O EiGINEI REDITRUSI ES ii n TI iz O u O b TI — �L_ x.-, _ GIRDER TRU88 —��� a b Z D R O D D �r. Zj HF28 O — ---� F22— -------- r ----- -------- Z ———————— ZbI I �a l ----- p -- -------- W I WI----- ———————— e a a l l ————— ------ ————— ———————— bl l HF28 HF28 --- ----- ----� OO —O 22'-0' $O < Z. 3 g= `D gyg gu w$Mgr.vsrv-s ► °mm 9 8 8 amAAas x" °s =m a9 $4 omoi2§;Apt m O gA- ^EY YYlY e wim m �� ° ° Amp ^°mm �° $ $mosm z D o 18� ��� m _� o - x r omy o +-Fs o , m `' S 3 � �> n9 c .. o o p` rrn zo g'goo mN oo m 0 'z cn D E 8 H 53 $ O o, A o m Fmcn o' z : � 4'q o e m Ge g g CLIENT:STRUOTION GARAGE PLAN PROJECT LOCATION: (rY CTL ITHOMPSON 3]5 E.H SUITE 1 OTH RD. ], DLDDa SuREa2 13W WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE771 N cn,Hwnasory rvcoRroRnTEo m (n FORT COLLINS COLORADO /A��F/oLas�� ^/t}�� SOHNEIDER LOT 2,BLOCK 2,8WETi8 Pal Pg LV O S]04]2,,,3FF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 3 co�.coaosza ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 7 01 D DS, WMIN 0> VARIES M,O 0 a IM 'OOy -n O v 0 Z zpDmq p D � S„ Z �m vo $� vo nn ° p° ion °� i p0. io Si . Sm o,< pa=x nv zO _ zc n! p� zo Fyn bm-z >m S �p 0 o--r x ° rg `na �-0 _o9m m M, p FULLHEIGHT r m 0 A O ra o n nm IT — . p oo - M, i>$A nip o� p -Z a 0 Oz z x M.; C Z O D 30 MIN ° O p� Z � _ � I O e�3�e'g9 3 _'�� m3'£>•S n3 ? -".m _ ° - C7 �Sa�B o.n 'Ao'ax Oeq S _ .wa o"g B Pn a"s3 Z g, Isle any° 3q ? mom mgv_ - m'gaid-mm� m 183` �ei{Qgz- u8�° 3R mn^°� 2A i Ill mssa _ m --o3daP� sw o's2�- = wnm as" 00 "a 2n m8m= a O mS fn mcn3i -' a= -= '13 3A u ZO Qm. m 3 F.a. g9-'"=.3= = 3 n� 2n N 3 m iS'= -m S S IT Q�;mmmg m8m =b3 3wS�w aoo q= 8 Tn 92 1°03' w?2. en'�='3'v nA cb3 vac-�°ems °'no3u - 3�u3 wan `Fg3 n' - xa m3.3 4£.>Qc wmm -n H: zm a_ °.2 -c5m - nm' - .cS=m I% a �a w I Idle I= CO a - 3wA a' m'c mv_ n 3B�' S�'3 'm"a =�aiQ n33 S�'v Sm�A 0 84 mQ C R. �.�s m m889 3AA3u O 'm nS� psO z zm -' and rv�c qb- _x3m_n IT z ;� maa8 °aw z '"n.ge mom; Tn _ S asu Sy 33� B'� £. = v^e 3_ -.333 10 5Ovq m£. cmm^�� n3N a^Pa`-rail o A m 3q'0 Xa v n�g- 3'ao?n3$� we o- a d nw _S - SNQe o 92- - 50 daa i�nu Q.. nm$u& man an 525 3 amp I g CLIENT:STRUC ION GARAGE DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION:ARMSTEADC CTL ITHOMPSON €" 375 .HORSETOOTHRD. AND NOTES N am' SLDG 4,SUITE 102 WL - p9 FORT WLLINS, ORADO 1308WESTMOUNTAINAVENUE RroRnTEo ti contact 3F SCHNEIDER LOT 2,BLOCK 2,SWETTS "' Pd Ivry 29 O 9]0-4]2-1113 FF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO nco ti,co eosza r rU./ ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 City Fot Collins Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant(i.e. not self-imposed); (2)the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3)the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner's Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address 1306 West Mountain Ave Petitioner's Name, Jeffrey J. Schneider if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner's Relationship Contractor to the Owner is Zip Code 180521 Petitioner's Address PO Box 330 LaPorte, CO 80535 Owner's Name Brian & Barbara Berkhausen 199 Petitioner's Phone# 970-472-1113 Code Section(s) 4.7 (D)(6) Petitioner's Email Jeff@armsteadconstruction.com Zoning District INCL Additional Representative's Name Justification(s) 2. Equal to or better than Representative's Address Justification(s) 3. Nominal and inconsequential Representative's Phone# Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Email Reasoning Please see attached letter If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted Date 12-29-2020 Signature Jeffrey J. Schneider Pacl­* ftt g.0?.*0 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 ;?MSTTEAE) CONSTRUCTION Inc. "Building Dreams" 12-30-2020 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins. CO 80524 RE: Variance Request for 1306 West Mountain Ave. To Whom it May Concern, On behalf of my clients Brian and Barbra Berkhausen, I am requesting a variance to the Land Use Code to section 4.7(D)(6) regarding the allowable detached structure to be no more than 600 square feet. My clients would like to construct a new detached two car garage approximately 656 square feet in size, to be in the rear half of the property off the existing alley. My client would like to deconstruct the existing shed of 250 square feet and existing garage of 534 square feet and construct a new 656 square foot detached garage. We believe that the claim for Equal to or better than is justified by removing the existing structures that are not on structural foundations and building a new detached garage that complies with the current building codes and standards is equal to or better than the existing structures. We believe that the claim for Nominal and Inconsequential exists because, there has been detached structures on the property for decades. Adding a new detached garage in the same location as the previous structures would not change the character of the existing neighborhood. We respectfully ask that the board grant us the variance to section 4.7(D)(6) as we are requesting to allow a new detached garage to be 656 square feet instead of the allowable 600 square feet. Thank you for the consideration and we appreciate your time on this variance request. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Schneider President, Armstead Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970) 472-1113 • Fax (970)472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com Packet Pg. 231 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 uj n c o� m�oa n a o zg`v" ^ ' 0 zo Gamzy n r F5� D �o�A r A4 n cm s p O m a O wp_- mz AO r'wp Z Z $6 02 � A m0 zw a ��wma a "dA Sao �aRo-5R II. e � a DZAp n3 n � 8- �1 ACDA w S O n a F Y A g �, o S'`C DA mma €j���mAmp D�mm mtill an A A OZO wa� nA A m fl m Zz m _ yXc F!" n I I A pi WWA��az m m vmZ I 0 FG�� ICI �D z N c A —n z m 11 O �E 6€ g Z m _ m Z z w m '$ v _ m r - ® 15 15 m b w n _ m + 1 1 m A < I ]> z II El I l _ II o z° 9 m L 1� IpRp '� � .osPo�c� rovo-0s.c,L 101-01. ENGINEERED TRIJ6 6®24 �i w IH a m av a a i- 8 D I n >: Dm b w � sO 4R o e 1g mH m F u 1 D n mu i z ° 1> 8> SR 9 § N m V w - hm '�� I �S s R $ D. _ ENGINEERED TRU66E6•24"o s m e Z s I� 9$ Rn IR PREL NARY OOONO, NOT FOR O W ° BERKHAUSEN DETACHED GARAGE ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. 11-4-2020 JD DATE: DRAwMDv: APPRoveD: OiiiONAL INFORMATON 3L 1 W.MOUNTAIN AVE. Ill E HORSETOOTH RO. OFFICE:(0'!0)4i2ttt3 FORT COW NS,COLO 00521 C TRVLTION IF14 BLOG 4 SURE 102 FA%: (S70)—313 SWETTS ACDRION "lYIIlnp Dreim�• WRTCOWNS,COL050525 EMAIL: inb@armsNaticonstruu4ion— n4 m o j= ^ o I � oo col I m I a l a J.> L ° I v 0 Imo. 180.00'(R) �Fx mx 'I II I N SOO'24'45"w d X I a ° ° ———„ 36 0' -w3z.Xsoaz.ao k5oaz.sa I I I -H ;Z ohm o\W -� wa2.ezx mr X� i z a D ° I -�.I ro -fio d.w �' "0 3 a o s o ��sDs2.ae xaoa2.<, s0a2.s0x o o aoa2, a� f 13 6' �2. g I m _ az.w 5 N xx 234.9' X oa2 ae V µo I i O o ° 0322 26.3' �< I q PI 231.9' 60 308' ass' of N f�a III x I° 4!° °° µ s a 8 C °a X-2a. XSO 30 nz63 w .so 295x 2' I p O r' N X X x 3 X X Fence X J I I A F"OceS00-25'28"W 179.74'(M) x � p C jI I 180.00'(R) nv m 1, -I p O b III '`.I 3N3 gm 3N II Zo m �_ ° i'll >f jw a• oo " s. �mmi ^Om n ml imA n LJ �DJz z nlvv n vl to a m� - o\i IQa I, AO I°- w�p 0 0 s y F" I 200.00(R) co �o l C s00•26'02•w nsso'(c) Ic$ I zoa.00•(c) �______________________________________________ 18.1' —500'26'02'W 1 _ McKINLEY AVENUE No0.26'02"E 397.90 'M) �., n m/ (61.3' R.O.W.) aeei OZ D\ O O r m - �3�- 3 "fin =a m p" Al v3° 3'°'' 3n �3° - - - - �3 Qo M z T1 < J� m n" a o o m TI V CET a o`m o 3 - N m i y y _ mm'E 3A _ - O _ n3o .Z1 -3 - �11NIRIIII »3 u= T E m - -- - 3 0 0 - _ _ a _ _ n n - CA zn�n/l�IpIIINlp11'� 3 n°3 f 3 - w 3 �3 w - _ f3. 30 _ 3 - °3v _ 3m 3'3 n - 2. (TITLE: IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT v m z TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP NM ILOT 2, BLOCK 2 SWETT'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS O Z. K OD I K N K "ENT` ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INTERMILL LAND SURVEYING, INC. CID CD P.O. Box 330 La Porte, Colorado 80535 1301 NORTH CLEVELAND AVENUE,LOVELAND,COLORADO 80537 P:(970)-669-0516 F:970)-635-9775 \\HAL\PRE\P-8998-ARMSMAD\DEG\SP-MPo-D8-2o-2a 7 N 00'X'45"E M... # � i wv.w rvi .a v e j 3 til b �npo Ia E nC �i r b of ou.a - n m m m i m o w —�-- - s O Amm 1d —oi000 m p �v � W N ox � m 3 Z oU i= ow rm 3� m� aA r � z � N i n I> m O z O < m m0 cry b tJ BERKHAUSEN ADDITION&REMODEL ARMSTEAD CONSTRUCTION INC. oATE: DRAWN BY: APPR o: A oniorvu wrow.unory RMSTEAD D 3]5 E.XORSETO�TH X0. E:R]01 a]9-1„9 Z m CONSTRUCTION Inc s�osa surtE >al az-es,9 m FOXT couirvs.coo eosz, ^ewlelsg o.:.m:- coar cowrvs,cow eoszs @ann�esa�o�rv�,�no�.�om 4' rfn ♦ �� V r„ �i. `ice, Ilk r Packet P, ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 City of Historic Preservation Services Fort Collins Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 Preservation(cDfcctov.corn fcgov.com/historicpreservation February 5, 2021 Mr. Ralph Shields, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Request for Variance for 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, a City Landmark Dear Mr.Shields: This letter is regarding the property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue variance request due for discussion at the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting on Thursday, February 11, 2021.The property in question is a City Landmark, designated by City Council on December 2, 2014, and is subject to the requirements of Municipal Code 14,Article IV. The designation includes the full property established by the parcel line, and specifically identifies both the primary residence and the one-car, c.1942 garage as historic resources.The Landmark Preservation Commission is the final decision maker on demolitions, new construction or significant alterations on designated properties. The variance request is part of a larger rehabilitation project proposed by the applicant, which will require both issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and an approved Plan of Protection in order for demolition and building permits to be issued.The LPC typically reviews projects comprehensively, and will be considering the full scope of the project, including the treatment of the existing accessory structures and the design and placement of the proposed accessory building (the subject of this variance request), alongside other proposed additions and alterations to the dwelling. At this time, please note the following: • This project has not received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmark Preservation Commission. • Historic Preservation staff was not contacted about, or aware of,this project until the applicant submitted demolition permits for the two accessory structures on January 12, 2021. • As noted above, one of those structures affected by the variance,the one-car, 1942 garage is a protected historic structure under Municipal Code and cannot be demolished without Landmark Preservation Commission approval. • the design review process, which includes both a conceptual and final review by the LPC for the full, comprehensive project, has not been completed. • The conceptual review for this project is currently scheduled for the LPC's March 2021 agenda and will discuss both the alterations to the primary dwelling, but also the proposed treatment and infill construction regarding accessory structures. • Based on preliminary review of the demolition permits, building permit, and Zoning Board of Appeals packet,the project does not meet the Standards in Chapter 14 and is unlikely to be approved by the LPC as submitted, due to several items that are critically inconsistent with the Standards, including: Packet Pg. 236 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 o Demolition of the historic, one-car, 1942 garage o The size of the proposed accessory building relative to the site and to the historic structures o Substantial demolition and new construction on elevations of the primary historic residence that are highly visible from public rights-of-way that are out of scale with the historic building. Preservation staff has begun discussing alternatives with the applicant in advance of the March 17, 2021 LPC conceptual review, however, staff anticipates significant changes to this project, including the treatment of the existing accessory structures, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and subsequent issuance of building permits by the City. If you have questions, please contact us at 970-416-4250 or preservation@fcgov.com. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Historic Preservation Planner Packet Pg. 237 4 •� �Q 1� � s zi!Z. h •�M, -y4^� Packet 238 4 .b _ y Packet .g 239 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 1306 W. Mountain Pictures of double-hung windows in deteriorated condition 3/2/21 Packet Pg. 240 ., �.. +��ff�V�t y'�� it � \�� �,�ir,6��.� � R Yt':�•,y�i/i�A .,,y.. �,�" ,k�;�eft -�• r t J:. f: ,i,, L1 1 i� ITEM I AIM Packet Pg. 242 1 F 1 II I *hrwe0..�i�\1 r - z - ���, ��,.•; .:,rib:' Packet .g I � I N w ' r .� , / ITEM I IN 1 �r i i i� i •- � ��� _ tat+ �.:.•.�Le. .gyp y 4 Z v _ Packet .g Z .c rl Packet • • ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 NEW z_ Id r .. Packet Pg. 247 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 l t � 3 Packet Pg. 248 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 I i I e M Packet Pg. 249 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 s g. 250 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 _ -wr Packet Pg. 251 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 National Park Service .--_-� Technical Preservation Services U.S.Department of the Interior Home >The Standards > Rehabiliation Standards and Guidelines Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, codified as 36 CFR 67, are regulatory for the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program. The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and the Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, which assist in applying the Standards, are advisory. Applying the Standards for Rehabilitation Guidelines for Rehabilitating_ Historic Buildings Guidelines on Sustainability Guidelines on Flood Adaptation for Rehabilitating Historic BuildingsO Other Standards and Guidelines: Four Treatment Standards: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration,and Reconstruction Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties[i History of the Standards Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation The following Standards for Rehabilitation are the criteria used to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a certified rehabilitation. The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. Packet Pg. 252 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 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. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings The Guidelines assist in applying the Standards to rehabilitation projects in general; consequently, they are not meant to give case- specific advice or address exceptions or rare instances. For example, they cannot tell a building owner which features of an historic building are important in defining the historic character and must be preserved or which features could be altered, if necessary, for the new use. Careful case-by-case decision-making is best accomplished by seeking assistance from qualified historic preservation professionals in the planning stage of the project. Such professionals include architects, architectural historians, historians, archeologists, and others who are skilled in the preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of the historic properties. These Guidelines are also available in PDF formatb. The Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic BuildingsC stress the inherent sustainability of historic buildings and offer specific guidance on "recommended" rehabilitation treatments and "not recommended"treatments, which could negatively impact a building's historic character. These Guidelines are also available as an interactive web feature. nps.gov EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA'" Packet Pg. 253 1 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner City of Historic Preservation Commission—February 16, 2022 �Fort Collins •N 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Landmark Design Review— Final Design Review WINWO • T' T_ G if- 2 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 City of Fort, Role of • Consider proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation • Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. 6M N PropertyNis Background • City Landmark f • Jackson-Bailey Property • Designated December 2, 2014 • Standards 3/C • No period of significance a; defined 1922 • 1942 Y • House constructed in c.1922 `•� • Garage in 1942 ` r - 4 Packet Pg. 255 2 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 mown City of Current Review Timeline • January 12,2021: Demolition permits received for March,2021:Scheduled HPC Conceptual Review both accessory structures(holds placed,contractor (rescheduled at owner's request due to late hour) contacted) • May 11,2021: Follow-up w applicant • January 19,2021: Building permit requested for main house addition/rehab June 28,2021: Follow-up w/applicant • February 4,2021:Video conference with owner and October 27,2021: Process follow-up w/revised contractor to discuss required Landmark design plans review process and key conflicts. •• February 25,2021: Follow-up video conference to November 19,2021: HPC Conceptual Review Rd 1 discuss review process • January 22,2022: HPC Conceptual Review Rd 2 5 Proposed Project_ 1 . Construction of an 887 square foot addition onto the existing 1 ,097 square foot home 2. Replacement of basement windows for egress, modification of west bathroom window 3. Demolition of the non-historic 1968 garage and construction of a new 630 square foot garage at the NE corner of the lot. 6 Packet Pg. 256 3 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 City of Fort Collins 4 Proposed Alterations — Site ALLEY A I .,O Ai I I I II L lMt BI Y� 1 I YG ww r� I L �XI.I �� sL'....•L.7 EYE U�TREFERENCE ROOF PLAN FOR ONLY: • SEE ENGINEERED DRAWINGS FOR ---- ------- TRUSS SPECS AND COMPLETE m;N-TAINAVENUE� LAYOUT WITH CONNECTIONS p.o'RDW) Proposed Alterations — South facade ., Addition extending elevation to east by 7.75 ft ;B FRONT ELEVATION SOUTH .C.Lb �.•.te 8 Packet Pg. 257 4 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 NNW City of Proposed Alterations — East Elevation Fort Collins i RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION EAST e 9 RIMEWProposed Alterations — West - • Cq BMW IF] El -------_._._ ..ow.� d LEFT SIDE ELEVATION WES- 10 Packet Pg. 258 5 1 City of Fort Coltins roposed Alterations — North/Rear Elevation REAR ELEVATION ` I`' NORTH Proposed Alterations — Renderings Ao , . F e !T " �: � - 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 City of F,6rt Collins O GARAGE FLOOR PL ILDING .'� �----- WEST ELEVATION :TION A _..�.. SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 13 OverallStaff Analysis - • Project does not meet all applicable Rehab Standards • Standards respond to proposed work in relation to building's"character-defining features." • Key Standards for this project are: • 2—Preserve historic character • 5—Preserve character-defining features • 9—Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible,distinguishable,and subordinate • 10—Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible • ITS Bulletin 37—Rear Additions to Historic Houses • New use should require"minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment." • "Additions that feature a higher roofline,that extend beyond the side of the building, or that have a significantly greater footprint than the original building are usually not compatible." 14 Packet Pg. 260 7 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 ME r . Staff Analysis — • , • • 2 — Preserve historic character — not met • Addition has 7.75 ft bump-out and is adding significant size to a residential building recognized as a Landmark for its compact design (small, Craftsman cottage) • Approval for similar scenarios on Landmark properties generally requires inset of the addition from the side wall and/or use of a hyphen to offset the massing. • Standard 5 — Preserve specific character-defining features and materials — met: • Addition begins at rear/north brick wall and is not removing specific historic materials. 15 me f� Analysis Staff • Standards • . 1 • 9 —Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate — not met • Addition is large relative to historic building, disrupts overall massing of the property; • Bumping out rear portion of east wall by 7.75 ft disrupts historic scale and massing • Use of lap siding and height of addition roof meet Standard • 10 —Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible — met: • Pushing addition back to rear/north brick wall resolves conflict with demolition of material in previous iterations. ilm Packet Pg. 261 8 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 mown City of Responses to HPC Questions • How much area/square footage is proposed for demolition? • Area: approximately 76.25ft2 (rear mud porch addition) • What is the relationship of City landmark design review to past State guidance on National Register eligibility? • The City must utilize the federal standards as basis for review • Adopted in Municipal Code 14 • Condition of CLG status • Appropriate interpretation/application of Standards is left to the City and significance/key features of the specific historic property City uses federal guidelines to help maintain consistency 17 Public Comments • • 43 comments from 39 individuals received on current design iteration (Jan. conceptual & Feb. Final) • 38 individuals against • Mostly in relation to size compared to historic building • 1 in support • Other comments received on prior design iterations • 18 public comments from 17 individuals in Round 1 conceptual review(November 2021) rui in Upposltlon • Mostly based on size and scale of addition • Earliest version precipitated 19 public comments from 17 individuals • All in opposition • Mostly based on the size and scale of the addition. smi 18 Packet Pg. 262 9 2/15/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 mown City of Staff Recommendation Fort Collins • Staff recommends the following 2 actions: 1 . Approval of the following items: a) nern /_- iviUuuicauUn Ui Uaser He[IL eyress windows and west bathroom window b) Item 3—demolition of non-historic garage and construction of a new 2-car garage 2. Denial of the following items: 1. Item 1 —Construction of the 887 square foot addition as currently proposed ilm 19 Role of • Consider proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation • Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. 20 Packet Pg. 263 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Jim Bertolini From: Jim Bertolini Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 3:24 PM To: Laura Bailey Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for Historic Landmark List Attachments: 2022_2_9 LMs for Bailey.xlsx Laura, Would you be able to call me at your convenience to discuss the question below? I won't be able to provide the list of residents who designated each property, at least not in a timely manner.That information exists but has not been compiled in any systematic way—it is recorded via the Ownership Agreement that each property owner signs before a voluntary Landmark nomination moves ahead.We could compile that information but it would take some time. If your question is related to how often a property is voluntarily designated,that would be all current City Landmarks with the exception of 2 of our multi-owner Landmark Districts (Whitcomb Street and Sheely Drive)which both had dissenting owners, and 2 individual properties: - the Post Office at 201 S. College in 1985, nominated following action by a member of City Council, and designated. - The Coy Farmstead at 1075 Woodward Way, nominated by residents, eventually consented to by the owners and designated in 2016 after the silos were removed from the designation. - 528 W. Mountain was the 3rd involuntary nomination for an individual property, but City Council declined to designate the property on December 21, 2021. I've attached a spreadsheet with all of our current Landmarks, including dates of designation.This includes 220 individual Landmarks (one of those is pending, due for 2nd reading on 2/15) and an additional 95 properties in Landmark Districts (of those, 16 are not historic or need more research to confirm their status). It does not include 684 properties in our database that have a federal or state historic designation that are not Landmarked under the City ordinance. Most of those are non-Landmarked properties that are part of the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980.We have an advisory review process for non-Landmark properties in that district, but that does not prevent modifications or tear downs in most cases. If you have further questions, please let me know. JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office ibertoliniCaUcpov.com From: Laura Bailey<laurabailey2l@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 6:29 AM To:Jim Bertolini<jbertolini@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for Historic Landmark List Hi Jim - I would like to make a request to your office for the list of all historic Landmark properties in Fort Collins. I'm looking for a concise list of the properties as well as information on the following: i Packet Pg. 263-1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 - Information on date designated - Names of the residents who worked with the city to designate those properties, if available Apologies if you are not the right person to ask. If there is a different contact for this, could you please direct me to them?Thank you very much! Laura 2 Packet Pg. 263-2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address 11 ' oi Date 1 Date 1 1istrict? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTESKEYWORD 308 CHERRY Hipped Roof diminished but Black/African 308 CHERRY ST ST BUILDING Thomas Residence 9/21/2021 9/21/2021 2021-109 YES NO NO N/A UNK No Style Box Ethnic History-Black significance is American History REMINGTON REMINGTON McHugh-Andrews 202 ST ST BUILDING House 8/16/1983 8/16/1983 105 YES YES YES 12/27/1978 NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne 330 N HOWES Late 19th and 20th 330 N HOWES ST ST BUILDING St Railway Car Barn 9/15/1992 9/15/1992 95 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Century Revivals The Juan and Mary Hipped Roof 412 WOOD ST 412 WOOD ST BUILDING Barraza Property 10/7/2014 10/7/2014 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Box LAPORTE 1006 LAPORTE Marsh-Geist House& 1006 AVE AVE BUILDING Garage 8/25/2000 8/25/2000 85 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow Late 19th and Early 20th Century 407 WOOD ST 407 WOOD ST BUILDING Gamble House 4/l/2003 4/l/2003 47 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements S COLLEGE 1312 S Schlichter/Akin/Smith 1312 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Property 9/1/2015 9/1/2015 YES YES YES 11/22/2016 NO NO N/A N/A Italian Renaissance LINCOLN 131 LINCOLN 131 AVE AVE BUILDING Harmony Mill 11/15/1994 11/15/1994 1994-161 YES YES YES 11/22/1995 NO NO N/A N/A Commercial 1900 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 1900 AVE AVE SITE Grandview Cemetery 2/19/2008 2/19/2008 6 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Archaeology-Historic- Non-Aboriginal; Maneval/Mason/Sauer Commerce;Ethnic 100 1ST ST 100 1ST ST BUILDING Property 7/16/2019 7/16/2019 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Residence and Store False Front Heritage-European; REMINGTON REMINGTON English-Norman 1315 ST ST BUILDING Hunter House 2/1/1994 2/1/1994 6 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage 1006 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Judge Claude C.Coffin Queen Anne Person(Coffin); 1006 AVE AVE BUILDING House 4/20/2004 4/20/2004 58 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne Cottage Architecture 220 Late 19th and Early REMINGTON REMINGTON 20th Century 220 ST ST BUILDING The Bode Property 10/7/2014 10/7/2014 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements N MCKINLEY MCKINLEY House&Attached 140 AVE AVE BUILDING Garage 12/15/1998 12/15/1998 226 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Modern Movement REMINGTON REMINGTON 1609 ST ST BUILDING Bradley House 4/l/2008 4/l/2008 2008-39 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 1501 1501 PETERSON ST PETERSON ST BUILDING The Crane Property 10/15/2013 10/15/2013 137 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Prairie Style S COLLEGE 1502 S The Whistleman Spanish Colonial 1502 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Mansion 5/17/2011 5/17/2011 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Revival REMINGTON REMINGTON 1530 ST ST BUILDING Lee House 2/21/2006 2/21/2006 2006-20 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Ranch Type 610 CHERRY ST ST BUILDING House 6/4/2002 6/4/2002 79 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage 1611 1611 MATHEWS ST MATHEWS ST BUILDING AW Scott House 3/4/1997 3/4/1997 1997-41 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A S COLLEGE 1304 S William Welscher Mediterranean 1304 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Residence 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 1996-79 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Revival RIGDEN 2902 RIGDEN Henry Jessup-Cal 2902 PARKWAY PARKWAY BUILDING Johnson Farm Bldgs 11/7/2000 11/7/2000 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow S COLLEGE 1510 S Bradley Residence& English-Norman 1510 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Rock Walls 9/4/2007 9/4/2007 2007-92 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage House(also 719 E. 1602 Ukiah Ln 1602 Ukiah Ln BUILDING Prospect) 11/3/1998 11/3/1998 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Packet Pg. 263-3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD The Lewis And Mae Tiley/Joanne F. S COLLEGE 2500 S Gallagher Residence 2500 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING And Attached Garage 12/20/2011 12/20/2011 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A E HARMONY 2112 E 2112 RD HARMONY RD BUILDING Harmony School 4/1/1997 4/1/1997 56 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Art Deco Schoolhouse Garage,&Chicken 237 WEST ST 237 WEST ST BUILDING Coop 3/21/2000 3/21/2000 25 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A International Style 227 WOOD ST 227 WOOD ST BUILDING Harden House 9/7/1999 9/7/1999 135 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne 4605 ZEIGLER 4605 ZEIGLER RD RD BUILDING Preston Farm 11/3/1998 11/3/1998 YES YES YES 5/10/2001 NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne Barn Parker/Frank P.Stover 1320 W OAK ST 1320 W OAK ST BUILDING House 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 77 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Tudor Revival 1316 W OAK ST 1316 W OAK ST BUILDING Jasper Loomis House 7/5/1994 7/5/1994 99 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Mixed Style 1204 W OAK ST 1204 W OAK ST BUILDING David B.Lesher House 2/6/2007 2/6/2007 14 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Mixed Style N LOOMIS 210 N LOOMIS Classic 210 AVE AVE BUILDING James House 2/21/2006 2/21/2006 22 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage 1114 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN The Wesely/Willard Classic 1114 AVE AVE BUILDING Residence 3/1/2011 3/1/2011 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage House/Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center and the W Honstein/Johnson MULBERRY 1024 W Carriage House,Pool, 1024 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING and Pump House 4/20/2004 4/20/2004 59 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A W Charles H.Sheldon MULBERRY 616-618 W House/West Mulberry St 616-618 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING Bed and Breakfast 4/20/2004 4/20/2004 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Hotel N 124 N Late 19th and Early SHERWOOD SHERWOOD 20th Century 124 ST ST BUILDING Remington House 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements N GRANT 121 N GRANT The McMillen-Patterson 121 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 6/5/2018 6/5/2018 YES NO NO 1/22/2019 NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne N LOOMIS 131 N LOOMIS Hipped Roof 131 AVE AVE BUILDING Howard Carriage House 11/7/2000 11/7/2000 2000-140 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Box 730 W OLIVE ST ST BUILDING Winslow/Guard Home 1/4/2000 1/4/2000 196 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare 424 W OLIVE House and Detached 424 W OLIVE ST ST BUILDING Garage 12/6/2011 12/6/2011 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare Late 19th and Early Vandewark House& 20th Century 1109 W OAK ST 1109 W OAK ST BUILDING Garage 9/15/1998 9/15/1998 152 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements LAPORTE 1201 LAPORTE Blanchard/Bates House 1201 AVE AVE BUILDING and Garage 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 115 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian S COLLEGE 249-261 S Armstrong Hotel(also 249-261 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING 100-106 W.Olive St.) 12/16/1997 12/16/1997 YES YES YES 8/31/2000 NO NO N/A N/A Commercial SHERWOOD SHERWOOD Burnett-Killgore House 128 ST ST BUILDING &Outhouse 11/2/1999 11/2/1999 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian LAPORTE 136 LAPORTE Armies Grave Site and 136 AVE AVE SITE Headstone 8/1/1995 8/1/1995 93 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 817 W The W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Trimble/Taylor/Dixon 817 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 10/2/2018 10/2/2018 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian Architecture Packet Pg. 263-4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD LAPORTE 1202 LAPORTE The Holmes/Manges 1202 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 5/5/2015 5/5/2015 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian 1019 W incorrectly W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Queen Anne classified 1019 AVE AVE BUILDING The Newman Property 4/16/2019 4/16/2019 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne Cottage Architecture property as 1009 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 1009 AVE AVE BUILDING Wiggins/Taylor Property 2/18/2003 2/18/2003 18 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow 1007 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN J.W.Spencer House& 1007 AVE AVE BUILDING Garage 2/18/2003 2/18/2003 17 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne MULBERRY 717 W 717 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING The Wilhehn Property 1/3/2017 1/3/2017 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Modern Movement 1501 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 1501 AVE AVE BUILDING Ernest Waycott House 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 78 YES YES YES 12/2/1993 NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne N LOOMIS 145 N LOOMIS 145 AVE AVE BUILDING Howard House 10/17/1995 10/17/1995 123 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Italianate S 5529 S TIMBERLINE TIMBERLINE 5529 RD RD BUILDING Gill-Nelson Farm 10/3/2000 10/3/2000 130 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A LAPORTE 1500LAPORTE 1500 AVE AVE BUILDING Beach Residence 7/17/2001 7/17/2001 111 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare LAPORTE 816 LAPORTE Kirby/Wade House& Hipped Roof 816 AVE AVE BUILDING Historic Garage 2/21/2006 2/21/2006 21 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Edwardian Box 723 W OLIVE Parsons/Morgan House 723 W OLIVE ST ST BUILDING &Attached Garage 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 110 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Colonial Revival 717 W OLIVE William&Eva Stroud Hipped Roof 717 W OLIVE ST ST BUILDING House&Garage 2/18/2003 2/18/2003 23 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Box S LOOMIS 301 S LOOMIS D.Watrous House& 301 AVE AVE BUILDING Garage 2/18/1997 2/18/1997 28 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne N COLLEGE 111-115 N 111-115 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Windsor Hotel 11/15/1994 11/15/1994 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial 408 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Morgan-Kickland House 408 AVE AVE BUILDING and Garage 11/21/1995 11/21/1995 141 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian S SHERWOOD 220 S Snook/Hale House& 220 ST SHERWOOD ST BUILDING Two Garages 2/15/2005 2/15/2005 18 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow 430 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Kickland House& 430 AVE AVE BUILDING Garage 7/21/1998 7/21/1998126 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Craftsman 628 W Late 19th and Early W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 20th Century 628 AVE AVE BUILDING Sadler House 8/1/1995 8/1/1995 98 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements 510 S HOWES ST ST BUILDING Hiram Pierce House 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 73 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare Building/Welch Block N COLLEGE 107-109 N (also 100-102 W. 107-109 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Mountain) 6/20/1993 6/20/1993 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial W MAGNOLIA 226 W Montezuma Fuller 226 ST MAGNOLIA ST BUILDING House 1/1/1977 1/1/1977 124 YES YES YES 12/15/1978 NO NO N/A N/A Stick/Eastlake 832 W OAK ST 832 W OAK ST BUILDING W.E.Mahood House 3/4/1997 3/4/1997 38 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne S COLLEGE 133-137 S North Half of Colorado 133-137 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Building 12/5/2006 12/5/2006 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial William&Clara Blair 716 W OAK ST 716 W OAK ST BUILDING House&Garage 2/18/2003 2/18/2003 22 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A No Style Bungalow Packet Pg. 263-5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD 810 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN John&Edna Squires 810 AVE AVE BUILDING House 5/20/2003 5/20/2003 68 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian 816 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 816 AVE AVE BUILDING Isaac W.Bennett House 12/7/1993 12/7/1993 148 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Edwardian 808 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 808 AVE AVE BUILDING Clippinger House 2/18/1997 2/18/1997 24 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian 704 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 704 AVE AVE BUILDING Giddings House 8/19/2003 8/19/2003 100 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare Late 19th and Early W MAGNOLIA 924 W Elizabeth Collins House 20th Century 924 ST MAGNOLIA ST BUILDING &Associated Structures 3/4/1997 3/4/1997 1997-35 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements Montgomery House& Hipped Roof 505 SMITH ST 505 SMITH ST BUILDING Garage 2/18/2003 2/18/2003 21 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Box 930 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 930 AVE AVE BUILDING Atkinson Property 6/17/1980 6/17/1980 1980-76 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare 718 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN J.M.Morrison House& 718 AVE AVE BUILDING Carriage House 2/21/2006 2/21/2006 19 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian 714 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN The Ault/Thode 714 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 8/18/2015 8/18/2015 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare George J Wolfer House 1400 W OAK ST 1400 W OAK ST BUILDING &Garages 9/15/1998 9/15/1998 190 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow The Paramount Cottage Multiple 1544 W OAK ST 1544 W OAK ST BUILDING Camp 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 2009-89 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A No Style Dwelling SHERWOOD SHERWOOD The Avery Duplex Multiple 134-136 ST ST BUILDING Complex 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A No Style Dwelling 618 W The Crose-Scott-Dickey W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN House and Attached 618 AVE AVE BUILDING Garage 2/19/2013 2/19/2013 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow S MELDRUM 515 S Andrew House,Barn& 515 ST MELDRUM ST BUILDING Garage 11/16/1999 11/16/1999 1999-163 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 425 LOTH ST 425 LOTH ST BUILDING House 8/21/2001 8/21/2001 114 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Hispanic Adobe 608 S GRANT 608 S GRANT AVE AVE BUILDING The Kimball Property 1/3/2017 1/3/2017 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow N GRANT 239 N GRANT Classic 239 AVE AVE BUILDING J.E.Foreman House 9/4/2007 9/4/2007 93 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage Late 19th and Early E MULBERRY 519 E 20th Century 519 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING The Howell Property 1/3/2017 1/3/2017 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements Dukes/Dunlap House& Classic 501 STOVER ST 501 STOVER ST BUILDING Garage 1/18/2005 1/18/2005 3 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage 250 N MASON 250 N MASON ST ST BUILDING C&S Depot&Docks 8/1/1995 8/1/1995 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 1306 W The William&Violet W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Jackson/Robert Bailey 1306 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 12/2/2014 12/2/2014 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow 1300 W The W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN McCarty/Sheely/Dreher 1300 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 9/19/2017 9/19/2017 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow Packet Pg. 263-6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD Edwin&Ella Wolf 120 PEARL ST 120 PEARL ST BUILDING House&Garage 11/7/2000 11/7/2000 142 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow S WHrrCOMB 511 S Jefferson Lindenmeier 511 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING House&Garage 12/19/2006 12/19/2006 197 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow S COLLEGE 612 S COLLEGE 612 AVE AVE BUILDING Darrah House 4/l/2003 4/l/2003 46 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Colonial Revival MULBERRY 2340 W 2340 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING R.G.Maxwell House 12/1/1982 12/1/1982 144 YES YES YES 9/29/1980 NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne The Continental Oil 225 MAPLE ST 225 MAPLE ST BUILDING Company Property 7/5/2017 7/5/2017 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial 707 W Architecture; W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN The Evans/Reidhead Dutch Colonial Community Planning 707 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 10/2/2018 10/2/2018 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Revival and Development JACKSON 122 JACKSON 122 AVE AVE BUILDING Hill-Hunter House 2/17/1998 2/17/1998 16 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Tudor Revival S COLLEGE 140-142 S 140-142 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Alpert Building 9/7/2004 9/7/2004 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial 1108 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN George W.and Estella Classic 1108 AVE AVE BUILDING Bell House&Garage 6/3/2008 6/3/2008 38 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage 629 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN 629 AVE AVE BUILDING Shenk House 11/19/1991 11/19/1991 125 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian Chestnut/Wombacher Residence,Attached 331 S SHIELDS Three-Car Garage,and English-Norman 331 S SHIELDS ST ST BUILDING Historic Freestanding 12/20/2011 12/20/2011 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage S COLLEGE 613 S COLLEGE 613 AVE AVE BUILDING Frank Corbin House 8/1/1995 8/1/1995 94 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Mission Foursquare 314 E E MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Fort Collins National 314 AVE AVE BUILDING Guard Armory 4/18/2000 4/18/2000 31 YES YES YES 10/15/2002 NO NO N/A N/A Romanesque Revival The Leo and Hilda 720 W OAK ST 720 W OAK ST BUILDING Ritter Property 7/19/2016 7/19/2016 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A No Style S COLLEGE 112 S COLLEGE Grocery/Shanahan 112 AVE AVE BUILDING Block 9/15/1992 9/15/1992 94 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial S COLLEGE 201 S COLLEGE 201 AVE AVE BUILDING Old Post Office 10/25/1985 10/25/1985 117 YES YES YES 1/30/1978 NO NO N/A N/A Renaissance Revival HOFFMAN 1745 HOFFMAN 1745 MILL RD MILL RD SITE Nix Farm 6/5/2001 6/5/2001 94 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Charles A.Lory House 903 STOVER ST 903 STOVER ST BUILDING &Outbuildings 4/2/1996 4/2/1996 1996-39 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Colonial Revival 712 DARTMOUTH DARTMOUTH The Zimmerman 712 TRAIL TRAIL BUILDING Property 2/19/2013 2/19/2013 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A House and Attached 160 YALE AVE 160 YALE AVE BUILDING Garage 12/20/2011 12/20/2011 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Ranch Type S COLLEGE 900 S COLLEGE Scott Apartments& Late 19th and 20th Multiple 900 AVE AVE BUILDING Associated Garage 2/19/2002 2/19/2002 117 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Century Revivals Dwelling S MELDRUM 516 S 516 ST MELDRUM ST BUILDING Garnick House 2/3/2004 2/3/2004 2004-14 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late 19th and Early 20th Century 309 LOCUST ST 309 LOCUST ST BUILDING Poole House 7/l/2008 7/l/2008 70 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A American Movements Packet Pg. 263-7 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD Lory/Coffin/Klender Classic 621 LOCUST ST 621 LOCUST ST BUILDING Residence and Garage 7/17/2012 7/17/2012 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage S COLLEGE 605 S COLLEGE 605 AVE AVE BUILDING Beebe Clinic 11/15/2005 11/15/2005 122 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 1509 WESTVIEW WESTVIEW The Olyn and Ann Price 1509 AVE AVE BUILDING Property 2/19/2013 2/19/2013 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 2005 N N OVERLAND OVERLAND 2005 TRL TRL BUILDING Fort Collins Waterworks 1/1/1971 1/1/1971 YES YES NO 3/10/1999 NO NO N/A N/A Gothic Revival 525 SMITH ST 525 SMITH ST BUILDING George W.Coffin House 4/2/1996 4/2/1996 34 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian 530 SMITH ST 530 SMITH ST BUILDING John M.Riddle House 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 75 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian S WHITCOMB 529 S H.H.Hale House& 529 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING Garage 7/l/2008 7/l/2008 71 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Mission 616-618 Late 19th and 20th 616-618 LOCUST ST LOCUST ST BUILDING Hoel House 1/15/2008 1/15/2008 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Century Revivals 321 GARFIELD Emerson H.Kirkpatrick 321 GARFIELD ST ST BUILDING House 2/18/1997 2/18/1997 26 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian S COLLEGE 1022 S Durward/Hartshorn/Day 1022 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Residence and Garage 3/1/2011 3/1/2011 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Bungalow 608 W LAUREL Kamal/Livingston 608 W LAUREL ST ST BUILDING Property 6/4/2019 6/4/2019 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A No Style Architecture S MELDRUM 626 S Price Paired Home, 626 ST MELDRUMST BUILDING South Unit 11/16/1999 11/16/1999162 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A E SWALLOW 1035 E 1035 RD SWALLOW RD BUILDING Nelson Milkhouse 1/1/1973 1/1/1973 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Barn 2608 E DRAKE The Johnson Farm Hipped Roof 2608 E DRAKE RD RD BUILDING Property 6/18/2013 6/18/2013 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Box MULBERRY 2300 W 2300 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING The Ricketts Farm 12/2/2008 12/2/2008 137 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 116 PEARL ST 116 PEARL ST BUILDING The Landblom Property 6/3/2014 6/3/2014 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A N WHITCOMB 321 N Hipped Roof 321 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING The Garcia Property 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Box S 1908 S Property(also 2108- TIMBERLINE TIMBERLINE 2144 Blackbird Dr& 1908 RD RD BUILDING 1817-1957 Jessup Dr) 5/7/2013 5/7/2013 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian Barn REMINGTON REMINGTON 148 ST ST BUILDING Poudre Garage 2/18/1997 2/18/1997 25 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Art Deco MULBERRY 2306 W Hipped Roof 2306 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING Empire Grange Hall 9/16/2003 9/16/2003 125 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Box W PROSPECT 720 W Emma Brown/Susan 720 RD PROSPECT RD BUILDING Winter House 1/10/2007 1/10/2007 27 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 401 SMITH ST 401 SMITH ST BUILDING Loomis-Jones House 12/2/2008 12/2/2008 136 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Late Victorian SHERWOOD 103 N Baker/Harris House 103 ST SHERWOOD ST BUILDING (also 504 W Mountain) 5/4/1993 5/4/1993 33 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Colonial Revival N WHITCOMB 120 N English-Norman 120 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING Ruth A.Jones House 2/18/2003 2/18/2003 20 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Cottage 401 PINE ST 401 PINE ST BUILDING Giddings Machine Shop 1/21/2003 1/21/2003 8 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial 231 S HOWES ST ST BUILDING Humphrey/Davis House 11/3/1998 11/3/1998 191 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Italianate 223 S HOWES ST ST BUILDING Dealy/Goode House 10/1/1996 10/1/1996 121 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Craftsman College),Art Deco Fountain,Rock Garden, N COLLEGE 430-454 N Waterway,Pool,& 430-454 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Grotto 9/1/1987 9/1/1987 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Art Deco Packet Pg. 263-8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD 546 WILLOW Lindell Mill/Ranch-Way Late 19th and 20th 546 WILLOW ST ST BUILDING Feed Mill 11/15/1994 11/15/1994 162 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Century Revivals 127 N HOWES School(also 101&125 Spanish Colonial 127 N HOWES ST ST BUILDING N Howes) 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 1996-76 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Revival Schoolhouse 328 W Avery House and Avery W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Carriage House(108 N. 328 AVE AVE BUILDING Meldrum) 6/5/1990 6/5/1990 46 YES YES YES 6/24/1972 NO NO N/A N/A Queen Anne 300-308 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN St Joseph Catholic 300-308 AVE AVE BUILDING Church and Parish 2/19/2008 2/19/2008 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Gothic Revival LAPORTE 212 LAPORTE The Dairy Gold 212 AVE AVE BUILDING Creamery Laboratory 7/5/2017 7/5/2017 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Commercial MULBERRY 221-229 W Alfred Parker Duplexes I 221-229 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING and H 6/4/2019 6/4/2019 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Foursquare Architecture 520 S HOWES ST ST BUILDING Joseph Baines House 8/21/2001 8/21/2001 115 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A No Style W PROSPECT 2513 W Brown Farmhouse(also 2513 RD PROSPECT RD BUILDING 2300 Cedarwood Dr) 5/18/1993 5/18/1993 47 YES NO NO NO N/A N/A No Style Barn 2600 CEDARWOOD CEDARWOOD Cunningham Corner 2600 DR DR BUILDING Barn 12/7/1993 12/7/1993 YES NO NO NO N/A N/A Barn 1075 WOODWARD WOODWARD The Coy Farmstead 1075 WAY WAY BUILDING Barn and Milk House 7/19/2016 7/19/2016 YES YES NO 6/14/1995 NO NO N/A N/A Barn up House(as 600 N. 526 ELM ST 526 ELM ST BUILDING Sherwood) 7/5/2017 7/5/2017 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A MULBERRY 1500 W 1500 ST MULBERRY ST OBJECT City Park Cannon 6/17/1997 6/17/1997 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A 1801 W W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Bimey Safety Streetcar 1801 AVE AVE OBJECT #21 8/20/1985 8/20/1985 YES YES YES 1/5/1984 NO NO N/A N/A S COLLEGE 7225,7309 S Deines Barn and Twin State register 7225,7309 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Silos 1/16/2001 1/16/2001 2 YES YES NO 3/13/2002 NO NO N/A N/A No Style Barn March 2002? LAPORTE 516LAPORTE 516 AVE AVE BUILDING Frank J.Ulrich Property 1/7/2020 1/7/2020 2019-149 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A NONE 155 W Bldg/McCormick W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN Building;McCormick 155 AVE AVE BUILDING Apartments 2/4/2020 2/4/2020 2020-19 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A NONE N MCKINLEY MCKINLEY 129 AVE AVE BUILDING Lois Struble Property 8/4/2020 8/4/2020 2020-89 YES NO NO NO NO N/A N/A Minimal Traditional Duplex Architecture NONE 311 WHEDBEE LAUREL 311 WHEDBEE ST ST BUILDING J.C.Beers Barn 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 148 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL NO Barn 220 E LAUREL LAUREL Multiple 220 E LAUREL ST ST BUILDING Long Apartments 2/18/1997 2/18/1997 27 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL NO Modern Movement Dwelling 509 REMINGTON REMINGTON Willard&Gladys Eddy LAUREL Late 19th and 20th 509 ST ST BUILDING House&Shared Barn 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 149 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Century Revivals Foursquare Hottel/Hoffinan House LAUREL 426 E OAK ST 426 E OAK ST BUILDING &Ash Pit(2001) 1/2/2001 1/2/2001 187 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Italianate LAUREL 324 E OAK ST 324 E OAK ST BUILDING Mosman House 7/6/1976 7/6/1976 43 YES YES YES 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Stick/Eastlake 228 WHEDBEE LAUREL Hipped Roof 228 WHEDBEE ST ST BUILDING E.L.Brawner House 8/4/2020 8/4/2020 2020-92 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES No Style Box Architecture 419 MATHEWS The H.W.Schroeder LAUREL 419 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Property 10/18/2016 10/18/2016 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Edwardian E MULBERRY 314 E LAUREL 314 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING Replogle/Bennet House 2/1/1994 2/1/1994 5 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian Packet Pg. 263-9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD REMINGTON REMINGTON LAUREL 508 ST ST BUILDING 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES 215 WHEDBEE The E.J.Gregory LAUREL 215 WHEDBEE ST ST BUILDING Property 4/l/2008 4/l/2008 38 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Queen Anne 515 Fred W.Stover House, REMINGTON REMINGTON Garage,and Shared LAUREL Late 19th and 20th 515 ST ST BUILDING Barn 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 1997-151 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Century Revivals 218PETERSON LAUREL 218 PETERSON ST ST BUILDING B.H.McCarty House 3/4/1997 3/4/1997 40 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Queen Anne E MAGNOLIA 323 E LAUREL 323 ST MAGNOLIA ST BUILDING A.C.Kluver House II 10/2/2007 10/2/2007 105 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Craftsman Bungalow REMINGTON REMINGTON LAUREL 328 ST ST BUILDING First Baptist Church 5/7/2002 5/7/2002 64 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Gothic Revival REMINGTON REMINGTON William C.Stover LAUREL 503 ST ST BUILDING House 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 80 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Italianate E MULBERRY 309 E Ernest&Anna Meyer LAUREL Classic 309 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING House 6/6/2006 6/6/2006 83 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Cottage 423 WHEDBEE LAUREL 423 WHEDBEE ST ST BUILDING Losey-Walker House 6/18/1996 6/18/1996 82 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian LAUREL 315 E OLIVE ST 315 E OLIVE ST BUILDING A.M.Woods House 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 148 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Colonial Revival REMINGTON REMINGTON LAUREL 622 ST ST BUILDING C.M.Smith House 2/2/1982 2/2/1982 4 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Edwardian 623 MATHEWS LAUREL 623 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING S.A.Johnson House 11/5/2000 11/5/2000 111 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Mixed Style E MULBERRY 321 E Calvert House and LAUREL 321 ST MULBERRY ST BUILDING Garage 12/17/2002 12/17/2002 180 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian RIVERSIDE 115 RIVERSIDE 1st Public School/1st LAUREL 115 AVE AVE BUILDING Catholic Church 2/15/2005 2/15/2005 16 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian Schoolhouse 315 WHEDBEE The Mark and Effie LAUREL Classic 315 WHEDBEE ST ST BUILDING Miller Property 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Cottage Phi Delta Theta LAUREL Multiple 200 E PLUM ST 200 E PLUM ST BUILDING Fraternity House 7/16/1996 7/16/1996 94 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Tudor Revival Dwelling REMINGTON REMINGTON M.G.Nelson House& LAUREL Dutch Colonial 700 ST ST BUILDING Carriage House 4/2/1996 4/2/1996 40 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Revival 304 E MYRTLE J.F.Farrar House& LAUREL 304 E MYRTLE ST ST BUILDING Garage 4/2/1996 4/2/1996 37 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Queen Anne 308 E MYRTLE BF Elliot/Carl Anderson LAUREL 308 E MYRTLE ST ST BUILDING House&Barn 4/2/1996 4/2/1996 36 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Edwardian Barn 518 PETERSON B.F.Ayers House and LAUREL 518 PETERSON ST ST BUILDING Garage 8/1/1995 8/1/1995 1995-97 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Foursquare 902 MATHEWS LAUREL 902 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Myers House&Garage 7/l/2008 7/l/2008 68 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Bungalow REMINGTON REMINGTON Fort Collins High LAUREL 1400 ST ST BUILDING School 9/6/1994 9/6/1994 126 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Classisal Revival Schoolhouse E ELIZABETH 425 E LAUREL 425 ST ELIZABETH ST BUILDING Spencer House 8/1/1995 8/1/1995 95 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian E ELIZABETH 415 E LAUREL 415 ST ELIZABETH ST BUILDING Kimple House 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 171 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian LAUREL 319 E PLUM ST 319 E PLUM ST BUILDING Schalk-Stallings House 12/19/1995 12/19/1995 156 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Craftsman 910 MATHEWS W.A.Hall House& LAUREL 910 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Garage 7/l/2008 7/l/2008 2008-69 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Bungalow 710 MATHEWS The Oliver and Leota LAUREL 710 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Chandler Property 4/16/2013 4/16/2013 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Colonial Revival E ELIZABETH 300 E McGannon-Middleswart LAUREL 300 ST ELIZABETH ST BUILDING House&Garage 6/4/1996 6/4/1996 74 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian Packet Pg. 263-10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD Late 19th and Early 509 E MYRTLE LAUREL 20th Century 509 E MYRTLE ST ST BUILDING Reinholt/Mitchell House 8/15/2006 8/15/2006 114 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES American Movements 632 PETERSON LAUREL Dutch Colonial 632 PETERSON ST ST BUILDING G.R.McDaniel House I 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 150 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Revival 638 WHEDBEE E.M.Dodd/Frank Ghent LAUREL 638 WHEDBEE ST ST BUILDING House 4/2/1996 4/2/1996 35 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Craftsman Bungalow 630 PETERSON LAUREL 630 PETERSON ST ST BUILDING Addie R.Debolt House 11/17/1998 11/17/1998 200 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Queen Anne 321-323 E Duplex House,Garage, LAUREL Classic 321-323 E LAUREL ST LAUREL ST BUILDING and Shed 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Cottage Late 19th and Early 811 PETERSON Dum&Neil Graham LAUREL 20th Century 811 PETERSON ST ST BUILDING House 6/18/1996 6/18/1996 83 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES American Movements 322 EDWARDS LAUREL Classic 322 EDWARDS ST ST BUILDING Farrington Property 3/5/2019 3/5/2019 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Cottage Architecture E ELIZABETH 514 E LAUREL 514 ST ELIZABETH ST BUILDING Anna B.Miller House 6/18/1996 6/18/1996 1996-81 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Craftsman Bungalow REMINGTON REMINGTON William E.Greffenius LAUREL English-Norman 824 ST ST BUILDING House&Garage 4/2/1996 4/2/1996 38 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Cottage 817 PETERSON LAUREL Dutch Colonial 817 PETERSON ST ST BUILDING Temple House 2/18/2003 2/18/2003 19 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Revival 425 E LAUREL LAUREL 425 E LAUREL ST ST BUILDING J.M.Glick House 9/15/1998 9/15/1998 151 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Edwardian 400 WHEDBEE Seventh Day Adventist LAUREL Late 19th and 20th 400 WHEDBEE ST ST BUILDING Church 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 172 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Century Revivals REMINGTON REMINGTON Garage,Iron Fence& LAUREL 729 ST ST BUILDING Stone Walk 11/2/1999 11/2/1999 159 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian REMINGTON REMINGTON LAUREL Classic 719 ST ST BUILDING The Longyear Property 5/5/2015 5/5/2015 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Cottage REMINGTON REMINGTON House/Laurel LAUREL 701 ST ST BUILDING Apartments 9/18/2012 9/18/2012 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Colonial Revival 701 MATHEWS Schroeder/McMurry LAUREL 701 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Property 1/3/2017 1/3/2017 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Bungalow REMINGTON REMINGTON LAUREL 641 ST ST BUILDING Ralph House 11/3/1998 11/3/1998 192 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Craftsman 725 MATHEWS Littler-Baker House and LAUREL 725 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Carriage House 8/1/1995 8/1/1995 96 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Late Victorian 330 E LAUREL Laurel Street School LAUREL 330 E LAUREL ST ST BUILDING (also 650 Mathews) 5/15/1984 5/15/1984 56 YES NO NO 10/3/1980 NO YES SCHOOL YES Classisal Revival S LOOMIS 201 S LOOMIS 201 AVE AVE BUILDING Portner Property 10/19/2021 10/19/2021 2021-129 YES UNK UNK NO NO YES Queen Anne Cottage Architecture NONE Queen Anne 1016-1018 Housing Catalyst (architect);University 1016-1018 Morgan St Morgan St BUILDING Benton-Schulz Duplex 8/4/2020 8/4/2020 2020-91 YES NO NO UNK UNK Contemporary Duplex Architecture nomination Acres 331 S.Loomis Queen Anne-Free Classic Housing Catalyst 331 S.Loomis Ave Ave BUILDING Woods-Dunn Property 8/4/2020 8/4/2020 2020-90 YES NO NO UNK UNK Classic Cottage Architecture nomination 1433 S S OVERLAND OVERLAND Maxwell Rock House Architecture; Stone house;Maxwell 1433 TRL TRL BUILDING (designation pending) 2/15/2022 2/15/2022 2022-11 YES N/A UNK UNK UNK Tudor Revival H-Plan Agriculture NONE family;stock raising 226 WALNUT OLD 226 WALNUT ST ST SITE parking lot NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO JEFFERSON 209 JEFFERSON OLD 209 ST ST SITE parking lot NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO Packet Pg. 263-11 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS i Date 1 Date 1 1istrict? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 122 S MB 122 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET NO Late Victorian OLD 242 LINDEN ST 242 LINDEN ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO OLD TOWN 21 OLD TOWN OLD 21 SQ SQ BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO OLD TOWN 17 OLD TOWN OLD 17 SQ SQ BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO OLD TOWN 1 OLD TOWN OLD 1 SQ SQ BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO 252-256 OLD 252-256 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO JEFFERSON 317 JEFFERSON OLD 317 ST ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO Crafts Building/Red Garter Saloon(formerly OLD TOWN 25 OLD TOWN 117 Linden)(also 23 OLD 25 SQ SQ BUILDING Old Town Sq) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN NO Commercial 320 WALNUT (also 321 Old Firehouse OLD Alterations need 320 WALNUT ST ST BUILDING Alley) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN UNK researched The Wright Life OLD PoS for District 200 LINDEN ST 200 LINDEN ST BUILDING (current) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN UNK needs clarified JEFFERSON 215-217 OLD Alterations need 215-217 ST JEFFERSON ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN UNK researched OLD TOWN 7 OLD TOWN OLD Alterations need 7 SQ SQ BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN UNK researched 238 E E MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN OLD Alterations need 238 AVE AVE BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN UNK researched 250 E E MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN OLD Alterations need 250 AVE AVE BUILDING Forrester-Seckner Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN UNK researched N COLLEGE 166-180 N OLD 166-180 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Northern Hotel NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD 226 PINE ST 226 PINE ST BUILDING Asmus Signs NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES JEFFERSON 243 JEFFERSON OLD 243 ST ST BUILDING The Courier NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial JEFFERSON 245 JEFFERSON OLD 245 ST ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 216-222 PINE OLD 216-222 PINE ST ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES 208-216 OLD 208-216 WALNUT ST WALNUT ST BUILDING Silver Grill Cafe NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD 214 PINE ST 214 PINE ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Romanesque Revival Commercial 232-240 PINE La Court Hotel/Blaine OLD 232-240 PINE ST ST BUILDING Hotel NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 200-204 OLD 200-204 WALNUT ST WALNUT ST BUILDING C.C.Forrester Building NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 218 WALNUT OLD 218 WALNUT ST ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 222 WALNUT P.Anderson Mercantile OLD 222 WALNUT ST ST BUILDING Co. NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES 251-253 Robertson/Haynes OLD 251-253 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Block(north) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial Packet Pg. 263-12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD 247-249 Robertson/Haynes OLD 247-249 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Block(south) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 237-241 OLD 237-241 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial JEFFERSON 229 JEFFERSON OLD 229 ST ST BUILDING Vandewark Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial JEFFERSON 221-227 OLD 221-227 ST JEFFERSON ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 232-238 Old Firehouse/City Hall OLD 232-238 WALNUT ST WALNUT ST BUILDING Original NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Town Hall JEFFERSON 235-237 OLD 235-237 ST JEFFERSON ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 1609 SHEELY SHEELY 1609 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Wells House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1645 SHEELY SHEELY 1645 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Shawver House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1700SHEELY SHEELY 1700 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Lincoln Mueller House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1612 SHEELY SHEELY 1612 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Dwight Ghent House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1604SHEELY SHEELY 1604 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Sherwood House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1601 SHEELY SHEELY 1601 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Mittry-Young House 7/21/1998 7/21/1998 1998-125 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1600SHEELY SHEELY 1600 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Ben Olds House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1605 SHEELY SHEELY 1605 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Moyer House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1608 SHEELY SHEELY 1608 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING Arthur Sheely House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1617 SHEELY SHEELY 1617 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING McCloskey House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type 1613 SHEELY Galyardt-Puleston SHEELY 1613 SHEELY DR DR BUILDING House 2/15/2000 2/15/2000 2000-12 NO NO NO 2/15/2000 YES NO DRIVE YES Ranch Type N COLLEGE 146 N Commercial Bank& OLD 146 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Trust NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Classisal Revival N COLLEGE 144 N OLD 144 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Barkley Building NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD 216 LINDEN ST 216 LINDEN ST BUILDING Seckner Bros NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial N COLLEGE 160 N OLD 160 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING The Mister Pawn Shop NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 212-214 OLD 212-214 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Bernheim Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial N COLLEGE 164 N Star Grocery/Beals and OLD 164 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Reed Building NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD 218 LINDEN ST 218 LINDEN ST BUILDING Philippi Harness Shop NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 112 S MB Minimal 112 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Traditional N COLLEGE 154 N OLD 154 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING Chinese Laundry NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 206-210 OLD 206-210 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Mercer Building NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial JEFFERSON 211-213 OLD 211-213 ST JEFFERSON ST BUILDING Jefferson Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial Packet Pg. 263-13 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD 240-242 OLD 240-242 WALNUT ST WALNUT ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES 233-235 Poudre Valley Bank OLD 233-235 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Building NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Late Victorian Commercial OLD TOWN 11 OLD TOWN OLD 11 SQ SQ BUILDING Miller Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD 223 LINDEN ST 223 LINDEN ST BUILDING Reed-Dauth Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD 246 PINE ST 246 PINE ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES N COLLEGE 150 N OLD 150 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 242-244 PINE OLD 242-244 PINE ST ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 117 S MB 117 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING 117 S.Whitcomb St. NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 118 S MB 118 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Late Victorian WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 125 S MB 125 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES No Style WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 126 S MB 126 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES No Style WHTTCO MB 612 W OAK ST 612 W OAK ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Bungalow WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 129 S MB 129 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES No Style WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 130 S MB 130 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Late Victorian 213-217 OLD 213-217 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Loomis Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 121 S MB Hipped Roof 121 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Late Victorian Box 220-224 OLD 220-224 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Antler's Hotel NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Late Victorian Commercial WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 105 S MB 105 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Bungalow WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 108 S MB 108 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING 108 S.Whitcomb St. NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES WHTTCO S WHITCOMB 113 S MB 113 ST WHITCOMB ST BUILDING NO NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Foursquare 234-238 OLD 234-238 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING Bernard Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial Block/McPhearson 223-239 Block(now 15 Old OLD 223-239 WALNUT ST WALNUT ST BUILDING Town Square) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial Packet Pg. 263-14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS i Date 1 Date 1 1istrict? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD OLD TOWN 19 OLD TOWN OLD 19 SQ SQ BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES N COLLEGE 136-140 N Trimble Block(also 112 OLD 136-140 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING &118 Trimble Ct) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial N COLLEGE 132 N OLD 132 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES OLD TOWN 5 OLD TOWN OLD 5 SQ SQ BUILDING J.L.Hohnstein Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD TOWN 3 OLD TOWN OLD 3 SQ SQ BUILDING H.C.Howard Block NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial 317-323 OLD 317-323 WALNUT ST WALNUT ST BUILDING Forrester-Semerad NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Romanesque Revival Commercial Grout Site(north OLD 261 LINDEN ST 261 LINDEN ST BUILDING building) NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Stover Building/Old OLD 255 LINDEN ST 255 LINDEN ST BUILDING Grout Site NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial FORT COLLINS MUSEUM, STONE AND JANIS CABINS, BOXELDE 200 MATHEWS R 200 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Franz Smith Cabin 8/15/2000 8/15/2000 86 NO NO NO 10/3/1980 YES YES SCHOOL YES FORT COLLINS MUSEUM, STONE AND JANIS CABINS, BOXELDE 200 MATHEWS R 200 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Janis Cabin 8/20/1985 8/20/1985 86 NO NO NO 10/3/1980 YES YES SCHOOL YES FORT COLLINS MUSEUM, STONE AND JANIS CABINS, BOXELDE 200 MATHEWS R 200 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Auntie Stone Cabin 8/20/1985 8/20/1985 86 NO NO NO 10/3/1980 YES YES SCHOOL YES Packet Pg. 263-15 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 State or In National State/Natio Historic Property Designation LANDMARK ORDINANC City State National Designation In Local nal District Contributi Building Address# Street Name ADDRESS Property Type Name Date DA E Landmark? Register? Register? Date District? District? Name ng? Architectural Style Type Area of Significance NOTES KEYWORD FORT COLLINS MUSEUM, STONE AND JANIS CABINS, BOXELDE 200 MATHEWS R 200 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Fort Collins Museum 8/20/1985 8/20/1985 86 NO NO NO 10/3/1980 YES YES SCHOOL YES FORT COLLINS MUSEUM, STONE AND JANIS CABINS, BOXELDE 200 MATHEWS R 200 MATHEWS ST ST BUILDING Upper Boxelder School 8/20/1985 8/20/1985 86 NO NO NO 10/3/1980 YES YES SCHOOL YES N COLLEGE 100-124 N Avery Block(also 105- OLD 100-124 AVE COLLEGE AVE BUILDING 115)Linden St NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial OLD 103 LINDEN ST 103 LINDEN ST BUILDING Bank building NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES 113-115 OLD 113-115 LINDEN ST LINDEN ST BUILDING NO NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES 601 W WHITCO W MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN MB 601 AVE AVE BUILDING Aaron Kitchel House 3/16/2004 3/16/2004 44 YES NO NO 1/15/2013 YES NO STREET YES Late Victorian OLD 201 LINDEN ST 201 LINDEN ST BUILDING Linden Hotel 1/1/1974 1/1/1974 44 YES NO NO 8/2/1978 YES YES TOWN YES Commercial Packet Pg. 263-16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 2/16/2022 Dear Historic Preservation Commission: Several of us contacted neighbors near 1306 W. Mountain Ave., and around town to garner support for preserving this Historic Landmark "as is" and to oppose the most recently proposed design of the addition that is before you on Feb. 16. Those who live in landmarked homes put a Yes in the far-right column. Total signatures is 69, including 10 Landmark owners. With more time,we would have easily been able to gather more signatures. This is just a sample of the people who treasure historic landmarks and want the city to preserve them as promised. Please note that community members all over the city in addition to Old Town oppose modifying this special landmarked home. Thank you, Laura Bailey Gina Janett Packet Pg. 263-17 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 ■ ■ ■ Protect the Jaclgson-Bailey Historic Landmariq ■ -4 14 r it's r ■ ■ � ■ ■ ■ Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage, especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb, unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code Signature 7 Gc� 0,-,,-k Sire- 05Z 1 ' 7(� � ��►� � Asa � � Yes Jct,(Vl* /7 ue 41Q -4 t( clVpG,, 31 f y- 16h,f(v,4 54- u ;, 6 5-21 qglV'� 02/) 710 Jul �4. �A o 5 �q ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 ■ ■ Protect the )aclgson-Bailey Historic Landmark? ■ ■ ■ �1< ►+? t- s L !IL d Mi- E.+ I ® ■ ® ■ ■ ■ Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage, especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb,unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. ka Jm k 6 wAtr Name Street address Zip code Signature (�ev i h (n1, Qvla�ty 7o q W 14 W, M auwl'at to A 805 ZI 3,f�'LeS&,,f16 k I At 5oL) /,;;Z yes f 5 ��ul � / ► `� {�tjn;s �� (,cJ._ /r �o�w �� A ve_ CNR► RI COW ��� YVH�Dgr� �►�� �052`� �/ Packet Pg. 263- 9 Loco �� �tv--�—f �3��z ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 !ICI F&l ft� Protect the 1acl?son-Bailey Historic Landmarh LR N ■ r _ Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage,especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb,unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code Signature 1 �InIPS h� �08 b ���•, x QC �C _ 6 e goszi t,�s5f0hb(In1z Jdw lulu VEmiot� on V05,2y 4, ) \J\(\a) IViun /1//lc �� �i . I lei �SL I ` /� 63-Je I/ ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 ■ ■ ■ Protect the )aclqson-Bailey Historic Landmariq ■ ■ a r S . AM f - 1. z 21 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage, especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb, unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code La)ji2&-W `E�31 Grp Wit- d �� $as 2(P z 5 `q,% rf C. Packet Pg. 263-21 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 ■ ■ ■ Protect the )acl?son-Bailey Historic Landmarlq ■ ■ ■ 41, AL JL�� 21 ArA Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage, especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb,unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code Signature 7 3 a 1 CVM�AOLA (c.c.s DP-�fi gosL l 0 8 6:iiE6r t�� Z 7 f �,�J1 � Sj 6 SZ ---Packet Pg. 263-22 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 ■ ■ A Protect the Jackson-Bailey Historic Landmark? !..j ■ I I f r , Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage, especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb,unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code Signature 2\_6V.A � a) (A )ham-W6A (bfp5 L 605,�A 4Cfl V_, �a(kMoItWC,Z� ej '� 1�0� �v �Ck '� ����� >n C 7�� �� ZJ ' J �� L' ���1 Z packet Pg. 263-23 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 ■ ■ ■ Protect the )aclgson-Bailey Historic Landmarks N U X. ir OCR- ■ ■ m ■ ■ ■ Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage,especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb, unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code Signature 2 - P���'�►�� �I � 7 C rYs�- K- n0V/ 8 vi�Rt ' 't e6j''263-24 I ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Protect the 1aclgson-Bailey Historic Landmarks i"' i L .I fi-7 f _ i I INS, V 0 Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage, especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb, unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. , Name - Street � ----ee address Zip code gnatur I Ala -vYhey Packet Pg. 203-25 1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 0 R ■ Protect the Jackson-Bailey Historic Landmarks 'K 4 0 Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage,especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most supe►�b, unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code Signature 44L SI Ale/ �700 6,1*,4X 1 14J& 2 si c e 1 epplc / 4'719 brit nc4Au �,'IIS Pr 95, r- 3.J j � 1 ?5 7 eve i<<, t-I + C q{33 , LA k�,_ 7-c: � y-'1 Lc, t ta( )\ v, Z5� P; cket 6 5sor+avc� �� 5 �U ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 ■ ■ ■ Protect the 1aclqson-Bailey Historic Landmarkq ■ ■ ■ u A ..''% a s �_ '.� ..�-•� ,�,a -- - � _ �! ZA. Petition To the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Fort Collins: We the undersigned believe the City should work to preserve our town's diminishing historical heritage, especially as pressure increases to demolish or alter historic buildings to make way for larger homes in Old Town. We expect the City to stand by the Historic Landmarks it has promised to protect, especially the iconic Jackson-Bailey Landmark at 1306 W. Mountain Ave.The Jackson-Bailey home is one of our town's most superb, unaltered examples of 1920s brick Craftsman architecture. It deserves protection from irresponsible changes that damage the very historic values and aesthetics for which the home was designated. Please reject the proposal to add an addition that violates Landmark preservation standards.This addition would destroy the simple, rectangular cottage design for which the home was designated in the first place. Please do not approve this inappropriate change to this very special landmark. Name Street address Zip code Signature Packet Pg. 263-27 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 11 Historic Preservation Commission and City Council City of Fort Collins 300 W. Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: 1306 W. Mountain Ave. Remodel &Addition Dear City Boards, The owners of this property would like to remodel their home. Their plans will be reviewed by the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission on February 16, 2022. 1 am signing this letter to express support for the reasonable improvement of Old Town properties and specifically for this property. The house was built in 1922 and designated as a Fort Collins Historic property in 2014. The owners are planning improvements to make this house livable for today's families for the next 100 years. The historic attributes and original portion of the house will be unchanged. The owners plan to repair and maintain 100%of the historic brick house.The attached plan shows the proposed addition behind the house is subordinate in size, scale and massing to the historic building and does not change the historic character of the house. The owners' plans reflect their dedication and commitment to preserve the exterior look and the character defining features of their home. I approve and support this project. Name Address Date I l 20 (L• (2r�vs-e��LfAtr�C Z<<412-07-Z 22 /a Ali' 2,11 S zZ 76) LZ � ,�� � \ Ili"' � . �-✓- �7U` `fy'S'�� > �2 Packet Pg. 263-28 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 11 Historic Preservation Commission and City Council Page 2 City of Fort Collins 300 W. Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: 1306 W. Mountain Ave., Remodel &Addition Name / Address Date 3 0W/4 5 c7`/ Y/ Har z k 'ulie MO -� � �q Shi : Ids S�Hvnlef- $05Z1 2 15 2oZZ Swo5onLW K. i�iake Mote- skwQ L' Y �U�� t �- l5 a(: '•. hC' -Z i'l-t4l Packet Pg. 263-29 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 11 Historic Preservation Commission and City Council City of Fort Collins 300 W. Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: 1306 W. Mountain Ave. Remodel &Addition Dear City Boards, The owners of this property would like to remodel their home. Their plans will be reviewed by the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission on February 16, 2022. 1 am signing this letter to express support for the reasonable improvement of Old Town properties and specifically for this property. The house was built in 1922 and designated as a Fort Collins Historic property in 2014. The owners are planning improvements to make this house livable for today's families for the next 100 years. The historic attributes and original portion of the house will be unchanged. The owners plan to repair and maintain 100%of the historic brick house. The attached plan shows the proposed addition behind the house is subordinate in size, scale and massing to the historic building and does not change the historic character of the house. The owners' plans reflect their dedication and commitment to preserve the exterior look and the character defining features of their home. I approve and support this project. Name Address Date F-tibko 1,U tJ�1-- 1002 J_frf= Packet Pg. 263-30 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 1306 West Mountain Avenue PROPOSED ADDITION — OWNER PRESENTATION 1 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Proposed Addition Revision#4 Original Plan 11/2/20 vs Current Plan 2/16/22 2 Packet Pg. 263-31 1 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Historic Preservation "It is hereby declared as 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." -Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-1(a) "The purposes of this Chapter are to . . . Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites, structures, objects or districts now so owned and used,to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained under such a policy" -Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-2(g) 3 Berkhausens' Goals • Create a floor plan to be able to"age in place"with all living on a single level • Current conditions are unsafe and not functional for us ■ Laundry is in basement ■ Only shower is in basement ■ Basement stairs are a very steep pitch and do not meet code • Carefully maintain and invest in a meaningful property • Preserve historic character and fabric of home • Remain involved members of the Fort Collins community • We would like to make appropriate improvements to sustain and maintain the viability of the house, make it livable and functional for the next 100 years. EM Packet Pg. 263-32 2 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 ALLEY Z7...�'- ....„..._ Proposed Lot Alterations Non historic garage to be demolished. ALM. �� i j ; :�. . Open space is created with a new garage Y ara a on the alley of . the 9,500 sq ft lot. ,r 5 Code Compliance We have consistently worked to comply with and all Fort Collins Codes, Regulations and Policies. For example: • The Land Use Code for Floor Area Ratio ("FAR"),Front Half and Rear Half building coverages • The Building Code Setbacks and Height Limitations • The Energy Plan • Fort Collins, "Our Climate Future Plan" 6 Packet Pg. 263-33 3 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Unique Facts Impact Rehabilitation • Original construction in 1922 did not comply with building and setback codes. The western side of the building encroaches into the 5 foot required side setback. • To comply with Land Use Code requirements for floor area ratio and lot coverage,the rear addition must extend 7.5 feet to the east. imm r , P'Mouni in , Setback 67.75 feet �. • :0. Tree and Landscaping '0 The addition is 67.75 ft from the street, roof height is lower than existing, • addition will be at the back of the existing with minimal visibility from the street. ° 8 Packet Pg. 263-34 4 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 ORIGINAL:Construction Plans, Building Permit Plan _ ------ - __ --. - _ 11/2/20 - FRONT ELEVATION REVISION#4:Submitted for 'i nq HPC Final Review - 2/16/22 -- 9 ORIGINAL:Construction Plans, I Building Permit Plan 11/2/20 - _._. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ff"T REVISION#4: Submitted for - - HPC Final Review 2/16/22 Addition is Subordinate to the existing ____________ --------------------------------------- RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION E"T `-- 10 Packet Pg. 263-35 5 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 All original brick to Northeast corner remain. to be removed. 11 North Northeast corner, wood sided wall to enclosed porch to be removed. remain. 1 f 9i= •�... ram?wr..�1!'�i-.vP+.r'i.�� 12 Packet Pg. 263-36 6 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 The north wall was removed during an undocumented enclosure of the back porch. Note change in ceiling height. 13 Note change in roof height. Original steps to back porch. -L- Y T„ 14 Packet Pg. 263-37 7 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Northeast corner North wall to remain for to be demolished. "future reversibility". i 15 ?North wall and window opening to remain - for "future reversibility" -3 M L-tit 'rq R1 = a e CAB Q.N. OR*NAl BRC I ..6E ERS"�u vEtiE IR 6AL _ �� � CFEhIhG � OPEV�l5 � ' EXISTING ROOF SYS' M TO REMAIN r — — — — — n F. 16 Packet Pg. 263-38 8 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 1306 W.Mountain Ave. Project changes to comply with the Standards and Guidelines Existing Permit Plans Revised Notes 1/19/21 2/16/22 Roof Height from grade 19'6" 21'6" 17'0" Height subordinate to existing Floor Plan square feet 1097 sf 1297 sf 887 sf Massing and scale subordinate to existing Addition 12'5" to east 7'5"to east Addition is on the back of existing brick building Addition setback 46 ft 67.75 ft Limited visibility from the from street from street street Demolition of brick 33 ft None No character defining features are removed Window Removal Replace All Keep Repair damaged windows Detached Structures Garage 1942 Single Car Remove Keep Maintain Historic Structure Garage 1968 Two Car Remove Remove Build new two car at alley 17 oon Camm�,an,N C,+Y CwK, [nv a Fon OoRm NistorK Vresenatbn Commlasbn and Gry co,a,ul Vale 2 M W.a--A— r+tl'of Fort Collura F«t Cd1—CO 11M11 NO W UMMt A— Fort colliro-CO 80521 ec IIa w.uwn+..n AK aemoerl 6 Add— RE 1006 W.M--Are.,Remodel i AddXbr Msr Cary awrM, y.... Amy DIRe tkwmenaetwpeoenrwelar+orcnaeet,ne,t,ome r��rnwe:,weelrm,a.alh "/V/a�ll>nr+.C4 I_ 3CLfArE St c�US'L/ �tQsL MFe ceewwRezF.wnaanc� b«Frc, nls.m:i y�ulie MOTs 11q M.Shiold,(« 2 1 2A27- ae,lsrcae dlta 4llwtolYH>..DOcr+'«+Iv'e,>«uO1e im«wemrn,d Old 1-1 r1r.,F R.•,r,l,. NUnf,r S,t+mw IK Nlr Sh clds S� t�J6T1 �ry lAe ln,ne»,.wu,nlsu,roar,sNlro,..r«,c«.n,M�.,o.a mwrrcrnmu mr R.tgi-ke 74-Ie 119 N 51.,.Ls Si lya JLL5J W, rc Wnnryind«'<mrn„tonakr+lui lioru 1va01e l«,Way'.lam�ar,l«,ev neat ,/ (17t at��1 a �k4L Tl+r M[«.at[nCy,n aN«�fi^ai perto�o'[M Mn<v.i M urKNnard.•fir ovnen Wan,o rew�'aelm.�r:,�n lro„wt•r��„«K VKr rKr.r.+�r a,—Wan.,a,,,K>l, d 1 1121 tnl.Vl aw,, kt, l 20�-- addqon EehrN eM aeuu,.whor6ro+e n,�x,uak aN muvrlF eo++v nrtea.e t1w1O✓�aN l daea ro,clw�ae+M trar(.v.tNra[,rr d Iry Mr:e G J 11 Z�V' �Yt Wln�!( , rs W,nt Fenn„ae�ddrn<n.Nr+min�tMn++e.+vvnv IN r.,enry br"aM Iti c4raoe,rklvw�k"i..n ra rM�4.+t 1IVVre>e artl„4Var1 tM areMa. Nfr,a Adb.0 D,le I k11�-�aloa.e,.�FAvc z11 Z0+2Z 1 ✓� �'- Name Add— Oat. 13�`i W PJJyiW+1 nYG 2 112E ( !y FJ m�.k.� a71o�710 ak?--rl>T-k�6 �aeu1 LUOCO- lam w 016aAw%— Z�a7Z rhL, v. �vco {Irat.a 2sSc w.nne.lf L•Fs.mczt 18 Packet Pg. 263-39 9 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Historic Preservation Commission and City Council City of Fort Collins 300 W. Laporte Avenue Fort Collins,CO 80521 RE: 1306 W.Mountain Ave. Remodel&Addition Dear City Boards, The owners of this property would like to remodel their home. Their plans will be reviewed by the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission on February 16,2022. 1 am signing this letter to express support for the reasonable improvement of Old Town pruper lies dnJ specific,dlly fur this pruper ly. 19 The house was built in 1922 and designated as a Fort Collins Historic property in 2014.The owners are planning improvements to make this house livable for today's families for the next 100 years. The historic attributes and original portion of the house will be unchanged. The owners plan to repair and maintain 100%of the historic brick house.The attached plan shows the proposed addition behind the house is subordinate in size,scale and massing to the historic building and does not change the historic character of the house. The owners'plans reflect their dedication and commitment to preserve the exterior look and the character defining features of their home. I approve and support this project. 20 Packet Pg. 263-40 10 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Name Address Date �L 115 Ou 8CC,0411.1 L_ /o A e Z 1 s zz 21 Name Address Date Shi id,� S4 Zul j/5 2OZZ P �jlak� J}7of�. ��� N ��t�e�5 •�� �t;`D1� 3- l�' a.l.:'-. .r� ►� �1 �l. Na�r�+a�� fie. is 1 2 . y c J � �12 S � . �:by✓i�i n � _?l1i 22 Packet Pg. 263-41 11 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Name Address Date ►. Wz►2 loot oJlo�,- i�... Z 7-a-2 Z J_FF HPr1S?rl 253(� CZ�M=tOA�= Z.'1$• 2bz.Z 23 Secretary of the Interior's Standards "The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility." -36 CFR 67.7(b), as adopted by the City of Fort Collins in Section 14-53(a)of the Fort Collins Municipal Code "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are common sense historic preservation principles in non-technical language." -https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 24 Packet Pg. 263-42 12 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Secretary of the Interior's Standards • Nothing in the City's code says that all of the standards must be fully met. • Nothing in the standards, or in the guidelines and bulletins interpreting them, indicates that all standards must be met when being applied in this way. • Staff has found that eight of the ten standards are fully met or not applicable, and the other two are partially met. 25 Secretary of the Interior's Standards • "Staff and commission consider the unique circumstances of each proposed alteration. Therefore previous approval of a specific alteration of a designated resource in one setting and set of circumstances does not necessarily set a precedent for the approval of future proposed alterations that may appear to be similar but actually present their own unique circumstances." - Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-51(e) 26 Packet Pg. 263-43 13 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Guidelines for the Standards New Exterior Additions and Related New Construction • "There is no formula or prescription for designing a compatible new addition or related new construction on a site,nor is there generally only one possible design approach that will meet the Standards." - Guidelines,page 26 27 Bulletin 37 u.i' nal park Scrvicc oepartmen<of the interior Technical prexrvation Services Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: Rear Additions to Historic Houses Applicable Standards: q.Compatible New Additions/Alleratians to.Reversibility of New Additions/Altetations "These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations,based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case." https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/standards- bulletins.htm 28 Packet Pg. 263-44 14 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Satisfaction of Standards 29 Standard 2: Met "The historic character of a property will be retained and the removal of distinctive materials avoided." • The entire historic brick house and the character defining features will be retained. • The addition is subordinate to the historic property in massing and height. • Placement of the new two-car garage is designed to create open space on the lot. • Compliance with zoning and land use codes make placement of addition challenging. • When applied"in a reasonable manner,taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility"(36 CFR 67.7(b)),this standard is thus met. is= 30 Packet Pg. 263-45 15 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Standard 9: Met "Additions shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be compatible with, distinguished from, and subordinate to the original property." • Compatible—Design complements the existing building and does not distract from the brick walls and the rectangular massing. • Distinguishable—Set in the rear with lapboard siding. • Subordinate—Set in the rear of the lot, lower roofline, 200 square feet smaller than original house. • Applicant would agree to condition of approval that all trees and landscaping remain and be replaced if they die, are damaged, or are destroyed. 31 Standard 9: Met Thirty Percent "Rule of Thumb" • This rule is nowhere in the Fort Collins Municipal Code,the Standards that the Code adopts, or the guidelines and bulletins interpreting the Standards. • The property is not designated on any state registry and is not subject to any standards of the State Historic Preservation Office. • Maintaining City's status as a Certified Local Government is not a review criterion. 32 Packet Pg. 263-46 16 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 Standards are Satisfied • Standards are flexible and applied reasonably on a case-by-case basis,taking into consideration technical and economic feasibility. • Approval of one proposal does not set a precedent. • Proposal meets standards, and approval strikes appropriate balance of goals of preservation. 33 Approval Supports Policy • City Plan Principle LIV 4—Enhance Neighborhood Livability • City Plan Policy LIV 6.5—Aging in Place 34 Packet Pg. 263-47 17 2/17/2022 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 12 1306 West Mountain Avenue �t h r - 35 Thank You n7� 36 Packet Pg. 263-48 18