Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/19/2022 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
Page 1 Kurt Knierim, Chair Location: Jim Rose, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock IN PERSON at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue Meg Dunn Walter Dunn Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Staff Liaison: Eric Guenther Maren Bzdek Anne Nelsen Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting October 19, 2022 5:30 PM 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. Historic Preservation Commission AGENDA All participants in quasi-judicial matters, including the public, must be in person according to Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code. IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to queue at the podium to indicate you would like to speak at that time. You may speak when acknowledged by the Chair. 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 mmatsunaka@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals may participate by emailing comments to mmatsunaka@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 2 • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items. Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2022. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. 809 W MOUNTAIN – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 809 W Mountain. 3. 700 E ELIZABETH – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 700 E Elizabeth. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 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 Page 3 • CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). 5. 220 REMINGTON ST (BODE PROPERTY) – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition for the City Landmark at 220 Remington St., the Bode Property. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the HPC. APPLICANT: Dr. Jenna Slootmaker (owner) Chris Aronson, VFLA (design professional/architect) 6. 825 N COLLEGE – APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination for the commercial property at 825 North College Avenue as an “historic resource” under Land Use Code 3.4.7. On September 7, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property meets the requirements to be considered an “historic resource” under the City’s Land Use code based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, historic resources (properties that meet the City’s standards to qualify as a City Landmark) are subject to the project approval requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Grem Armstrong, GARA LLC (Property Owner) • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at this time. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC September 21, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 September 21, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado And Remotely Via Zoom Walter Dunn Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Regular Meeting September 21, 2022 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Jenna Edwards, Jim Rose ABSENT: Bonnie Gibson, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA No reports on items not on the agenda. •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 September 21, 2022 • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:34 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 17, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member M Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the August 17, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member W Dunn seconded. [Timestamp: 5:35 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING DESCRIPTION: Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code- required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Mr. Bertolini reported on the activities on the past couple of weeks. He provided Education and Outreach highlights, such as the Women’s Suffrage Walking Tour and a Black and Hispanic Heritage Walking Tour for City Planning Staff. Mr. Bertolini discussed a survey result on 301 E. Olive Street that was determined eligible under Standard 3, Design/Construction, and significant under Standard 2, Persons/Groups. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn asked for clarification on the length of the walking tours. Mr. Bertolini replied that the length of the tour varies but the tours the past month averaged one mile and took about ninety minutes. [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 3. 1113 MATHEWS – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION/NEW CONSTRUCITON – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to demolish the existing buildings on the property that contribute to the Laurel School Historic District and construct a new single-family dwelling. APPLICANT: Marc Leblond and Rachel Bedard ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 September 21, 2022 Staff Report Yani Jones presented the staff report noting that this is a nationally registered design review. She noted the Historic Preservation Commission shall review the proposed alterations and issue a report on the effects of demolition to the Laurel School District and whether new construction meets Standard 9. Ms. Jones mentioned certain aspects of the proposal and noted staff’s recommendations are included in the staff report. She provided background on the property and discussed photos of the property. She provided information on the new construction site plan, including siding, roof, and windows. She discussed the staff finding that the property does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation due to the demolition of the historic residence. She noted that the new construction generally meets Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel School Historic District. She stated that the primary question from the staff for the Commission is determine if there are any changes to staff’s findings documented in the Draft SHPO Report. Applicant Presentation Rachel Bedard and Mark Leblond, property owners, agreed to hold the hearing in the hybrid/remote format. Ms. Bedard discussed their history with the property. Commission Questions and Discussion Member Carlock asked if the applicants considered keeping the façade of the property to keep the historical character of the property and street view. Ms. Bedard replied that they had considered all their options. She noted that the current front door is less than twenty-nine inches wide. She indicated that they want to make it an accessible home. Mr. Leblond discussed retrofitting the property to ensure energy efficiency would be very challenging and difficult to achieve with a remodel. Public Input None Commission Deliberation Member M Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alteration to the Harley Kimble Residence at 1113 Mathew Street as presented do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, including the new construction, in relation to the Laurel School Historic District, and that our findings shall be provided to the owner and potentially transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the property’s historic status, which will be that is not historic and it negatively affects the historic district. Member Carlock seconded the motion. 5-0 the motion passed. Member M Dunn noted that the property is a contributing house and already found to be historic and may be individually eligible. She discussed that the new construction is not in keeping with the neighborhood by taking a one and one-half story house and having it appear like a two and one-half story house to the roof pitch. She noted that the solid to void ratio is different that the houses around it and the second story balcony patio to be out of keeping with the district. Member Carlock agreed with Member Dunn. Vice Chair Rose discussed the role of the HPC for a contributing property in a national historic district. [Timestamp: 5:55 p.m.] ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 September 21, 2022 4. 723 W OLIVE – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed rear addition and detached garage/studio for the City Landmark at 723 W. Olive St., the Parsons/Morgan House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT: Chris Orton Staff Report Yani Jones presented the staff report noting the applicant is seeking the Commission’s input regarding the final design’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. She detailed the architecture and history of the building and showed several photos of the building and surrounding properties. Ms. Jones mentioned certain aspects of the proposal and noted staff’s recommendations are included in the staff report and they have particularly highlighted the rear addition, including the expansion of the existing mudroom and addition of a new master bedroom and bathroom for an additional four hundred twenty-seven (427) square feet. She discussed that Phase 2 of the project would include a new detached 1.5 story, two-car garage with studio above. It would be an ally-loaded garage at the south end of the lot. She discussed that the driveway length has been adjusted based on feedback from the Commission during the conceptual review. She mentioned the siding and windows. She discussed a Commissioner inquiry regarding whether the applicant explored additional roof form options. She discussed information related to specific items on which staff is recommending the Commission focus its discussion. She stated that the primary questions from the staff for the Commission is to either issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Applicant Presentation John Litschert, architect, and representative of the property owner, agreed to hold the hearing in the hybrid/remote format. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M Dunn expressed her appreciation to Mr. Litschert for the explanation on the proposed roof and for moving the new garage closer to the alley. She noted that the addition was thoughtful and retains the integrity of the historic bungalow and historic garage, as well as valuing the character of the house and character of the neighborhood. Vice Chair Rose agreed with Member M Dunn. He commended Mr. Litschert for the sensitivity he displayed and for his efforts. Public Input None Commission Deliberation Member M Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Parson/Morgan Watrous House and Attached Garage at 723 W. Olive Street, because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code. Member W Dunn seconded the motion. 5-0 the motion passed. [Timestamp: 6:11 p.m.] ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 September 21, 2022 5. 113 N SHERWOOD – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for changing a roof on a designated property from wood shingle to a synthetic roofing product that simulates the appearance of wood shingles. Associated fascia and gutter work is expected. The alterations are proposed for the Boughton (Bouton) House, 113 North Sherwood Street. APPLICANT: Devin Odell and Maria Fernandez-Gimenez, Owners. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report and discussed the history of the property and its designation as a National Landmark. He stated the role of the Commission is to make a decision regarding whether the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. He discussed the historic significance of the property, specifically noting the distinct shingle style of architecture, and provided photos of the existing conditions. He outlined the proposed project to replace the wood shingle roof with an F-wave polymer product that is designed to replicate the wood shingles. Mr. Bertolini stated staff has referred this issue to the Commission due to the prominence of the property. He noted the proposed replacement of wood shingle roof with Brava synthetic product to replicate wood shingles. Mr. Bertolini outlined the applicable standards and discussed the reasons staff believes they are not met given the roof is a character-defining feature of the home. He discussed examples of approved substitute roofing materials used on historic buildings. Mr. Bertolini stated the staff recommendation of a qualified approval, including a waiver of conditions, with a condition related to color, under Section 14-5, if the Commission believes that is warranted. He noted that staff would qualify this recommendation to acknowledge that, with some experimentation with substitute roofing is necessary int eh immediate future, this particular property is difficult because of how significant the roof shingling is to conveying the architectural style and significance of the property. Commission Questions and Discussion Devin Odell, property owner, agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid/remote format. Judge Odell discussed photos he took of Brava roofing samples on residences in northern Colorado. He noted the difference in texture achieved on the Brava samples compared to the F-Wave roofing type. Chris Day, representative of Brava, discussed the texture of the roofing pieces and the manufacturing process that involves a compression molding technique based on cedar shake. He noted the process of achieving accurate coloring and fire suppression. He discussed the lifetime of the product is fifty years. Vice Chair Rose asked questions about the sample presented by Mr. Day. Mr. Day noted that the Brava roofs have been successfully installed around the country. He noted the product weight is similar to the wood shingle but does not absorb water. Vice Chair Rose and Member M Dunn inspected the sample material. Member M Dunn asked about Mr. Day’s experience in installing the roofing material on historic buildings since many historic homes are used to the freeze/thaw cycle and water absorption/drying patterns. Mr. Day discussed his experience in other states. He noted there is not any expansion or contraction with this product. Member M Dunn is concerned with the framing of the house not holding up the same weight. Mr. Day noted that structural engineers are not involved with the installation of this product because they are not adding additional weight to the house. Judge Odell and Mr. Bertolini discussed that the design assistance provided by the city found that the structural engineer noted that are no structural concerns with lightening the load. Vice Chair noted that there is information in the packet that the weight is equivalent and not a real issue. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 September 21, 2022 Member M Dunn mentioned that the color of the sample is different than previous products and closer to a wood shingle. She noted that end to end, the shingles are different heights, similar to wood shingles and shake. Vice Chair Rose noted that cedar shingles change color every year. He discussed the difficulty in choosing an accurate color approximation for the Brava product. Mr. Day noted that there is UV protection added to the product to prevent fading. Member M Dunn discussed the staff recommendation of choosing a more faded color option. She noted that in her experience, this product really impressed her. She loved the texture, the thickness, and the mottling of the color. She noted that this is a good replacement option for wood shingles. Vice Chair Rose and Mr. Day discussed the rating required for fire, hail, and the outcomes. Vice Chair agreed with Member M Dunn about achieving a product that has practical applications. He noted that the property was at the beginning of the period called the Shingle Style and discussed the historical integrity. He indicated that the proposed product will approximate the look of the historical roof very well. Public Input None Commission Deliberation Member Carlock moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve a waiver of conditions under Municipal Code 14-5, permitting the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with Brava synthetic shingles at the Boughton House at 113 North Sherwood Street as presented, finding that, although the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the project does meet the criteria for a Waiver of Conditions, specifically that the requested waiver as submitted will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of this Chapter except in nominal or inconsequential ways and will continue to advance the purposes of the Chapter. Member W Dunn seconded the motion. 5-0 the motion passed. **Stipulated Agreement** - Staff shall be directed to work with the Applicants, Supplier, and Installer, to find a color that is acceptable. Staff and Applicants agreed. Member M Dunn clarified that the requirement to use the same materials has been waived in this instance only, and this approval is not an indication how the Commission will decide for future properties. [Timestamp: 6:59 p.m.] 6. LUC UPDATE – FORMAL RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION: As a follow up to the discussion at the August 2022 Historic Preservation Commission meeting regarding the proposed Land Use Code Phase One Update, City staff will provide an updated overview of the key proposal details and a request for a recommendation to City Council, based on the anticipated impact of the changes on the recognition and protection of historic resources. The draft code sections are currently posted for public review at https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Noah Beals, Development Review Manager Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager Staff Report Ms. Bzdek introduced the presentation by Mr. Beals and Ms. Overton. They provided an updated overview of the key proposal details regarding the proposed Land Use Code Phase One Update. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 September 21, 2022 Commission Questions and Discussion Member M Dunn asked for clarification on why the code is encouraging mixed-use versus requiring mixed-use. Ms. Overton noted that HA-9 it is a policy from Our Climate Future Plan and references affordable housing. Mr. Beals discussed that commercial zone districts and incentivizing mixed-use will be a focus of Phase Two. Member M Dunn discussed new construction, big box stores, and her preference for mixed-use buildings. She asked if there are any disincentives to reducing density. Mr. Beals noted that there is a max floor area by building type. Member M Dunn asked about an attached house with a lot increase. She discussed that the floor area ratio gets to increase based upon increased lot size. Ms. Overton discussed the cap on the floor area of a detached house in the Old Town District. Mr. Beals noted that the current code incentivizes larger houses. He indicated that the proposed code would eliminate the formula used to calculate floor permitted floor area. Member M Dunn asked how the proposed code is encouraging the reuse of buildings. Mr. Beals noted that there will be more allowances for use of buildings with the building-type standards, as well as keeping the Historic Preservation standards. Ms. Overton discussed benefits of conversions. Member M Dunn and Mr. Beals discussed the square footage of a duplex verses a single-family house. They discussed row houses in NCL to OTA zone. Member M Dunn and Ms. Overton discussed the height changes in the proposed code. Member M Dunn asked for a hyperlink to reduce confusion. Member M Dunn and Mr. Beals discussed the driveway requirements for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Member M Dunn commented about residential/commercial buffer zones and mixed-use. Mr. Beals discussed the new ADU process. Ms. Overton noted that the ADU would need to comply with the building code and fire code. Member M Dunn and Mr. Beals discussed corner stores and neighborhood centers. Ms. Overton noted that Council is discussing fifteen-minute communities. Vice Chair Rose commented on density and making the community walkable versus growing outside of our boundaries. He discussed density differences between old town and midtown. He commented on the challenges of utilizing and incentivizing current resources. He foresees historic districts from the 1950’s and 1960’s that will create different challenges. Ms. Overton discussed the recommendation process and the proposal procedure regarding Council. Public Input None Commission Deliberation Member Carlock moved that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval based on the following findings: the proposed changes will allow for an increase in overall housing capacity and housing affordability with continuing to allow for preservation of historic resources. Member W Dunn seconded the motion. 5-0 the motion passed. Member M Dunn and Ms. Overton discussed the staff’s presentation slides. [Timestamp: 8:16 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Bzdek acknowledged a new Commission Member, Jenna Edwards. Ms. Edwards introduced herself to the Commission. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 September 21, 2022 Mr. Bertolini discussed training sessions during Work Sessions. He solicited topics from the Commission. Vice Chair Rose noted the expertise of the Commission Members and offered their respective insights for future trainings or retreat topics. Member M Dunn noted that Historic Larimer County is offering a tour in Estes Park to view the Birch Ruins and the Stanley Home. She provided information on podcasts about interesting vernacular architecture. She also introduced a music video and played it for the Commission for their viewing and listening enjoyment. • ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 809 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. STAFF Yani Jones, 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. 809 W. Mountain Ave. Historical Background The property at 809 W. Mountain Ave. was built in 1905. The owner at the time was S.W. Sanford. Sanford built a frame barn on the property that same year. There is no detailed survey record for this property, but a 2016 architectural survey has been attached for reference. Construction History DATE PERMIT # NAME NOTES 12/27/1905 Newspaper S.W. Sanford 6 room frame cottage 12/27/1905 Newspaper S.W. Sanford Frame barn 11/14/1935 4114 Mollie Welch Repair garage - replace siding where it had burned from fire in garage next to it 12/16/1946 9596 George Jordan Garage; fence 11/14/1994 941344 Helen Fagenbush Reroof 12/9/2005 B0507189 Helen Fagenbush Reroof Residents (to 1975) (h indicates the owner was one of the residents in the house according to the directory) YEAR NAME NOTES 1906 S.W. Sanford (Laura) S.W. - carpenter Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 YEAR NAME NOTES 1907- 1911 Walter S. Thompson (Alma W.) Walter - music dealer 1908- 1909 same 1909- 1910 same 1910- 1911 same 1913- 1914 E.A. Riddle (Rosella) E.A. - retired farmer 1917 Floyd T. Mechlin (Rose) Floyd - dep County Assessor 1919 Robert S. Tate Gen sec YMCA 1922 Henry Bender (Annie) (h) 1925 Henry Bender (Margaret) (h) 1927 Henry Bender (Anna M.) (h) 1929 same 1931 Henry Bender (Kate) farmer (h) 1933 Richard Spinney filling station (h) 1934 same 1936 same 1938 Buford W. Hayden (Neva M.) (h) 1940 H.H. Hansen (ella) (h) 1948 George Jordan (Elizabeth) George - Mechanic Heckman Implt Co (h) 1950 Dwight S. Miller (Dorothy) Dwight - manager Miller Bros Truck Line (h) 1952 same 1954 vacant 1956 Morton H. Stephens (Elsie M.) Morton - abstracter Larimer Co Abstract Office (h) 1957 same 1959 Grady's Insurance Agency; Charles E. Grady (Lois M.) Charles - pres Grady's Insurance Agency Inc and custodian and supervisor at CSU; Lois - secretary and treasurer Grady's Insurance Agency; (h) 1960 same 1962 same 1963 same 1964 same Charles no longer listed w/ CSU assoc. 1966 Larry D. Morris (Patricia M.) Larry - carpenter A&W Building; Patricia - Secretary at Grady's Insurance (h) 1968 Lloyd R. Fagenbush (Helen) Lloyd - Building and trade maintenance CSU; Helen - Holiday Inn 1969 same Helen no longer listed w/ Holiday Inn 1970 same Lloyd - construction worker Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 YEAR NAME NOTES 1971 No info 1972 No info 1973 Helen C. and Lorraine Fagenbush 1975 same 809 W. Mountain Ave., 1948, Larimer County Assessor image 809 W. Mountain Ave., 1968, Larimer County Assessor image Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 809 W. Mountain Ave - Facade, from owner 809 W. Mountain Ave – East elevation, from owner Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 5 809 W. Mountain Ave – South/rear elevation, from owner 809 W. Mountain Ave – West elevation, from owner ATTACHMENTS 1. 2016 Survey Form OAHP Site #:5LR.8062 OAHP Form #1417 SHF 2016-M1-031, Survey of Loomis Addition COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Historical and Architectural Reconnaissance IDENTIFICATION 1. Property Name: UNKNOWN Historic Current Other 2. Resource Classification: X Building Structure Object Sites/Landscape 3. Ownership: Federal State local non-profit X private unknown LOCATION 4. Street Address: 809 W MOUNTAIN AVE 5. Municipality: FORT COLLINS Vicinity 6. County: LARIMER 9. Parcel #: 9711311003 Lot: 3 Block: 290 Addition: LOOMIS 12. Location Coordinates: Lat/Long: Latitude40.586634259500002 Longitude-105.09024293 X WGS84 DESCRIPTION 13. Construction features (forms, materials): Stories Style/Type Foundation Walls 1 Classic Cottage Stone Metal: aluminum Windows Roof Chimney Porch Singles, pairs, triples, 1- over-1 Hipped; Composition Roof Ridge, brick Partial, nipped-roof, enclosed Optional: additional description (plan/footprint, dimensions, character-defining and decorative elements of exterior and interior; alterations, additions, etc.): flared eaves, front hipped-roof dormer with flared eaves. 14. Landscape (important features of the immediate environment): Garden Mature Plantings Designed Landscape Walls Parking Lot Driveway Sidewalk Fence Seating Other: 14a. # of Ancillary buildings __1_ (Form 1417b attached for each ancillary building) Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Needs Data Eligible District - Contributing ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 OAHP Site #:5LR.8062 OAHP Form #1417 SHF 2016-M1-031, Survey of Loomis Addition HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS (based on visual observations and/or review of secondary sources): 15. Historic Function/Use: SINGLE DWELLING Current function/Use (if different): 16. Date of Construction:1905 Estimated X Actual Source: Building Records/Permits 17. Other Significant Dates, if any: 18. Associated Areas of Significance: Agriculture XArchitecture Archaeology Art Commerce Communications X Community Planning & Development Conservation Economics Education Engineering Entertainment/Recreation Ethnic Heritage Exploration/Settlement Health/Medicine Industry Invention Landscape Architecture Law Literature Maritime History Military Performing Arts Philosophy Politics/Gov’t Religion Science Social History Transportation Other 19. Associated Historic Context(s), if known: LOOMIS ADDITION HISTORIC CONTEXT (2015) 20. Retains Integrity of: X Location X Setting Materials Design Workmanship X Association Feeling 21. Notes on integrity: lacks integrity due to enclosed porch and replacement siding and windows 22. Sources: Loomis Addition Historic Context (2015); Fort Collins History Connection Website, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/; Larimer County Assessor Records FIELD ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Note: eligibility recommendation based solely on architectural reconnaissance except as noted above. Full evaluations of historical significance require additional property-specific research beyond the scope of this form and typically require completion of the OAHP Historical / Architectural Properties: Intensive Level / Evaluation form (OAHP form # 1403). Potentially Eligible – National Register Potentially Eligible –State Register Potentially Contributing – National Register District Potentially Individually Eligible – Fort Collins Landmark X Potentially Contributing – Fort Collins Landmark District Fort Collins Landmark Needs Data RECORDING INFORMATION Survey Date: May 17, 2016 Surveyed By: Mary Humstone Project Sponsor: City of Fort Collins/Historic Preservation Division Photograph Log: moun809.01.mh; moun809.03.mh ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 OAHP Site #:5LR.8062 OAHP Form #1417 SHF 2016-M1-031, Survey of Loomis Addition SKETCH PLAN based on 2014 GIS data, field checked from public ROW N ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 OAHP Site #:5LR.8062 OAHP Form #1417 SHF 2016-M1-031, Survey of Loomis Addition PHOTOGRAPHS 809 W. Mountain Ave., north façade and east elevation (Mary Humstone, May 2016) 809 W. Mountain Ave., north façade and west elevation (Mary Humstone, May 2016) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 OAHP Site #:5LR.8062 OAHP Form #1417 SHF 2016-M1-031, Survey of Loomis Addition USGS Fort Collins Quadrangle (NAD83; WGS84) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8062 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Historical and Architectural Reconnaissance: Ancillary IDENTIFICATION 1. Property Name: 809 W Mountain Ave Historic Current Other 2. Resource Classification: XBuilding Structure Object Sites/Landscape 3. Ancillary Identification: Garage DESCRIPTION 4. Construction Features (forms, materials): Stories Style/Type Foundation Walls 1 2-car garage Not visible Wood: horizontal siding Windows Roof Chimney Porch None visible Gabled roof; composition roof none none Optional: additional description (plan/footprint, dimensions, character-defining and decorative elements of exterior and interior; alterations, additions, etc.): HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS (based on visual observations and/or review of secondary sources): 5. Historic Function/Use: Garage Current Function/Use (if different): 6. Date of Construction: c. 1940 x Estimated Actual (include source): 7. Other Significant Dates, if any: 8. Associated NR Areas of Significance: Agriculture XArchitecture Archaeology Art Commerce Communications XCommunity Planning & Dev’t Conservation Economics Education Engineering Entertainment/Recreation Ethnic Heritage Exploration/Settlement Health/Medicine Industry Invention Landscape Architecture Law Literature Maritime History Military Performing Arts Philosophy Politics/Gov’t Religion Science Social History Transportation Other 9. Associated Historic Context(s), if known: LOOMIS ADDITION HISTORIC CONTEXT 10. Retains integrity of: X Location X Setting X Materials Design Workmanship X Association Feeling 11. Notes on integrity: overhead door detracts from integrity 12. Sources: Loomis Addition Historic Context (2015); Fort Collins History Connection Website, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/ Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Needs Data Eligible District - Contributing ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8062 FIELD ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Note: eligibility recommendation based solely on architectural reconnaissance except as noted above. Ancillary buildings are not eligible on their own, unless specifically noted. Potentially Eligible – NR Potentially Eligible –SR Potentially Contributing - NR district Potentially Individually Eligible – Fort Collins Landmark X Potentially Contributing – Fort Collins Landmark District Fort Collins Landmark Needs Data RECORDING INFORMATION Survey Date: May 17, 2016 Surveyed By: Mary Humstone Project Sponsor: City of Fort Collins/Historic Preservation Division Photograph Log: moun809a.01.mh 809 W. Mountain Ave., Garage, south and west elevations (Mary Humstone, May 2016) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 700 E. ELIZABETH ST. STAFF Yani Jones, 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. 700 E. Elizabeth St. Historical Background The property at 700 E. Elizabeth St. was built c. 1922. The owner at the time was Charles R. Jones, who was a CSU professor. The Jones family lived in the house until the 1940s. There is no detailed survey record for this property. The proposed demolition is not a total demolition, but it exceeds the 50% threshold for lost surface area, and so the single-family demolition notification process is required. Construction History DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 3/1/1933 3427 Charles R. Jones Reshingle front porch 6/23/1937 4831 C.R. Jones (prof CSU) Build 11x20 trailer shed on rear of present garage: comp roof, com/paint siding 7/24/1939 5855 C.R. Jones Reroofing 9/5/1952 13001 Ronald O. Roberts General remodeling of residence 9/9/1986 21102 Charles S. Hatchette One story frame garage 9/15/1987 27608 Charles S. Hatchette Reshingle roof 11/17/1992 923192 Charles S. Hatchette 288 sq. ft. greenhouse 3/26/2002 B0201145 Charles S. Hatchette Residential remodel - replace windows, remodel interior of 2nd floor, remodel of existing 2nd story balcony. Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 5/1/2002 B0202253 Charles S. Hatchette Reroof 5/29/2002 B0202594 Charles S. Hatchette New 520 sq. ft. detached garage 12/16/2008 B0806810 Asbestos survey and bulk sampling report 3/9/2009 B0806805 Charles S. Hatchette Remove existing deck and raise it to match floor level of house, add on to dining room 240 sq. ft., and add a 2-story addition with a wheelchair lift (elevator from first floor to second) of 55 sq. ft. Residents (to 1975) (h/o indicates the owner was one of the residents in the house according to the directory) YEAR 700 E Elizabeth NOTES 1922 Charles R. and Lena M.Jones/Paul L. Getchell Chas - Instructor at CAC (h)/student 1925 Charles R. and Lena M.Jones Chas - Associate prof CAC (h) 1927 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones Chas - Prof CAC (h) 1929 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones/Garrett H. Teeslkink Chas - Instructor CAC (h)/Student 1931-1933 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones Chas - Associate prof CAC (h) 1934-1940 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones Chas - Prof CAC (h) 1948 Ralph C. and Evelyn S. Bryant (o) Ralph - Prof forestry Colo A &M 1950 Thomas H. and Eva Evans (o) Thomas - Dean of Engineering at Colo A&M 1952 Ralph C. and Evelyn S. Bryant (o) Acting head of Forest Management Colo A&M 1954 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - purchasing agt. Colo A &M 1956 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - Purchasing agent Business Office Colo A&M and Board Member Zoning Board of Adjustment City of FC 1957-1959 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - Assistant business manager CSU 1960 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - Assistant Mayor City of FC and Assistant business manager CSU 1962 Charles G. Clark/Robert E. Friehauf/Roger C. Hedlung/Robert Herchenroeder/William Reynolds/Larry Smith CSU students (all) 1963 Vacant 1964-1966 Henry E. and Virginia S. Bredeck (o) Henry - Prof CSU 1968-1969 Richard O. and Carol Hayes (o) Rich - Biologist US Public Health 1970-1971 NL 1972 Refused Information 1973-1975 Richard O. Hayes Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 700 E. Elizabeth St., 1995 photo by Jonathan Held (Fort Collins History Connection) 700 E. Elizabeth St., 1995 photo by Jonathan Held (Fort Collins History Connection) ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Photos and Topographic Site Plan &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2_ (DVW/LQFROQZD\&KH\HQQH:<_ZZZ9)/$FRP '5$:,1*180%(5 352-(&7180%(5 6($/ ,1$662&,$7,21:,7+ 6WUHQJWKLQGHVLJQ6WUHQJWKLQSDUWQHUVKLS 6WUHQJWKLQFRPPXQLW\ 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621$5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256,1&7+,6'5$:,1*0$<127%(3+272*5$3+('6&$11('75$&('25 &23,(',1$1<0$11(5:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)9)/$ &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &23<5,*+7 6+((7,668$1&(6 '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 5(9,6,216 1R'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621 ;; .1;; 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 )2 5 5 ()(5 (1 &(2 1 /< A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R S 6758&785$/(1*,1((5 $0 $0& ?8VHUV?WD\ORU?'RFXPHQWV?((OL]DEHWK5HQRYDWLRQ:25.6+$5(BWD\ORU 8&UYW$% (;7(5,253+2726 (;,67,1* 7+((/,=$%(7+ 5(129$7,21 ($67(/,=$%(7+ )257&2//,16&2 '(02/,7,21127,),&$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21 (/(9$72572:(55($5%803287 6287+(/(9$7,21 (/(9$72572:(5 1257+(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21 1257+(/(9$7,21 5($5%803287 ($67(/(9$7,21 5($5%803287 )5217+$/)2)+286( ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 B MELECFOELECWCSCONTROLIRRCONTROLIRRCONTROLIRRELECELECELECELECXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUW EEEEEEEEEEFOFOFOFOGGGGG6.1'8.1'6.1'8.1'18.2'28.2'18.2'28.2'3.7'2.0'19.3'30.9'6.8'16.2'32.0'4.0'18.2'20.2'50.2'2.0'8.9'22.4'8.9'2.0'29.8'5.9'8.4'20.1'11.9'12.1'19.7'5.4'11.2'5.4'5.1'3.1'11.8'3.1'2.2' FF=4984.06 FF=4984.15 FF=4984.16 FF=4985.30 FF=4986.47 FF=4990.23 FF=4990.23 ENCLOSED PORCH WINDOW WELL HERB WINDOW 2 STORY WOOD & STONE W/BASEMENT COVERED ENTRANCE WOOD DECK WOOD DECK 1 STORY WOOD & STONE COVERED CAR PORT W/GARAGE DOOR 1 STORY WOOD & STONE FND #8 REBAR IN CONCRETE STOP "PEOPLE" STOP FLAGSTONESOAPSTONE WALK SOAPSTONE WALK SOAPSTONE FLAGSTONEFLAGSTONEFLAGSTONE WALKWOOD FENCE STONE SOAPSTONE LANDSCAPING LA N D S C A P I N G SOAPSTONE ASPHALT DRIVE WOOD FENCE STONE WALL STONE WALL ALLEYEAST ELIZABETH STREETSTOVER STREET BRICK STONE WOOD FENCE STONE GATE FOLIAGE FOLIAGE FOLIAGE FOLIAGE FOLIAGE EDGE OF LANDSCAPING EDGE OF LANDSCAPING EDGE OF LANDSCAPING FOLIAGE ELEVATOR FF=4987.0 SHED POND FEATURE CONIFEROUS SHRUBS CONIFEROUS SHRUBS FND #4 REBAR GATE S89°57'E 110.80'SOUTH 190.00'N89°57'W 110.80'NORTH 190.00' GATE COFC BM 7-00 ELEV=4989.03 FF=4990.23 CP 1 SCRIBED "X" ON TBC PC CP 4, 60d NAIL W/GREEN FLAGGING CP 2 SCRIBED "X" ON TBC CP 5 60d NAIL W/GREEN FLAGGING NORTH NOTICE:According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action basedupon any defect in this survey within three years after you discover suchdefect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this surveybe commenced more than ten years after the date of the certificate shownhereon.A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 21, Roy West's Subdivision of Block 188 and part of Block 198, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, Staate of Colorado NOTES: 1) This survey does not constitute a title search by Northern Engineering to determine ownership or easements of record. Property line shown for reference only per Plat of Roy West's Subdivision of Block 188 and part of Block 198. 2) Vertical Benchmark - City of Fort Collins BM 7-00, elevation = 4989.03 (NAVD 88) 3) The lineal unit of measure for this survey is U.S. Survey Feet. 118.218.2'18.228.2'28.228.2 18.218.2'18.228.2'28.228.2 3.73.7'3.72.0'2.02.0 19.319.3'19.330.930.9'30.96.8'6.86.8 16.216.2'16.232.0'32.032.04.04.0'4.018.2'18.218.2 20.220.2'20.250.2'50.250.2 FF=4984.06 FF=4984.15 FF=4984.16 FF=4985.30 FF=4986.47 1 STORY WOOD & STONE COVERED CAR PORT W/GARAGE DOOR 1 STORY WOODD & STONE STONE WALL OVE R CO TOR C VATO 7.02'22 EVA 987.01.211.1. 23 ELEV =4984441 EL FF=45.454'54FF555 555VERE 5.4.4'.4RED.11'13.1'3.1'3.1'11.8'11.811.8 3.13.1'3.1FF=4 2 STORY WOOD & STONE W/BASEMENT D ENENT 222 & NT 2.2'2.22.200'02'2220.20 120' FF CE222 5.1'5.15.1 NCE 555 RANNTRA 9'99 0.23 11.911.11. 990 1 =499FF=4FF 9.7'979719.191912.12.1'2.11212128.9'8.98.9 22.422.4'22.48.9'8.98.92.20229.8'29.829.8 ENCLOSED PORCH HERB WINDOW FF=4990.23 2.00'08.488 5.595.4'844 5.99'9=499990 H230.23 333888 111EXISTING RESIDENCE TO BE RENOVATED EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING TO REMAIN AS IT GATTNNEGATTE TT NNEE WWALLKSSOAAPSTPTONNEEWWALLK GGFF 4 11148 222800GGG555FF LL F=4 VV 498 ATT 87.0 OO 0 45.444'4ELLEVVATTOOR 448 333F9.7 5551'11 222 02'229997' COOVVVERREDD EENNNTRRANNCCCEOOVVERREDDEENNTRRANNCC111222111111111FFF=499900.223FFF 111 49 .9 990022 STONNE W/BAASEMMENTT FF 44 99 222 SSTOORRY WOOOD &FFF=449990 223 TOO BBBEEE RREENNNOOOVVVAAATTTEDTOOBBEERREENNOOVVAATTED EEEXEXXISXISSTSTTINTINNGNGG G REREESESSISIDDENENNCNCCECEEEEXESXTSNTGNGERSEISNCNECE222FFFF=44499990.2230.1HERRB WINDOOWW 2.9299 8'88 0WW OODD DECCWWOOODDDECCK 5.9.48 WWWW 111 888 ONSHHRUBBS3.1 818 3333RROCOOONIFEEROEE 8889999'999999 2222422POORCHH ENCLOOSEDD 8 9'99 WWW WWEELLLWWWWEELLL XPROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF NEW RESIDENCE AND FRONT PORCH ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING SEPTEMBER 8, 2022 TO OCTOBER 5, 2022) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Specific to project review, 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 September 8 to October 5, 2022. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting items and events from the previous month. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 Education & Outreach Activities Part of the mission of the Historic Preservation Services division is to educate the public about local, place- based history, historic preservation, and preservation best practices. Below are highlights from the last month in this area. Program Title Sponsor-Audience- Partner Description # of Attendees Date of Event/Activity RMHS Black & Latinx History PSD – Rocky Mountain HS Walking tour for HS-age We the People classes (2); focus on civic engagement 41 September 8, 2022 Hispanic Heritage Tour – Tres Colonias ENCORE Walking tour of Tres Colonias area for City of Fort Collins Employee Resource Group, ENCORE 10 September 16, 2022 Historic Preservation & Design Front Range Community College (Interior Design) Preservation introduction for interior design, construction, and engineering students 12 September 22, 2022 Hispanic Heritage Tour – Tres Colonias Natural Areas Walking tour of Tres Colonias area for City of Fort Collins Natural Areas 7 September 23, 2022 Black and Hispanic Heritage Walking Tour Neighborhood Services Walking tour of Washington Park & Holy Family areas for City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services 20 September 28, 2022 Hispanic Heritage Tour – Tres Colonias Poudre River Library District Open to the public; Walking tour of Tres Colonias area 25 October 1, 2022 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 237 West St. (Sondburg House, Garage, and Chicken Coop) Added porch railings. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved September 8, 2022 610 Whedbee St. (R.A. Ellis House) New garage, covered patio, and deck, including demo of existing garages. Contributing property to Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved September 8, 2022 125 S. Whitcomb St. (125 S. Whitcomb St.) Re-roofing. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved September 13, 2022 701 Mathews St. (Schroeder/McMurry Property) Basement egress window. City Landmark and contributing property in Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved September 15, 2022 608 Sheely Dr. (Arthur Sheely House) Re-roofing. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved September 16, 2022 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 328 Remington St. (First Baptist Church) Graffiti removal. City Landmark and contributing property in Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved September 29, 2022 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation N/A Historic Property Survey Results City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the reporting period for any historic survey for which the two-week appeal period has passed. Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized 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 cell/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. Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment Issued N/A Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 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. Within this period, staff processed a total of 15 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 6 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Staff Activity Report October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner & Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Education and Outreach Highlights 2 Hispanic Heritage Walking Tours – Tres Colonias (left photo taken in Sugar Beet Park; right photo taken at the Museo de las Tres Colonias) 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 220 REMINGTON ST. (BODE PROPERTY) – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVEIW STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition for the City Landmark at 220 Remington St., the Bode Property. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the HPC. APPLICANT/OWNER: Dr. Jenna Slootmaker (owner) Chris Aronson, VFLA (design professional/architect) RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed concept plans are generally consistent with US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff recommends that the Commission give consideration to the proposed addition roof, footprint, and exterior wall cladding in relation to Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. 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 consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). In this hearing, the Commission shall conduct a conceptual review of, and provide preliminary feedback regarding, sketches and other information about the proposed project as established in 14-54(a)(2)(a), based on the provided information from the 2014 Landmark nomination, the applicant’s design review application, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The intent of the conceptual review is to allow the applicant to finalize their project and commission construction drawings for the project in a manner consistent with the Standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Date of Landmark designation: October 6, 2014 • First constructed in c.1884 with subsequent additions that appear to have been in place by 1901. • Proposed work includes a rear addition of approximately 850 square feet, attached with passageways onto the north and east elevations. Demolition is expected to be minor and include widening window openings into passage/doorways. Portions of the rear north, and east elevations would be obscured and encapsulated by the proposed addition. The addition is proposed to accommodate expanded patient capacity for the dental practice operating out of the building. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The 2014 nomination provides the following description (amended): This small one-story vernacular masonry dwelling is situated on the east side of Remington Street, between Oak and Olive Streets. It is a modest-sized dwelling constructed of brick (painted over), which sits upon a stone foundation, now plastered over. The house is composed of several elements, Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 together creating an irregular floor plan. What appears to be the original portion of the house is cross gabled, or “T” shaped structure, composed of a side gabled front wing, with a perpendicular gabled wing extending behind the front wing. A large centered gable extends from the roof of the front portions of the house. The roofs of the cross-gabled portion of the house are moderately pitched and are clad with asphalt shingles. Overlapping “fish scale” shingles are applied to the face of the front (west facing) gable. The front entry is offset slightly to the right (south) and is covered by a distinctive and substantial gabled wooden canopy supported by massive milled wooden brackets, which must have been added in later years. The cross-gabled portion is symmetrically fenestrated with double hung, one-over-one windows with arched tops and wooden lug sills. Near each end of the front façade are two windows, each with a decorative lintel made of protruding brick header voussoirs which continue partially down the sides of the windows. Each side of the side-gabled front wing of the house is penetrated by similar arched windows without the elaborate protruding brick lintels. Two brick chimneys are found on the cross-gabled portion of the house, including one located at the intersection of the gables, and another on the peak of the end-gabled rear wing, towards the back of the house. A very old addition to the house is attached to its south side; this is a low, flat-roofed brick addition with a small parapet front wall on the west side which contains another entry. This second west entry is also topped with a gabled hood supported by massive wooden brackets. This wing is also equipped with arch topped, double-hung windows. A chimney exits the flat roof of this south addition. There are also two shed-roofed additions at the rear of the dwelling. One is a small shed-roofed utility space attached to the back of the original gabled wing, which is clad with vertical board and batten siding, and lacking doors or windows. Another, more substantial enclosed back porch addition is affixed at the rear of the flat-roofed brick south addition. This enclosed rear porch has a shed roof, and is clad with clapboard siding as well as numerous multi-pane windows. A wedge-shaped concrete basement stairwell extends east from this glazed rear porch, adjacent to the rear porch entry. The house appears to be in good condition (as of 1996). It has a tiny front yard which is landscaped with grass and hedges. It has no back yard, and the area behind this house is asphalt paved. SIGNIFICANCE: From the 2014 Landmark nomination: This intact and unmodified early twentieth century dwelling is locally significant as a noteworthy example of modest working class Vernacular Masonry architecture in Fort Collins. If its original date of 1884 is correct, it is one of the declining numbers of very early Fort Collins homes still extant. Its modifications appear to pre-date 1901 and are themselves significant components of the house, reflecting early architectural practices to enhance the utility of small dwellings… it is representative of early residential development on the east side of College Avenue and is one of several historic homes on the same block. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property to date include: • 1895 – notation on Sanborn Map indicates 1-room brick business at this location • 1901 – Sanborn Map shows home in its current configuration • 1926 – remodel; new roof, paper, and painting • 1930 – remove and rebuild portion of south brick wall & other repairs • 1939 – remodel porches; reflooring • 1941 - remodeling • 1943 – reroof garage (now demolished); remodel basement of house • 1945 – composition shingles • 1948 – remodel basement; extend garage • 2005 – reroof • 2014 – remodel/change of use to dental office Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 220 Remington, outlined in red, close to current condition (1901 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map; Library of Congress). HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: This property has undergone Design Review on past occasions: - 2015 – design review for restoration & rehabilitation project; included removal of small frame room added on northeast corner due to poor condition (revealed the existing historic wood window); full restoration of doors and windows. - 2021 – screens for windows added HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: - 2015 – State Historic Tax Credit and Landmark Loan (Loan Award for $7,466) - 2022 – Design Assistance grant for $2,000 to support concept sketches for this addition proposal o Note: based on the initial design, the owner elected to engage a design professional to refine and modify the original DAP-funded plan which did not accommodate all of the business needs listed by the owner. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for a proposed rear addition, including approximately 850 square feet to allow for expanded patient service and employee space for the expanding dental practice in the building. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • N/A PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: [be sure to provide direction about the most salient Standards to help direct discussion] Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The property is retaining its compatible new use as a professional/medical office. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The overall character of the property is as a late-nineteenth century, Victorian-era cottage with elements of Italianate architecture incorporated, including the windows. The small house has several additions with flat/semi-flat roofs mad to its rear and south side over time to accommodate previous use as a residence and office. Elements of the property that will be altered, obscured, or removed by the addition are on the rear of the property. It seems reasonable to classify the mud porch as not a character-defining feature in keeping with other architecturally significant Landmarks throughout the City. Compliance with this Standard could be improved by considering a flat roof for the rear addition and considering if the north wall plane of the addition could be shifted to flush with the historic front/west portion (although the hyphen between the two helps somewhat with this). TBD SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken . The addition seems to be differentiated primarily through siding and window patterns, namely proposals for either wood lap siding (likely engineered wood) or corrugated metal siding, as well as windows with contemporary glazing patterns. Staff would recommend the use of lapboard as opposed to metal – in the time period from which this TBD Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 building dates (late 1800s), corrugated metal was generally used in an industrial or agricultural context, and not in a suburban residential context and seems anachronistic. SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The mudroom that is proposed to be almost completely encapsulated as part of this addition. Staff would consider the mudroom not a character-defining feature of the property but encourages discussion on that point in the context of this property’s architectural significance. TBD SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Character-defining features of this property are predominantly on the front and north & south sides of the building. Those include the cross- gabled roof form, the tall, narrow two-over-two wood windows with segmented masonry hoods and sills, the brick masonry siding, and the decorative shingling in the gable ends. Historic materials would be removed, obscured, or encapsulated as part of this project, including portions of the brick, the frame mudporch on the rear, and one historic window on the north elevation that will be widened into passageway. A portion of the north wall of the mudporch will be removed as well for a passageway. Staff’s initial assessment is that this Standard appears to be met but encourages discussion regarding the differences in wall plane between the historic house and the proposed addition. TBD SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. N/A SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. It is unlikely that excavation for the proposed addition will reveal archaeological resources, especially based on the limited excavation proposed at depth, but the applicant/owner should note this requirement. Y SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. This Standard calls for additions to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate to the historic building. Staff initial assessment of the concept is as follows: TBD Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 - Compatibility – The addition appears to meet this component, being proposed in a gable and shed with slopes similar to existing. The proposed lap siding to clad the addition would be most appropriate in remaining compatible with the overall historic character of the property as a late-19th century Victorian residence. Staff encourages the HPC to consider whether the change in wall plane, and the visibility of the addition from the northwest are problematic under this component and/or if the setback on the addition (which presents similar to a hyphen) is sufficient treatment. - Distinguishability – The use of wood siding (real or engineered) would be a reasonable differentiation in terms of wall cladding, along with the more modern window configurations. Staff encourages discussion on whether the currently shown gable, or an alternative with a flat roof, would be more appropriate. - Subordinate – the addition is located on the rear of the property, which is always recommended. It is also generally recommended that the visibility of the addition be reduced as much as possible. The overall roof height scores well under this component. Staff would encourage discussion on this point, specifically whether a flat roof would help reduce the massing of the addition, especially considering the larger size, and whether the pseudo- hyphen between the addition and the main historic house is sufficient to offset that. Since visibility of additions is a significant concern under this component, staff encourages discussion on whether the setback/hyphen between the addition and the historic house is sufficient to maintain a subordinate relationship between the addition and the historic house. Staff’s initial assessment is that the setback is sufficient, but would suggest that some reduction in massing/height may assist in that regard to avoid the need to push the addition farther back. Pushing the north wall of the addition farther south seems to be infeasible based on minimum dimensions needed for some of the facilities proposed in the addition. SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The proposed addition appears to be mostly reversible, with limited demolition to create two passageways in between the addition and the historic house. Y INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY City staff engaged CityVisions (Chris Koziol) under the Design Assistance Program to provide an initial concept design and floorplan to the applicant as a recommendation on how to accommodate the expanded facilities and meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. That DAP report has been attached to this report (see Attachment #2). Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 7 FINDINGS OF FACT: Because the request is for conceptual review of the proposed addition, staff has not provided findings of fact. As noted in the Standards analysis above, the project is generally consistent with the Standards but there are several points that require discussion and feedback to the applicant to improve plans before final review. RECOMMENDATION: Because the request is for a conceptual review, staff does not have a formal recommendation at this time but is generally supportive of the concept design, assuming adequate discussion and feedback on the noted items above. Those discussion points include the roof type on the addition, its overall footprint and siding, etc. Discussion should be based on the Standards for Rehabilitation and the accompanying guidelines, including National Park Service Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions to Historic Houses (also available online, HERE). SAMPLE MOTIONS Upon receiving a request for a conceptual review, if the Commission finds that sufficient information is provided at the time of conceptual review to fully evaluate the project, and that no further substantive review is necessary, the Commission may elect to proceed to final review. In that event, the following sample motion has been provided. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work for the Bode Property at 220 Remington St. and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, the Bode Property at 220 Remington St. 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 Bode Property at 220 Remington St. 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.] 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 the Bode Property at 220 Remington St. as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, provided the following conditions are met: Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 8 [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 the Bode Property at 220 Remington St. 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.] 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. Design Review Application Form 2. 2022 Design Assistance product from CityVisions 3. 2014 Landmark Nomination Form 4. SOI Standards for Rehabilitation 5. National Park Service Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions to Historic Houses (also available online, HERE) 6. Staff Presentation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 COVER PAGE SLOOTMAKER FAMILY DENTAL - ADDITION 09.26.22 419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMITTEE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PACKET ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 EXISTING PHOTOS SLOOTMAKER FAMILY DENTAL - ADDITION 09.26.22 419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comREMINGTON STREETSITE OAK STRE E T REMINGTON ST. (WEST) ELEVATION ALLEY/EAST ELEVATION AERIAL OF NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 EXISTING PHOTOS SLOOTMAKER FAMILY DENTAL - ADDITION 09.26.22 419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com REMINGTON ST. (WEST) ELEVATION ALLEY/EAST ELEVATION ALLEY/EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATIONNORTHWEST CORNER ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 HISTORIC IMAGES AND INFORMATION SLOOTMAKER FAMILY DENTAL - ADDITION 09.26.22 419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com 220 REMINGTON STREET - "BODE PROPERTY" 1884: ORIGINALLY BUILT 1901: RENOVATION/ADDITION 2014: FORT COLLINS DESIGNATED PROPERTY 2015: RENOVATED TO DENTAL OFFICE 2021: PURCHASED BY DR. SLOOTMAKER 1,255 SF: CURRENT SF OF BUILDING 850 SF: PROPOSED ADDITION ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 FLOOR PLAN CONCEPT SLOOTMAKER FAMILY DENTAL - RENOVATION 09.20.22 419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com ADDITION: 850 SFEXISTING: 1,255 SF REMOVE EXISTING WALLS ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 EAST ELEVATION CONCEPT SLOOTMAKER FAMILY DENTAL - RENOVATION 09.26.22 419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com EXISTING ELEVATION LAP SIDING - OPTION LIGHTING EXISTING ELEVATION CONTEMPORARY DETAILING WHITE CORRUGATED METAL SIDING VINE WALL CORRUGATED METAL OR LAP SIDING LIGHTING VINE WALL 9'-0" 11'-0" 10'-6" 15'-0" EXISTING OFFICE PROPOSED ADDITION ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SLOOTMAKER FAMILY DENTAL - RENOVATION 09.26.22 419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com EXISTING WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING STRUCTURE LAP SIDING - OPTION WHITE CORRUGATED METAL SIDING ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Strength in design.Strength in partnership.Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Ŷ Fort Collins, CO Ŷ 970.224.1191 108 East Lincolnway Ŷ Cheyenne, WY Ŷ 307.635.5710 www.vfla.com Slootmaker Family Dental - Addition 220 Remington Street (Bode Residence) 9/26/22 Project Description The project consists of constructing an 850 sf addition to an existing 1,255 sf dental office. The dental office is located in a locally recognized historic home/structure. It was designated in 2014. It¶s known as the Bode Residence and originally built in 1884 with an addition in 1901. The building was fully renovated into a dental office in 2015 by the previous owner. The client¶s goal is to add one exam room, lab, sterilization room, staff break room and stair to the basement. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The 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. Response: The structure has been previously modified to a commercial business acting as a general dental office. 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. Response: The client¶s goal with the addition is to maintain the historic character of the original structure. Minimal work will be done to the existing structure with this project. 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. Response: Noted. The addition wants to be compatible however be recognized and visible as a new addition and be of this current time period. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Response: Noted. The original structure will be minimally modified. Existing openings will be utilized for interior connection points to the addition. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Response: Noted. The original structure is in good shape and will remain as is with the proposed addition. 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, ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 970.224.1191 108 East Lincolnway Cheyenne, WY 307.635.5710 www.vfla.com and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Response: Noted. The original structure is in good shape and minor updates might be made to improve the quality of the finish product. 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. Response: Noted. None of this is planned for the existing structure. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Response: Noted. None is planned for this project. 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. Response: The proposed addition is strategically located to minimally affect the original structure. The goal of the addition is to be different yet compatible with the original structure. 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. Response: The addition is strategically located that it can be removed/demolished in the future and the integrity of the existing home would remain. Small areas of the façade will require cleaning where the addition would be removed. End of Responses. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 DMC WALL SERIES TESTING 7⁄8" Corrugated; • ASTM E 1592 – 24 Ga. Steel – .032 Aluminum • ASTM E- 283- 04 • ASTM E 331-00 • ASTM E 1680-05 • ASTM E 1646-95 PRODUCT FEATURES • 35-year non-prorated finish warranty • Matching screws and rivets • Closure strips available • Precut short lengths (5'-0" minimum) • Panel lengths up to 30' on steel and 22' on aluminum MATERIAL COLOR OPTIONS • 43 stocked colors (24 gauge steel) • 16 stocked colors (22 gauge steel) • 36 stocked colors (.032 aluminum) • 22 stocked colors (.040 aluminum) • 29 stocked colors (.050 aluminum) • Drexlume ™ available MATERIAL SUBSTRATES • .032 aluminum • .040 aluminum • .050 aluminum • 24 gauge steel • 22 gauge steel • Drexlume SPECS • 39.75" Wide, 7⁄8" High • 44.5" Wide, ½" High ©2021 Drexel Metals, Inc. All rights reserved. Drexlume is a trademark of Drexel Metals, Inc. Warranty statements mentioned are outlines: complete Limited Warranty information is available on request. No other warranty expressed or implied is applicable. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: 1234 GARDINER LANE, LOUISVILLE, KY 40213 | 888-321-9630 TOLL-FREE | 502-690-6174 FAX | DREXELMETALS.COM 04.16.21 DM-12591 - “DMC Wall Series - ½" & 7⁄8" Corrugated Panel Technical Data Sheet” 7/8" CORRUGATED 44.5" 2.667"1/2" 42.67" COVERAGE WITH 1 LAPPED RIB FOR SIDING 40" COVERAGE WITH 2 LAPPED RIBS FOR ROOFING 39.75" 2.667" 7/8" 37.33" COVERAGE WITH 1 LAPPED RIB FOR SIDING 34.67" COVERAGE WITH 2 LAPPED RIBS FOR ROOFING 1/2" CORRUGATED ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 City of Fort Collins Design Assistance Program report for the “Bode Property”, 220 Remington Street Fort Collins, CO Known historically as “the Bode Property”, 220 S. Remington is a City of Fort Collins designated Individual Landmark Property. As such, any significant physical modifications to the structure are subject to City review. The current owner’s desire to add onto the property to accommodate her growing dental practice prompted this conceptual design investigation. Upon meeting with City staff (Jim Bertolini) and the owner (Jenna Slootmaker) I reviewed the owner’s Design Assistance Program Application with proposed addition sketches; and previous Landmark documentation, i.e., Fort Collins Landmark Designation (2014), and Colorado Historical Society Historic Building Inventory (1996). Upon archival review and onsite investigation including measurement and photography, I attempted to determine whether an addition conforming to the owner’s programmatic wishes was possible within the City’s adoption of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. I conclude that such an addition is possible if added to the northeast corner of the extant building, and the height and material character of such addition do not unduly obscure the exterior integrity of the Bode Property. The following analysis, conceptual sketches, and summary support this conclusion. This report supports the argument that such an addition is feasible within current guidelines and standards, but it does not provide a specific documentation for such an addition. The owner would need to procure such design services to proceed further on this project. Respectfully, Christopher Koziol, Ph.D. City Visions, Inc. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Existing conditions and proposed addition Since the designation of this property in 2014 it has been well-maintained. However, the immediate surrounds continue to be a contextual challenge to the historic character of this building. The rear half of the lot has long been substantially modified and is currently a multi-property parking area, affording little evidence of previous “backyards.” The historic house to the north is presumably significant as a structure dating to the period of residential significance of this block face of Remington but is currently derelict. The property to the immediate south is a modern commercial building with detailing and form suggestive of the former residential character of the block but is much larger in scale. 1 Northwest aspect of the Bode Property 2 Google Earth aerial image of site from the northwest ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Based on previous surveys and the Landmark Designation, the formal and material significance of this house is most apparent on its west and south facades and the northwest corner (from where the original t-shaped cross-gable is apparent). Hence an addition centered on the northeast corner of the building is the most respectful and least intrusive. Figure 3 Southwest aspect of Bode Property 4 Model of proposed addition from the southwest By inserting an addition to the northeast that reflects the very low pitched (nearly flat) historic (extant in 1901) southern addition and respects the existing height of the parapet walls of this addition (about 11’ – 8” above grade) all prominent views of the building can be maintained. Additionally, a sensitive addition that is largely designed to “wrap” the northeast corner without extensive demolition of existing exterior walls maintains the material integrity of the landmark building. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 5 View from northwest 6 Model of proposed addition from the northwest ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 7 Aerial of the model from the northwest ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 8 View from northeast 9 Model aerial view from northeast ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 10 Google Earth comparison against model Programmatic Goals The property owner is attempting to add several functional spaces to the property for her dental practice. 1. Break Room – This part of the addition is to accommodate staff. It may include a counter, refrigeration, table, and lockers. 2. Lab – This small area will accommodate, counter space, storage and equipment required in a dental practice. It is immediately north of the current lab location in the existing structure. A window in the existing in the existing brick wall will need to be removed and enlarged to provide a doorway into the addition. 3. Operatory 4 – This addition provides an additional needed patient room. An existing window in the original brick exterior will be maintained as a “borrowed light” element. 4. Basement Stair – There is an existing external stair to the basement covered by a “storm hatch”. The programmatic goal of its replacement is to provide indoor access to the basement. This requires the replacement and reorientation of the existing stair, as well as additional enclosure over the new stair (as an extension to the east of the current shed porch.) Note: The owner may choose to retain the existing hatch entry to the basement, eliminating the need for an extension of the existing shed roof to the east. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 11 Owner's preliminary programmatic goals ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 12 Conceptual plan of Bode property addition <- N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 13 Location and setbacks of addition ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 220 Remington Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Legal Description: LOT4. A PORTION OF TRACT ONE. OAKPARK P.U.D. SITUATE IN THE SOUIHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER. STATE OF COLORADO, WHICH,CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT ONE AS BEARING NOO°OO'OO"E AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO, IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT ONE WHICH BEARS SOO°OO'OO"E 196.18 FEET FROM NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT ONE AND RUN THENCE N9OCOO'OO"E 140.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT ONE; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOO°OO'OO"E 53.82 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT ONE; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT ONE, N90°00'00'W 140.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT ONE; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT ONE, N00°00'00''E 53.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING Property Name (historic and/or common): The Bode Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Colleen Scholz Email: colleen7@frii.com Phone: 970-420-1027 Address: 525 N Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Cristina Maguire, Historic Preservation Intern Address: P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.41 6.2740 970.22 4.6134- fax fcgov.c om ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 2 Phone: 970-416-2283 DATE: 08/27/2014 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 3 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. SIGNIFICANCE Properties are eligible for designation if they possess significance, which is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: 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. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 4 EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess exterior integrity, which is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Standard A: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Standard B: Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Standard C: 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. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Standard E: 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. Standard F: Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Standard G: 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. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 5 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY (Please describe why the property is significant, relative to the Standard(s) above, and how it possesses exterior integrity.) Per Colorado Historical Society Report, 1996: This intact and unmodified early twentieth century dwelling is locally significant as a noteworthy example of modest working class Vernacular Masonry architecture in Fort Collins. If its original date of 1884 is correct, it is one of the declining numbers of very early Fort Collins homes still extant. Its modifications appear to pre-date 1901 and are themselves significant components of the house, reflecting early architectural practices to enhance the utility of small dwellings. No evidence was found to indicate important associations with historic events, patterns of events, or important people. Its architectural importance is insufficient to qualify the property as individual eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places or for Local Landmark designation. However, it is representative of early residential development on the east side of College Avenue and is one of several historic homes on the same block; it would therefore qualify as a contributing element of a National Register or locally designated historic residential district including the 200 block of Remington Street. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 6 HISTORICAL INFORMATION (Please include city directory research and/or a title search if the property is important for its association with a significant person.) Originally constructed in about 1884, this small dwelling appears to have served as modest working class housing for a succession of tenants throughout the twentieth century.1 Its original owner and early (late-nineteenth century) history is obscure. The earliest documented residents were Theodore and Elizabeth Bode, who occupied the dwelling in 1902.2 By 1908 H.A. and Edna Benning lived at 220 Remington; H.A. Benning was a foreman for the Great Western Sugar Company.3 In 1909, Arthur J. and Louise Whistleman had taken up residence in the dwelling. Mr. Whistleman was a bookkeeper for the Commercial Bank and Trust Company on North College Avenue.4 One of the longer spans of occupancy was from about 1911 to 1919, when Benjamin F. and Cora Replodge resided here.5 In the 1920’s the house was lived in by Merle G. and Bernice Wrigley (1922), followed by Charles and Zella Crabill and W. E. Hurdle (1925).6 In 1927 it was used for a podiatric business called Corrective Foot Fitters (Margaret Beeman and John Sendel), but by 1929 a widow, Alta Hildebrandt, was listed as its occupant.7 In the 1930’s, the small house was home to Harry C. and Katherine Eaton (1931–1938).8 By 1940 Forest and Bernice Kennedy had moved in, and the Kennedy family remained here at least until 1968.9 Throughout the 1990s and 2000s the house was rented to a series of short term tenants, including several Colorado State University students.10 In July 2014, Colleen Scholz purchased the property from Edward K. Russell.11 Scholz now requests the property be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. 1220 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, Larimer County Assessor Property Information, accessed August 28, 2014, http://www.larimer.org/assessor/query/Detail.cfm?PropertyTypeVar=Residential&BuildingIDVar=1&NumVar=R1655900&direct=1. 2 Fort Collins City Directory, 1902, 41. 3 Fort Collins City Directory, 1908, 19. 4 Fort Collins City Directory, 1909–10, 154. 5 Fort Collins City Directory, 1910–11, 94; Larimer County Directory, 1913–14, 75; Larimer County Directory, 1917, 142; Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1919, 168. 6 Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1922, 146; Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1925, 53. 7 Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1927, 60, 216; Fort Collins City Directory, 1929, 227. 8 Fort Collins City Directory, 1931, 65, 204; Fort Collins City Directory, 1933, 54; Fort Collins City Directory, 1938, 55. 9 Fort Collins City Directory, 1940, 59; Fort Collins City Directory, 1964, 303. 10 Historic Building Inventory of 220 Remington Street, Fort Collins, March 31, 1996, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historic Society on file at Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. 11 Edward K Russell, Special Warranty Deed, to Colleen Scholz, July 29, 2014, Larimer County Public Search, accessed August 28, 2014, http://www.larimer.org/clerk/search/showdetails.aspx?CFN=20140041755&MultiLimitField=SendToAppraiser. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 7 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: estimate-1884 Architect/Builder: unknown Building Materials: stone, brick with wood frame enclosed rear porch Architectural Style: vernacular masonry Description: (Please include any special features of the property/surroundings, as well as dates and descriptions of any additions or alterations to the buildings or structures.) Per Colorado Historical Society Report, 1996: This small one-story vernacular masonry dwelling is situated on the east side of Remington Street, between Oak and Olive Streets. It is a modest-sized dwelling constructed of brick (painted over), which sits upon a stone foundation, now plastered over. The house is composed of several elements, together creating an irregular floor plan. What appears to be the original portion of the house is cross gabled, or “T” shaped structure, composed of a side gabled front wing, with a perpendicular gabled wing extending behind the front wing. A large centered gable extends from the roof of the front portions of the house. The roofs of the cross-gabled portion of the house are moderately pitched and are clad with asphalt shingles. Overlapping “fish scale” shingles are applied to the face of the front (west facing) gable. The front entry is offset slightly to the right (south) and is covered by a distinctive and substantial gabled wooden canopy supported by massive milled wooden brackets, which must have been added in later years. The cross-gabled portion is symmetrically fenestrated with double hung, one-over-one windows with arched tops and wooden lug sills. Near each end of the front façade are two windows, each with a decorative lintel made of protruding brick header voussoirs which continue partially down the sides of the windows. Each side of the side-gabled front wing of the house is penetrated by similar arched windows without the elaborate protruding brick lintels. Two brick chimneys are found on the cross-gabled portion of the house, including one located at the intersection of the gables, and another on the peak of the end-gabled rear wing, towards the back of the house. A very old addition to the house is attached to its south side; this is a low, flat-roofed brick addition with a small parapet front wall on the west side which contains another entry. This second west entry is also topped with a gabled hood supported by massive wooden brackets. This wing is also equipped with arch topped, double-hung windows. A chimney exits the flat roof of this south addition. There are also two shed-roofed additions at the rear of the dwelling. One is a small shed-roofed utility space attached to the back of the original gabled wing, which is clad with vertical board and batten siding, and lackin g doors or windows. Another, more substantial enclosed back porch addition is affixed at the rear of the flat-roofed brick south addition. This enclosed rear porch has a shed roof, and is clad with clapboard siding as well as numerous multi-pane windows. A wedge- shaped concrete basement stairwell extends east from this glazed rear porch, adjacent to the rear porch entry. The house appears to be in good condition (as of 1996). It has a tiny front yard which is landscaped with grass and hedges. It has no back yard, and the area behind this house is asphalt paved. This small house was reportedly constructed in 1884, and the architecture of the “T” shaped portion of the house is consistent with this early date. Sanborn map coverage of this area of Fort Collins was not available until 1901, and by that time the house appears to have the same configuration as at present. Thus, it appears that all the additions on this house are pre-1901 (although some materials replacement may have occurred over ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 8 time). Building permits on record for the 1920-1950 period reveal that the dwelling was remodeled around October 1926 (Permit No.1549), and that is July of 1939 another permit (No.5852) was issued for remodeling of porches and re-flooring. The house was improved repeatedly in the 1940’s. It was remodeled in 1941 (Permit No.655), and in 1943 a permit (No.7277) was issued for basement remodeling and re-roofing of the garage (no longer extant). Composition shingle roofing was applied in 1943, and in 1948 a permit (No.10891) was issued for additional basement remodeling and extension of the garage. Most of these improvements were internal, and the house appears to have retained most, if not all, of its 1901 configuration. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Revised 08-2014 Page 9 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Colorado Historical Society, Historic Building Inventory, 1996 completed by Jason Marmor Citing: Fort Collins city directories, 1902-1995; Sanborn fire insurance maps, 1886-1925; bound Record of Building Permits 1920-1950; Christian J. Schoeman, Survey of Historic Structures Located Within the Fort Collins Downtown Development Area, 1983. Larimer County Assessor’s Records ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 10, 2014 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Bode Property at 220 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Colleen Scholz, Property Owner BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Bode Property located at 220 Remington Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C. The property at 220 Remington Street is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C for embodying distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period. Specifically, this intact and unmodified early twentieth century dwelling is locally significant as a noteworthy example of modest working class Vernacular Masonry architecture in Fort Collins. If its original date of 1884 is correct, it is one of the declining numbers of very early Fort Collins homes still extant. Its modifications appear to pre-date 1901 and are themselves significant components of the house, reflecting early architectural practices to enhance the utility of small dwellings. No evidence was found to indicate important associations with historic events, patterns of events, or important people. Its architectural importance is insufficient to qualify the property as individual eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places or for Local Landmark designation. However, it is representative of early residential development on the east side of College Avenue and is one of several historic homes on the same block Staff Analysis: Staff finds that the Bode Property qualifies for Landmark designation under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C. If the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the property is eligible under this standard, then the Commission may pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Bode Property as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under Designation Standard C. Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 Planning, Development & Transportation ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 220 Remington Street, Fort Collins Landmark Designation Western Elevation (Entrance of House) Western Elevation with Neighboring Properties ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Eastern and Northern Elevations Northern and Western Elevations ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Eastern Elevation (Rear of House) Eastern and Southern Elevations ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Southern Elevation Southern Elevation ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Re ha bil i ta tion REAR ADDITIONS ITS NUMBER 37 Issue: Whenever possible, new additions should be con- structed on rear elevations where they will have less of an impact on the building’s historic integrity. Rear additions—like all new additions—should be subordinate to the original build- ing in size, scale, and massing, as well as design. Additions that feature a higher roofl ine, that extend beyond the side of the building, or that have a signifi cantly 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 1 states that “A property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defi ning 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 identifi ed. Rear additions that meet the Standards are compatible in de- sign, yet diff erentiated from the old building, often through a process of simplifi cation. 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 diff erent clapboards, one-over-one double-hung sash, and a less detailed cornice. New materials need not match exactly the historic materials but should be appropriate to the building type, compatible with existing materials, and unobtrusive in appearance. Rear additions that do not require signifi cant removal of exist- ing materials may help retain the house’s historic appearance and 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 than constructing ramps on a more prominent elevation. Top and Above: This historic house had been altered numerous times in the past--including multiple additions to the rear of the building. Application 1 (Incompatible treatment): This modest resi- dence began as a two-story log house. Later, the main portion of the house was converted into a distinctive Bungalow-style residence. Over time, multiple additions were also made along the natural grade at the rear of the house. Prior to rehabilita- tion, these later additions were quite deteriorated. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services Subject: Rear Additions to Historic Houses Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible New Additions / Alterations 10. Reversibility of New Additions / Alterations ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting de ter mi na tions, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not nec es sar i ly ap pli ca ble beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Chad Randl, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service June 2006, ITS Number 37 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 roofl ines of the new addition were appropriate to the building’s historic character. Yet this was not suffi cient to overcome the eff ect of an addition substantially more massive than the additions that were demolished. With two full fl oors, a footprint that was much deeper than the previous additions, a new deck extending from the rear and side elevations, and signifi cant grade changes at the rear, this work competes for attention with the historic structure to which it is attached and has seriously impacted the property’s historic character. The size of this new rear addition—incorporating two fl oors and an ex- tended depth--combined with substantial changes to the site overwhelm the modest historic house. Right: The house prior to rehabilitation. Below right: Drawing of proposed rear addition and hyphen, show- ing how the new construction was subordinate in size to the historic house. Below left: New addition and connecting hyphen. The new materials and fenestration complement, yet are distinct from, the historic house. Application 2 (Compatible treatment): This large brick house was converted for use as offi ces. As part of the rehabilitation a new addition was constructed at the rear of the house. With a brick ground fl oor and a clapboard upper level set beneath a roofl ine 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 roofl ine 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. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 220 Remington St. – Rear Addition Landmark Conceptual Review October 19, 2022 Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner 2Location Map – 220 Remington St. – Bode Property 1901 Sanborn Map 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 3Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed addition and new structure •Do the project concepts meet the Standards? •Where could improvements be made for final review? •If elements are inconsistent with the Standards, how can they be corrected? • Provide informative feedback for owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • If project information is sufficient and Commission is confident it meets the Standards, can proceed to final review in this meeting. Property Background • City Landmark • Bode Property, designated October 7, 2014 •Standard 3 •Early Victorian/downtown residential architecture •Period of Significance undefined (1880s) 4 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Rear (east) addition proposed for expanded operating and employee space, 850 sq. ft. 5 Proposed Project – 6Floorplan - Proposed 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 7Rear Elevation - Proposed 8Materials Proposed 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 9Exterior Model – Rear Addition Staff Analysis Project is generally consistent with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Appears to be: • Compatible • Distinguishable • Generally reversible (related to character-defining features) • Subordinate Staff encourages discussion regarding: - North wall plane of addition - Use of siding on the addition - Roof form on the addition 10 2014 Photo – note small shed-roof addition that has since been removed 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 11Applicant Responses to Work Session Questions Content Pending 12Suggested Discussion Questions • Is the addition adequately differentiated from the historic house? (especially related to rooflines) •Does the north wall plane of the addition pose an issue related to compatibility and/or subordination and how visibility of the addition plays into those two factors? • Does the gable roof form of the addition sufficiently differentiate it from the historic residence? • Are there recommendations on the addition’s siding in relation to the historic residence’s character-defining features? • What feedback do you have regarding the materials proposed for this project? • Do you have any design concerns for the proposed garage/studio? 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 13Role of the HPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed addition •Do the project concepts meet the Standards? •Where could improvements be made for final review? •If elements are inconsistent with the Standards, how can they be corrected? • Provide informative feedback for owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • If project information is sufficient and Commission is confident it meets the Standards, can proceed to final review in this meeting. 220 Remington St. – Rear Addition Landmark Conceptual Review October 19, 2022 Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 825 N. COLLEGE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination for the commercial property at 825 North College Avenue as an “historic resource” under Land Use Code 3.4.7. On September 7, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property meets the requirements to be considered an “historic resource” under the City’s Land Use code based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, historic resources (properties that meet the City’s standards to qualify as a City Landmark) are subject to the project approval requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Grem Armstrong, GARA LLC (Property Owner) HPC’S ROLE: Section 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code establishes that “any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City.” In this hearing, the Commission shall consider an appeal of the determination of eligibility for 825 N. College Avenue, based on the provided evidence from the initial determination (Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory 1403 form) and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks in Section 14-22 of the municipal code to make its own determination. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Section 14-9). BACKGROUND The three buildings now addressed as 825 North College Avenue were built over the course of the 1920s and 1930s by Henry Michael “Mike” Kraxberer and his spouse, Jane. Historically, the filling & service station was addressed at 825, having replaced a residence formerly on that site. The residence that survives, built in 1931, was historically addressed at 829 N. College. The construction history is as follows: - 1925 – filling station at 829 N. College constructed Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 2 - 1931 – residence (Building B; 829 N. College) constructed; 825 N College used to be a residence as well, presumably constructed around the same time. (corrected from 1922 via Coloradoan article from July 12, 1931). - 1933 – improvements made to service station, likely meaning the construction of Building C (the spare garage, without the rear addition) - 1937 –Building A, the main service station, is constructed. When first built, it has Mission Revival styling, including a curved, centered pediment on the façade and pilasters with decorative caps at the corners. The house at 825 N. College was demolished to construct this building. o Based on city directory records from 1938, house at 825 was demolished in this year and the new service station built. - 1950 – primary service station opens for business as a Standard Oil Station - 1956 (circa) – by this year, the large addition onto the garage (Building C) was added. - 1959 – North College Annexation, including this area, added to city limits - 1960 – Building addition and Remodel on main garage (Building A) (City building permit); included replacement of gas pumps (Coloradoan, 1960) o From photographs, this includes removal of the Mission Revival detailing on the building, addition of a garage opening, replacement of the swinging doors with overhead track doors, and addition of some window openings, bringing the building into its current Oblong Box form. While the city directories did not include this section of North College Avenue, which was not annexed until 1959, until 1933, newspaper records confirm that the Kraxbergers built and began operating the first filling station here starting in 1925. The business history confirmed between 1933 (the first year this area was included in city directories) and the present is as follows: - 1933 – M-K Service Station - 1934-1950 – M-K Coal & Oil Co. o In 1938, the Coal & Oil Co. is re-addressed to 825; - 1951 – Bond’s Service Station - 1952 – Sans Roy Oil Company - 1954 – 1959 – North College Standard Service o 1954 also lists Gordon’s Truck Line based out of here (that may have been the impetus for the garage expansion on Building C) - 1956 also lists Gordon’s Water Service based here - 1957 – Brandenburg Water Service; Colorado Milk Transport, Inc. (North College Standard is not listed this year) - 1960 – Brandenberg Water Service (property was also for lease by Standard Oil by this year, likely operating as a franchise). - 1962-1968 – Pennock Standard Service - 1969 – Gene’s Standard Service (owned by Eugene Vaughn and managed by Donald Vaughn) - 1970 – vacant - 1971 – Long’s Standard Service - 1972-1980 – North College Service Station (Amoco franchisee) - 1980-2002 – Professional Car Care Center - 2002-present – Pennzoil Quick Lube The first historic survey of the property was completed in January 2010 by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) as part of the planning for the redevelopment of North College Avenue, which was partially funded with federal monies. That required review of the project’s effects on historic resources under the National Historic Preservation Act (defined as any property that qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places). The 2010 survey form found the property eligible under National Register Criteria A and C for association with broad patterns of history, and for architectural significance. Under Criterion A, the CDOT historian noted the property was particularly reflective of the development of automobile-oriented commerce along North College Avenue in the mid- twentieth century and included the residence at 829 N. College (part of this property) in that assessment. Under Criterion C, the CDOT historian found the property significant for its 1960 remodel as an intact example of the oblong-box gas station property type, what became the standard for filling & service stations by the end of the 1960s. Research for this 2010 survey appears to have been based primarily on easily accessible sources, and did not include in-depth research in city directories, building permit records, or historic newspapers. Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 3 Following a conceptual development review meeting on August 18, staff conducted additional research to augment, refine, and qualify the CDOT research from 2010 for the purposes of Land Use Code 3.4.7, specifically to determine the accuracy of the research and analysis, and determine if the property met the City’s definition of an “historic resource” and was subject to the responsibilities for development outlined in that code section. Those findings are Attachment 1 to this staff report. Staff concluded the following regarding the property: - The property, specifically the service station and accessory garage, is significant under Standard 1 (Events/Trends) for its reflection of a long-standing service station along North College Avenue. - The property, specifically the former 829 N. College residence, is significant under Standard 2 (Persons/Groups) in the area of Social History for association with both Jane (Crist) Kraxberger and Leitha (Johnson) Kraxberger. Both were spouses of Mike Kraxberger at different times. Jane was an influential local thespian and women’s fashion professional, and Leitha was influential in veteran’s care and affairs, including being a local, state, and national officer in the American War Mothers organization. - The property, specifically the service station, is significant under Standard 3 (Design/Construction) as an early example of the Oblong Box service station in north Fort Collins, a design that would become standard throughout the area and the nation. - That an appropriate period of significance for the property based on the findings above is 1925-1969, corresponding with the major period of operation of the service station until North College was largely built out into the commercial corridor it reflects today. - That the property retains integrity to the period of significance. According to available records, the service station appears to have changed little since the 1960 renovation, as has the house and accessory garage, being good reflections of how the property appeared in 1969. Summary of Events The following timeline elaborates the review process thus far that has led to the appeal. August 18, 2022 – Conceptual Review: The property in question is part of a proposed redevelopment of this a property for a new carwash facility. At the conceptual review hearing with City staff on August 18, Preservation staff informed the developer of the 2010 findings and identified the need for an updated historic survey for the property since demolition of the existing buildings was proposed. Due to the existing survey, staff elected to waive the historic survey fee and complete the survey update. September 7, 2022 – Survey Completed and Transmitted: On September 7, after City staff was able to complete additional research in city directories, permit records, and newspapers, staff transmitted the results of the survey both to the developer’s representative (Luke Seeber, Baseline Engineering Corporation) and to the owner of record (Grem Armstrong, representing GARA LLC). Based on the research completed and available records, staff found the 825 N. College property qualified as an historic resource under LUC 3.4.7, having met three of the significance standards defined in Sec. 14-22 of Municipal Code, and having sufficient historic integrity related to the applicable significance standards, determining the property as Eligible under those Landmark standards, based on association with Commerce, Social History, and Architecture. September 14, 2022 – Appeal Received – On September 14, 2022, staff received an appeal of the finding issued on September 7 from the owner of that property, Grem Armstrong of GARA, LLC. With the approval of the appellant, staff scheduled the hearing for the next available HPC agenda, October 19. RELEVANT CODES AND PROCESSES FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Land Use Code Sec. 3.4.7 (C) C. Determination of Eligibility for Designation as Fort Collins Landmark. The review of proposed development pursuant to this Section may require the determination of the eligibility of buildings, sites, structures, and objects located both on the development site and in the Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 4 area of adjacency for designation as Fort Collins landmarks. The determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins landmark shall be made pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Sections 14-22 and 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code except as varied in below Subsections (C)(1) and (2). (1) Buildings, Sites, Structure, and Objects on a Development Site. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects on a development site are fifty (50) years of age or older and lack an official determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation made within the last five (5) years, the applicant must request an official eligibility determination for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to Sections 14-22 and 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. A current intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. (2) Buildings, Sites, Structures, and Objects Within the Area of Adjacency. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects outside of a development site but within the area of adjacency are fifty (50) years of age or older and lack an official determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation established within the last five (5) years, the applicant must request a non-binding determination of eligibility for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to Sections 14-22 and 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notwithstanding Sections 14-22 and 14-23, any such eligibility determination shall not be appealable pursuant to Section 14-23 and shall not be valid for any purpose other than the evaluation of the proposed development pursuant to this Section. A current architectural-level property survey is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. The Director, in consultation with historic preservation staff, may waive the required eligibility determination for any building, site, structure, or object if the Director determines that such eligibility determination would be unnecessarily duplicative of information provided by existing historic resources or would not provide relevant information. Relevant Municipal Code Referenced in LUC 3.4.7 Staff note: The measurement of whether a property meets the definition of an historic resource under 3.4.7 is based upon if it meets the standards for Landmark eligibility established in Municipal Code 14-22. The process for appealing a staff finding on eligibility is established in 14-23, including for cases where that finding was issued in response to a development application (this case) as opposed to a request for Landmark designation. Sec. 14-22. - Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as landmarks or landmark districts. A determination of eligibility for landmark designation typically applies to the entire lot, lots, or area of property upon which the landmark is located and may include structures, objects, or landscape features not eligible for landmark designation located on such lot, lots, or area of property. In order for a district to be eligible for landmark district designation, at least fifty (50) percent of the properties contained within the proposed landmark district must qualify as contributing to the district. Resources eligible for landmark designation or eligible to contribute to a landmark district must possess both significance and integrity as follows: (a) 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. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how resources are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. The criteria for determining significance are as follows: (1) Events. Resources 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 resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events: Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 5 a. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. (2) Persons/Groups. Resources 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. (3) Design/Construction. Resources 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 resources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A resource 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. (4) Information potential. Resources may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (b) Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object, or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. The criteria for determining integrity are as follows: (1) Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. (2) Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. (3) Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. (4) Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. (5) Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. (6) Feeling is a resource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. (7) Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource's historic or prehistoric character. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) Sec. 14-23. - Process for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts. (a) Application. [Omitted – this code section applies to applications for formal Landmark designation, and not to determinations of eligibility for development review purposes under Land Use Code 3.4.7]. (b) Appeal of determination. Any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 6 determination. The appeal shall include an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form for each resource that is subject to appeal, prepared by an expert in historic preservation acceptable to the Director and the appellant, with the completion cost of such intensive-level survey to be paid by the appellant. Such survey need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Director shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. Not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing, the Director shall: (1) Provide the appellant and any owner of any resource at issue with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal by first class mail; (2) Publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and (3) Cause a sign readable from a public point of access to be posted on or near the property containing the resource under review stating how additional information may be obtained. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) ELIGIBILITY SUMMARY From the memorandum issued by City staff on September 7, 2022 with findings for 825 N. College Avenue, Preservation staff found the property Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark and subject to the provisions for historic resources in Land Use Code 3.4.7. Staff made that finding based on staff’s own research and the information documented in the 2010 historic survey form completed by CDOT. Those findings are attached to this staff report and are summarized here: - Significance under Standard 1, Events/Trends in the area of Commerce for association with the early development of North College Avenue as a commercial corridor. This significance is limited to the main service station and associated service garage. - Significance under Standard 2, Persons/Groups in the area of Social History for the artistic and cultural contributions of Jane Kraxberger and philanthropic/social organization contributions of Leitha Kraxberger. This significance is limited to the residence on the property. - Significance under Standard 3, Design/Construction in the area of Architecture for the main service station as an early and locally significant reflection of the mid-20th century Oblong Box-type service station. This significance is limited to the main service station building. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY As of October 5, no public comments have been received. Staff will continue to report information about public comments received prior to the July 20 hearing to both the HPC and to the appellant and update this staff report as necessary. SAMPLE MOTIONS Eligible – Qualifies as an Historic Resource (Full Property) If the Commission determines that the property meets the Fort Collins Landmark criteria and qualifies as an historic resource in compliance with Sections 14-22 & 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the property at 825 North College Avenue meets the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and is an historic resource for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings of significance] and [insert findings of integrity]. Eligible – Qualifies as an Historic Resource (Only certain resources) If the Commission determines that only certain resources on the property meet the Fort Collins Landmark criteria and qualify as historic resources in compliance with Sections 14-22 & 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the [specify to which resources the finding of Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 7 Eligible would apply] located on the property at 825 North College Avenue meet the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and are historic resources for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings of significance] and [insert findings of integrity]. Not Eligible If the Commission finds that a property, including all resources on the parcel, does not meet the Fort Collins Landmark criteria and does not qualify as an historic resource in compliance with Sections 14-22 & 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find 825 North College Avenue does not meet the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and are not historic resources for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7, based on the following findings of fact [insert findings based on lack of significance and/or integrity].” Note: The Commission may propose other wording for the motion based on its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1. 825 N. College, Staff Finding of Eligibility completed September 7, 2022 (includes CDOT 2010 survey) 2. September 14, 2022 Appeal Email from Property Owner 3. Staff Presentation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services OFFICIAL DETERMINATION: FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY Resource Number: B3195 (City); 5LR.12231 (State) Historic Building Name: M-K Service Station; M-K Coal & Oil Co.; North College Standard Service Current Name: Quick Lube Property Address: 825 N. College Ave Determination: ELIGIBLE Issued: September 7, 2022 Expiration: September 7, 2027 GARA, LLC P.O. Box 7383 Loveland, CO 80537-0383 Dear Property Owner: This letter provides you with confirmation that your property has been evaluated for Fort Collins landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14, Article II of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and has been found eligible for landmark designation. Staff utilized an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form completed for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in 2010, as well as augmenting research and an updated conditions assessment, as the basis for an evaluation of a property’s historic and/or architectural significance and its integrity, both of which are required for Landmark eligibility as per Article II, Section 14-22. The 2010 finding by CDOT was that the property, specifically the main service station building and the residence on the property, were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Building C, the secondary garage, was not given a clear determination). Staff has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity, and landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached form. Significance In 2010, Robert Autobee of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) determined this property, specifically the service station building fronting onto College Avenue and the reconverted residence at the northwest corner of the lot, as significant to local history under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criterion A in the area of Commerce as a notable reflection of the post-1945 expansion of Fort Collins’ commercial corridor north along College Avenue. CDOT further determined that the main building was eligible under NRHP Criterion C in the area of Architecture as a uniquely representative and comparatively well-preserved example of an oblong box gas station along the corridor. While detractions were noted on all three buildings on the property, CDOT determined that at the time (2010), both Buildings A (the main service station) and B (the reconverted house, formerly 829 N. College Ave) retained sufficient integrity to convey their importance to this area of Fort Collins. The form ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 - is silent as to whether the c.1950 garage/warehouse building (Building C) contributed to this historical significance, but based on its context as what appears to be a secondary garage to the primary service station, it would be an accessory historic structure and appears to have sufficient integrity to convey that relationship. Based on City staff research, the importance of this facility as an early fuel and service station, for both automobiles and household fuel (mostly coal) under the Kraxberger ownership is clear, especially in the context of Fort Collins expanding in the 1920s and beginning to develop north of the Poudre River. Although by 1933, Fort Collins already had twenty-four filling stations in town (the first year the directory includes businesses near town but outside city limits), it appears all of the urban stations were south of the Poudre River. Many of those stations have since been demolished. When Mike Kraxberger began operating the shop and filling station at 829 N. College, it was the first north of the river, supplying the small Riverside Park neighborhood, the farms to the north, and being the first filling station for anyone traveling on the highways from Laramie or Cheyenne in Wyoming. The operation proved significant enough that the Union Pacific Railroad constructed a dedicated spur off the Union Pacific Railroad to supply the Kraxberger station with both coal and oil. Beyond being an important filling station, the Kraxberger family, specifically Mike and his first and second wives, Jane (Crist) and Leitha (Johnson), were heavily involved in the local community. M-K Filling Station at 829 N. College Ave, prior to construction of the new station in 1937 (Building A). It is not clear (advertisement, Coloradoan, September 27, 1936). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 3 - Image of the M-K Service Station after completion and opening, showing the Mission Revival style detailing (advertisement for the new service station’s opening, Coloradoan, August 20, 1937). 1937 Aerial image of the 700-800 Blocks of North College Avenue, w/ 825 & 829 N. College properties outlined in red. The primary service station is clearly visible at the southeast corner of the site (City of Fort Collins GIS). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 4 - Advertisement in Coloradoan, May 3, 1942. The property as an Amoco Service Station on April 21, 1977, following modifications made for Standard Oil leasing in 1960 (Fort Collins Museum of Discovery). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 5 - Staff would add the following information to the record that was either unclear, fragmented, or not included in the 2009 survey form: Historical Background Notes - The 829 N. College property, now Building B of 825, appears to have been the home and business of Henry Michael “Mike” and Jane Kraxberger between approximately 1931 when they built the house and 1948. Henry Michael (listed as either in city directories, depending on year) was married to Jane, a local school teacher. Prior to 1933, the couple lived at various addresses in town, but moved to the 829 N. College address by 1933. o Henry Michael was born in Nebraska about 1895. o Jane was born Jane Belle Crist in Missouri in about 1900. o Henry Michael and Jane married in Denver on May 24, 1920. - It appears that Henry Michael (noted as simply M. Kraxberger, 905 West Oak Street in a March 15, 1925 Coloradoan article) secured a permit to operate a gasoline tank wagon. - On March 23, 1925, the Coloradoan reported that M. Kraxberger had been refused a permit to build a filling station at Oak Street & Washington Avenues. - By September of 1925, the filling station at 829 North College was in operation, being referenced in a Coloradoan article that month as part of the new industrial district emerging around the Union Pacific Railway spur in that area, built, in part, to supply gasoline to the Kraxberger station. - Jane was regular involved in stage and music performances around town during the 1920s. She was also appointed a Colorado delegate to the American Vocational Association, an organization supporting trade work since the 1910s (today, the Association for Career and Technical Education, or ACTE). She was elected President of the Larimer County Education Association on September 2, 1933. She was also an accomplished golfer, winning several local charity and fundraising events at the Country Club. - By the early 1930s, M.K. Service Station was advertising as a Pennsylvania Oil distributor only (now Pennzoil). The station regularly advertised that it only sold Colorado-mined coal for household/business heating. - Jane operated a women’s clothing shop out of 138 W. Mountain Ave from 1935 to her divorce from Mike in 1941 when she moved to Boise, ID. During that time, she was highly influential in local fashion, including sponsoring shows and student events at Colorado Agricultural College. Her shop was one of only four women’s clothing shops in Fort Collins listed in the 1936 city directory (and only six in the county, including Estes Park). - Leitha Kraxberger’s activities in the American War Mothers organization during the 1940s and 1950s are well-documented in the Coloradoan, an organization in which Leitha eventually rose to a national leadership position. She was the founding president of this veteran support network (chartered by Congress in 1917) for the Cache la Poudre chapter. Construction & Development History • 1892 – Riverside Park Subdivision platted • 1925 – filling station at 829 N. College constructed • 1931 – residence (Building B; 829 N. College) constructed; 825 N College used to be a residence as well, presumably constructed around the same time. (corrected from 1922 via Coloradoan article from July 12, 1931). • 1933 – improvements made to service station, likely meaning the construction of Building C (the spare garage, without the rear addition) • 1937 –Building A, the main service station, is constructed. When first built, it has Mission Revival styling, including a curved, centered pediment on the façade and pilasters with decorative caps at the corners. The house at 825 N. College was demolished to construct this building. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 6 - o Based on city directory records from 1938, house at 825 was demolished in this year and the new service station built. • 1950 – primary service station opens for business as a Standard Oil Station • 1956 (circa) – by this year, the large addition onto the garage (Building C) was added. • 1959 – North College Annexation, including this area, added to city limits • 1960 – Building addition and Remodel on main garage (Building A) (City building permit); included replacement of gas pumps (Coloradoan, 1960) o From photographs, this includes removal of the Mission Revival detailing on the building, addition of a garage opening, replacement of the swinging doors with overhead track doors, and addition of some window openings, bringing the building into its current Oblong Box form. Business History (confirmed to 1972) – Main Building (A) and Garage (C) • 1933 – M-K Service Station • 1934-1950 – M-K Coal & Oil Co. o In 1938, the Coal & Oil Co. is re-addressed to 825; • 1951 – Bond’s Service Station • 1952 – Sans Roy Oil Company • 1954 – 1959 – North College Standard Service o 1954 also lists Gordon’s Truck Line based out of here (that may have been the impetus for the garage expansion on Building C) o 1956 also lists Gordon’s Water Service based here o 1957 – Brandenburg Water Service; Colorado Milk Transport, Inc. (North College Standard is not listed this year) • 1960 – Brandenberg Water Service (property was also for lease by Standard Oil by this year, likely operating as a franchise). • 1962-1968 – Pennock Standard Service • 1969 – Gene’s Standard Service (owned by Eugene Vaughn and managed by Donald Vaughn) • 1970 – vacant • 1971 – Long’s Standard Service • 1972-1980 – North College Service Station (Amoco franchisee) • 1980-2002 – Professional Car Care Center • 2002-present – Pennzoil Quick Lube Occupant History to 1972 – Residence (Building B; 829 N. College Ave) - Not available prior to 1933 ( this section of Fort Collins was outside city limits until 1959 and not included in the Fort Collins City Directory series until 1933) - 1933-1948 – H. Michael & Jane B. Kraxberger listed as running the M&K Service Station, with their residence and business at 829 N. College Ave. o The 825 N. College address is listed as a residence for a Mrs. Elizabeth Peterson 1933-1934. 825 is listed as vacant by 1936. o Jane Kraxberger ran a women’s apparel shop out of 136 W. Mountain Avenue for much of their time living at this address. o Some time between 1948-1950, the H. Michael and Jane appear to have sold the property and moved out of Fort Collins. - 1952 – H.G. Gordon & J.P. Schlund o Harvey G. Gordon was the owner of Brick’s Plumbing & Heating at 179 N College; lived with wife Laveta N. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 7 - o John P. & Maxine Schlund; John was a truck driver for Standard Oil (local wholesale was 799 N. College w/ corporate/franchised service stations at 602 S. College & 505 Riverside). - 1954-1957 – John & Maxine Schlund live in the primary house; by 1956, John is listed as a partner in Gordon’s Water Service at 825. o 1954 - Robert W. & Bernice Walters in 829 ½; Robert is a driver and salesman for Standard Oil o 1956-1959 – Mrs. Laura M. Gray in 829 ½; - 1960-1966 – Burlyn & Nellie Richardson; Burlyn is a cement worker at Don Ward, a trucking company at 1295 N. College Ave; Nellie is an employee at Rest Home (possibly Rest Haven Boarding Home at 412 S. Howes) o 1964-1966 – Verlin D. & Carolyn Pennock in 829 ½; Verlin was a partner with Ivan Pennock running Pennock Standard Service at 825; Carolyn was a credit manager at Sears & Roebuck at 169 N. College Ave. - 1968-1970 – Helen Brunmeier in 829; o 1969 – Shirley Ann Gunther in 829 ½; Shirley Ann was the manager at the General Finance Loan Co. at 261 S. College Ave. - 1971 – No information - 1972 – Bill Cluster in 829; Staff Conclusion Staff agrees with CDOT’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance under Criterion A for the National Register of Historic Places, subsequently considering the property significant under City Standard 1 (Events/Trends) in the area of Commerce. The filling station and service garage represented one of the first commercial businesses in Fort Collins to extend north of the Poudre River, paving the way for the area to become a more developed commercial strip by 1970. When opened in 1925, the first service station (now demolished) was one of the only commercial enterprises in the area. Kraxberger’s construction of the detached service station in 1935 was a significant local representation of the shift from the house-with-canopy or cottage-type gas stations of the early automobile era into a shift to year-round service stations for a broader spectrum of vehicles. By 1950, when Mike Kraxberger sold the station, that remained true. Standard Oil later acquired the property and began leasing it in 1960 after a significant renovation of the station that brought it to its current condition. However, by 1969, much of the College Avenue frontage from the Poudre River north to the Route 1/Terry Lake Road intersection was built up with a mix of industrial and commercial businesses, including motels, shops, and other businesses. Upon further research, the M-K Service Station remains significant as one of the earliest commercial enterprises in Fort Collins to be established in this area of town. Staff would add that the Kraxberger family, specifically Jane and Leitha, appear to possess significance to the community in relation to social history, although Mike Kraxberger may possess some significance with more research into Fort Collins’ early coal and gasoline industries. Jane Kraxberger’s contributions to local education and fine arts during the 1920s and 1930s, specifically theater and women’s fashion, appear to be influential and significant to the cultural history of early-twentieth century Fort Collins, at the time that she was living in the house at 829 N. College. After Mike and Jane divorced and Mike remarried to Leitha Johnson, Leitha’s contributions to the community in social organizations like the American War Mothers appear significant. Leitha served as the founding president of the Cache la Poudre chapter, organized in 1944. She also served as the president of the Colorado chapter in the late 1940s and later chaplain for the national organization. The American War Mothers was a national organization chartered by Congress during the First World War by parents with children serving in the Armed Forces to both support active troops and wounded veterans. Based on the contributions of Jane (Crist) Kraxberger and Leitha (Johnson) Kraxberger, staff would consider the dwelling at 829 N. College significant under Standard 2 (Persons/Groups) in the area of Social History. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 8 - Upon further review, staff would agree with the CDOT recommendation under Criterion C (City Standard 3 for Design/Construction) in the area of Architecture, that the property remains a significant representative of the Oblong Box service station property type in north Fort Collins. While the original Mission Revival features have been lost, the building still represents a significant example of a Modern- styled station in this property type following the 1960 rehabilitation. Fueling and service stations of this type began adopting more streamlined, Modern features indicative of the International style, which often meant stripping away decorative features and focusing on simple geometry. While there are several Oblong Box service stations surviving throughout Fort Collins, this station remains one of the earliest, and the earliest in its localized context. Based on this research, staff would recommend a period of significance of 1925-1969, spanning both the period of operation by the Kraxbergers, as well as the continuing operation of the filling station as one of the first commercial enterprises north of the river. The closing date of 1969 is selected based on aerial imagery from that year that shows the College Avenue corridor north of the Poudre River mostly built out to Terry Lake following the commercial expansion trend begun by Kraxberger in the 1920s. Integrity CDOT’s 2010 recommendation regarding historic integrity (a property’s ability to still represent and convey its important story/stories) was that the main service station and house retained sufficient historic integrity, but that the accessory garage (Building C) was questionable due to reroofing with metal. Staff would modify that assessment considering the three areas of significance (Commerce, Social History, and Architecture) that appear to apply to the property, as well as research in permit records and historic aerial imagery. Based on that, the existing structures appear to retain strong integrity to the period of significance (1925-1969), with the exception of the loss of the former Cottage-style filling station prior to 1999 (based on Google Earth imagery; exact date unknown). The main service station (Building A) appears generally unaltered since the 1960 renovations. The Kraxberger Residence (Building B) has had some modifications to adapt it into a duplex, but generally appears to represent the Shingle-style architecture as constructed by the Kraxbergers. The accessory garage (Building C), built in c.1933 and expanded in c.1956 has relatively minor alterations, mainly the replacement of the roof and garage doors, but otherwise appears intact enough to contribute to the M-K Service Station as an historic property. Statement of Eligibility: Based on the historical research and analysis, staff finds the property at 825 North College Avenue, the former M-K Service Station and Kraxberger Residence, including the accessory garage (Building C), as Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standards 1, 2, and 3, in the areas of Commerce, Social History, and Architecture. Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. If you have any questions regarding this determination, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at jbertolini@fcgov.com, or 970-416-4250. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 9 - Attachments: - 2022, August 30, Site photos - Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated January 7, 2010. - Select clippings from the Fort Collins Coloradoan (see following pages). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 10 - ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 11 - Left: Coloradoan, September 28, 1925, p1; Right: Coloradoan, July 12, 1931, p12 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 12 - Bio on Mrs. Jane Kraxberger, Coloradoan, August 6, 1936, p3. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 13 - Advertisement for M-K Coal and Oil, Coloradoan, September 27, 1936 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 - 14 - Advertisement, Coloradoan, August 20, 1937, p3. Permits issued, including remodel of 825 N. College, Coloradoan, April 10, 1960, p2. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 N College Ave 5LR12231 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Page 1 of 6 Official Eligibility Determination OAHP1403 (OAHP use only) Rev. 9/98 Date ___________ Initials _________ ___ Determined Eligible – National Register ___ Determined Not Eligible – National Register ___ Determined Eligible – State Register ___ Determine Not Eligible – State Register ___ Need Data ___ Contributes to eligible National Register District ___ Noncontributing to eligible National Register District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR12231 Parcel number(s): 97024-24-011 2. Temporary resource number: N/A Schedule P8277648 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic Building Name: North College Standard Service Station 6. Current Building Name: Roy’s Quick Lube 7. Building Address: 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524 8. Owner Name and Address: GARA, LLC, P.O. BOX 270114, Fort Collins, CO 80527 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible under Criteria A and C Local landmark eligibility field assessment: N/A Aug. 2009 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 2 of 6 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M.: 6th Township: 7N Range: 69W SE ¼ of NE ¼ of SE ¼ of SE ¼ Section 2 10. UTM reference (Datum: NAD24) Zone: 13 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 1960, Rev 1984 Map scale: 7.5' 12. Lot(s): N/A Addition: N/A Year of addition: N/A 13. Boundary description and justification: Legal Boundary. Metes and bounds: Describe: N/A III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): According to the Larimer County Assessor, the site consists of three buildings: (A): Service Garage/Roy’s Quick Lube, (B): Converted House and (C): Storage Garage. During the last half of the 20th century, the County recognized the Service Garage (825 N. College Avenue) and the Converted House as separate addresses (829 N. College Avenue) with the Storage Garage serving as a out-building for the house. In 2002, the current owner – GARA LLC – purchased all three structures. The County currently gives the 825 address for all three properties. (A): Rectangular, (B): Irregular, and (C): Rectangular. 15. Dimensions in feet: (A): 30’ x 48’; (B): 31’ x 56’, and (C): 24’ x 56’ 16. Number of stories: (A): Single, (B): Two, and (C): Single story. 17. Primary external wall material(s): (A): Metal, (B): Horizontal Wood Siding and (C): Concrete/Horizontal Wood Siding. 18. Roof configuration: (A): Flat, (B and C): Gabled. 19. Primary external roof material: (A): Metal, (B) Composition Shingle, (C): Asphalt Shingle and Metal. Other roof materials: N/A 20. Special features: Approximately 20 feet east of the Building A, the site has kept two concrete islands where the original gas pumps stood. The site has also retained the original station’s sign. The sign stands approximately 12 feet above the ground. 21. General architectural description: Building A: The one-story, rectangular oblong box gas station is relatively unchanged since its construction in 1950. The eastern elevation features two bays near the elevation’s northeast corner and the elevation’s approximate center. A clear glass door located approximately five feet from approximate center is the main entry into the building from North College Avenue. A rectangular picture window is located to the south of the door and extends to the southeastern corner. There is another rectangular picture window of similar dimensions at the building’s southeastern corner on the southern elevation. Approximately five feet from that window is a metal door with a glass pane above the doorknob. The western elevation features three multi-paned fenestrations. Metal bars cover these openings. The foundation is concrete. 22. Architectural style: (A): Gas Station, (B): Late 19th and Early 20th Century Revivals, and (C): No Style 493493 mE 4494261 mN ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 3 of 6 Building type: (A): Oblong Box, (B): Irregular, and (C): Rectangular. 23. Landscape or special setting features: The owner planted tall grass in the abandoned concrete gas pump islands to the east of the gas station. The land separating the Building B and C is hard-packed dirt. Deciduous trees grow along the northern edge of Building B. 24. Associated buildings, features or objects: 1: January 2010 Residence (Building B) This two story, irregular-shaped house features a front-gable roof with composition shingles. In the 1930s, this structure was a gas station owned by Michael Kraxberger. City directories first indicate the building was unoccupied in 1970. The house’s western and eastern elevations feature additions. The eastern elevation features a composite door entry near the building’s northeast corner. This addition displays a metal roof similar in design to the roof covering the extension on Building C. The original building features wood frame, multi-pane windows on each elevation. Both elevations’ display metal frame 1/1 windows. The western elevation entry is a composite door/metal screen door combination and faces south. Gram Armstrong of Fort Collins stated in February 2010 that he owns this property as a rental. 2: January 2010 Former residence and garage (Building C) The Larimer County Assessor gives a date of 1950 for this building, but interviews with previous owners indicate that the building was standing as early as 1943. The exterior of the original structure is stucco. The eastern and northern elevations feature a pair of multi-pane windows. A metal roof has replaced the original clipped-hip covering. There is no information of the original roofing material or when the original material was replaced. Attached to the original structure’s western elevation is a three-bay garage. This addition features a gable roof and a horizontal wood siding exterior. There is no date for the construction of this addition. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of construction: Estimate: Actual: (A): 1950 (B): 1922 (C): 1950 Source of information: Larimer County, Colorado, Assessor Property Information, Real Estate Property Records Database; City directories and Assessor Cards at the Fort Collins Local History Center, Fort Collins, CO. 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: N/A ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 4 of 6 27. Builder: Unknown Source of information: N/A 28. Original owner: (A): Standard Oil Company, (B): Unknown and (C): Unknown. Source of information: 1922-1950 City Directory for Fort Collins, Ft. Collins Local History Center 29. Construction history: Larimer County Assessor’s records state this service station was completed in 1950. Building B was constructed in 1922 with Building C completed in 1950. From the 1920s to the 1950s, Building B (829 North College Avenue) was the offices of the M-K Coal and Oil Company. By 1948, the structure was converted to a private residence. By the 1990s, the County Assessor listed all three structures at the 825 North College Avenue address. Both Buildings B and C have undergone extensive alterations and additions, but there appears to have been no alternations to the exterior of Building A (Roy’s Quick Lube). It is likely that at some point after 1980, the then current owner removed the gas pumps. The original Standard Oil sign on the northern most island appears to have been cut down to a smaller height. 30. Original location: Moved: Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): (A and B): Commerce/Trade/Gas Station and (C): Garage 32. Intermediate use(s): (A): Commerce/Trade/Gas Station, (B): Domestic-Residence and (C): Garage 33. Current use(s): (A): Commerce/Trade/Specialty Store, (B): Domestic-Residence and (C): Garage 34. Site type(s): Commercial Style/Automobile 35. Historical background: The property at 825 North College opened for business as a Standard Oil station in 1950. By 1956, the name had changed to reflect the station’s location – North College Standard Service. By 1970, the station was vacant, but returned as the North College Service Station in 1972 under the ownership of Robert W. Walters. By 1980, Standard no longer franchised at this location as the Professional Car Care Center occupied this address. Mr. Walters sold the property to the GARA group in May 2002 and GARA remains the current owners. This area along North College Avenue and U.S. 287 saw a growth of auto related businesses at the turn of the twentieth century. In the 1930s, the city limits were extended from the 300 block to the 900 block with a number of auto businesses and early auto or motor courts along North College Avenue. The Colorado Department of Highways built the concrete, I-beam structure in 1930. The Department upgraded and widened North College in 1955. 5LR12231 reflects the post-war growth along North College Avenue related to greater numbers of automobile owners and tourists. Restaurants, motor lodges, auto businesses, and oil distributers opened. The Avenue appeared robust until the 1960s, when Fort Collins experienced another wave of growth south of downtown. North College’s major auto sales centers moved south with the suburban growth. The old sales centers became used car sales center and mobile home sales. Today the area around 825 North College is in a state of decline punctuated with vacant businesses and small business operators. 36. Sources of information: City Directories (1938-2005), Atlases and Assessor Cards of Fort Collins available at the Ft. Collins Local History Center; Larimer County Assessor Property Information available online; “North College Avenue Historical Research,” by Carol Tunner for the Fort Collins Planning Department, December 1993; “The History of Larimer County, Colorado,” Andrew Morris, editor (Fort Collins: Curtis Media Corp., 1985) and interview with Gram Armstrong, owner of 825 North College, February 2, 2010. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No Date of designation: ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 5 of 6 Designating authority: 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 possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual distinction; 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. 39. Area(s) of significance: Transportation/Road-Related 40. Period of significance: 1950-2010 41. Level of significance: National: State: Local: 42. Statement of significance: This oblong-box gas stations shows no alternations or wear for a commercial structure 60 years old. It represents an era when the automobile directed the economic development of the northern neighborhoods surrounding downtown Fort Collins. This gas station over its existence has retained an association with automobile-related commerce. This structure is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its role in the mid-20th century car culture that developed along North College Avenue in Fort Collins and under Criterion C as an excellent example of an oblong-box gas station. The reconverted house (Building B) has an association with the local oil and gas industry and also contributes to the overall historic significance of this property. Building C has been a garage during its existence. The structure has undergone alterations (notably metal replacing wood shingles) that detract from its physical integrity. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: There appears to have been no alterations to the physical integrity of the gas station. An eight-foot high wooden fence extending behind the gas station has been added within the past 30 years, but the building conveys enough setting, feeling and historic association for eligibility to the National Register. Previous owners built additions on to Buildings B and C. These structures have both lost their original setting, feeling and historic integrity. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible under Criteria A and C. Local landmark eligibility field assessment: Eligible 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No Discuss: There is no evidence that this resource is located in a potential historic district. The North College Avenue corridor has lost many of the early-to-mid century buildings has been impacted by razing of early commercial buildings and modern development. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing N/A: 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing N/A: RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph number(s): Digital DSCO.4933; DSCO.4904; DSCO4912- DSCO4914; DSCO4918; DSCO CDs filed at: City of Fort Collins ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 6 of 6 4920 and Electronic Images 138, 202, 204-205. 48. Report title: North College Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Project CHS#55514/CDOT AQC M455-079 49. Date(s): 1/07/10 50. Recorder(s): Robert Autobee 51. Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation-Region 4 970.350-2204 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 7 of 6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 825 North College Avenue North College Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Project CHS#55514/CDOT AQC M455-079 Site No. 5LR12232 6th P.M., T7N, R69W, SE ¼ of NE ¼ of SE ¼ of SE ¼ of Section 2 Fort Collins (1960, rev. 1984), 7.5’ USGS topo map Larimer County UTM reference A. Zone 1 3; 4 9 3 4 9 3 mE 4 4 9 4 2 6 1 mN 5LR12232 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Resource No. 5LR12231 Property Name/Address: 825 North College Avenue N N NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Roy’s Quick Lube 825 North College Avenue/Building A Building B (formerly 829 North College Avenue Alpine Street Building C/Storage Garage Fence ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 1 Jim Bertolini From:Grem Armstrong <gremarmstrongrealty@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:40 PM To:Jim Bertolini Cc:Luke Seeber; Todd Sullivan; Clark Mapes Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 825 N College Avenue - Historic Survey complete We would like to appeal the decision of eligibility for 825 and 829 North College. As stated, we only have 14 days. Who is the Director that is referenced in the second to last paragraph in your letter? Grem and Robin Armstrong On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 5:25 PM Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote: Luke, Attached please find the results of the historic survey for the property at 825 N. College Avenue, completing the requirements in Land Use Code 3.4.7(C) to identify historic resources on a proposed development site. I’ve copied Mr. Armstrong, the property owner, as well for his information – thank you for providing his contact information for a faster transmittal. Based on the Colorado Department of Transportation historic survey form from 2009, as well as additional research completed by City staff, staff’s finding is that the property, including all three existing structures, is Eligible as a City Landmark. We did make some additional findings and modifications based on the more in-depth research we were able to complete. These are documented in the attached memorandum for your information. The finding added a new historic significance in the area of Social History (Standard 2, Persons/Groups), and determined the garage to be contributing as well as the service station and residence. Please note the following: Under Land Use Code 3.4.7(D), historic resources on the development site are expected to be incorporated into a development plan and treated according to the City’s adopted historic preservation standards to the maximum extent feasible. Deviation from those Standards can be approved through a Modification of Standards request under Land Use Code 2.8, if grounds can be established. While Historic Preservation (either staff or the Commission) are not the decision-makers for the development proposal, a recommendation from Historic Preservation is required for the decision hearing. Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the [Historic Preservation] Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 2 If you or Mr. Armstrong have further questions regarding this finding, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thanks! JIM BERTOLINI Senior Historic Preservation Planner Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolini@fcgov.com Visit our website! “The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.” -- Grem Armstrong Armstrong Realty, LLC (970) 388-7888 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 825 North College Avenue: Appeal of Determination of Eligibility October 19, 2022 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Vicinity Map 825 N. College 1 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Aerial Map Role of HPC • De Novo hearing – HPC provides a new decision • Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building addressed as 825 N College Avenue • Standards under Municipal Code 14, Article II (Sec. 14-22) • Provide a determination of eligibility as an “historic resource” for the purposes of Land Use Code 3.4.7. • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) 3 4 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Current Review Timeline • August 18, 2022 – Conceptual Review • Staff identifies need for updated historic survey to developer • September 7, 2022 – Survey Completed and Transmitted • Staff transmits findings for property (Eligible/is an historic resource) to both developer and owner •September 14, 2022 – Appeal Received • Property owner, Grem Armstrong/GARA, LLC, files appeal of historic resource finding Code Process - 3.4.7 - (B) Requires identification of historic resources on/near development site -(C) Determination of Eligibility - (D) Treatment of Historic Resources Land Use Code (Development)Municipal Code -Eligibility Chapter 14, Article II - 14-22 – Standards for eligibility -14-23(b) – Process for appealing a staff decision If found Eligible 5 6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 2 Requirements for Historic Resource Eligibility Significance •1. Events/Trends •2. Persons/Groups •3. Design/Construction •4. Information Potential Historic Integrity (7 Aspects) •Design •Materials •Workmanship •Location •Setting •Feeling •Association 1802 North College Avenue: Significance 1 – Events/Trends 2- Persons/Groups 3- Architecture • Commerce - Long-standing business on North College Ave (1925-1969) • Social History – Contributions of Jane Kraxberger to local art and fashion; Leitha Kraxbergerto veterans’ welfare in American War Mothers organization. • Architecture – Service station as a mid-20 th century Oblong Box-type station 7 8 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 825 North College Avenue: History • 1925 - 1 st service station constructed • 1931 - Kraxberger residence built • 1933 – accessory garage built (east portion) •1937 – 1 st service station demolished; 2nd service station built • 1956 – accessory garage addition (west wing) •1960 – service station remodeled Top Left: 825 N. College, 1936, Coloradoan Top Right: 825 N. College, 1937, Coloradoan Bottom: 1977 Kraxbergers – 825 & 829 N College 9 10 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Setting & Context 800 Block of N. College - N. College Ave. & Alpine St. Most infill in 1960s- 1970s Top: 825 N. College, 1937 Bottom: 825 N College, 2019 Role of HPC • De Novo hearing – HPC provides a new decision • Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building addressed as 825 N College Avenue • Standards under Municipal Code 14, Article II (Sec. 14-22) • Provide a determination of eligibility as an “historic resource” for the purposes of Land Use Code 3.4.7. • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) 11 12 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Appeal: 825 North College Avenue Historic Resource Finding for Development Review October 19, 2022 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner 13 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3