HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2022 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1
Kurt Knierim, Chair Location:
Jim Rose, Vice Chair This meeting will be held
Margo Carlock
Meg Dunn IN PERSON at Chambers,
300 LaPorte Avenue
Walter Dunn
Jenna Edwards
Bonnie Gibson
Eric Guenther Staff Liaison:
Anne Nelsen Maren Bzdek
Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
November 16, 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.
Packet Pg. 1
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 OCTOBER 19, 2022.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 19, 2022 regular meeting of
the Historic Preservation Commission.
2. 2023 HPC WORK PLAN ADOPTION
The purpose of this item is to approve the 2023 HPC Work Plan.
3. 1110 MAPLE – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE
The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 1110 Maple.
4. 516 N GRANT – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE
The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 516 N Grant.
• 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
Packet Pg. 2
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
5. 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).
6. 1801 SHEELY DRIVE (LESLIE P. AND RUTH A WARE PROPERTY) – APPLICATON FOR FORT
COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION
DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for
landmark designation of the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property at 1801
Sheely Dr.
APPLICANTS: Ralph and Cheryl Olson (owners)
7. 209 CHERRY STREET – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
Redevelopment of the vacant lot at the southwest corner of Cherry and Mason
Streets for a 114-unit mixed use building. The decision maker for this Type 2
Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission.
APPLICANT: Ashley Stiles, Tribe Development Company, Fort Collins, CO
(owner/developer)
Chris Aronson, VFLA (design)
8. 121 WEST OLIVE STREET – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of the current Bohlender Funeral Chapel at 121 W. Olive
Street at the southeast corner of Olive and Mason Streets for a 177-unit mixed
use building. The decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
APPLICANT: Jeanne Shaffer, Confluence Development, (applicant/developer)
Open Studio Design (design professional)
9. REMOTE PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE
DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the City Council Ordinance to Allow Remote
Participation
STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
Packet Pg. 3
Page 4
• CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at
this time.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 4
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
STAFF
Melissa Matsunaka, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 19, 2022 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 19, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. HPC October 19, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 5
Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 October 19, 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
Eric Guenther
Anne Nelsen
Jenna Edwards
Bonnie Gibson
Regular Meeting
October 19, 2022
Minutes
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
•ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Eric
Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka
Chair Knierim welcomed new Commission members Jenna Edwards and Bonnie Gibson.
•AGENDA REVIEW
Ms. Bzdek stated two items were removed from the agenda since it was originally posted.
•CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW
No items were pulled from consent.
•STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
Historic
Preservation
Commission DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 October 19, 2022
• CONSENT AGENDA
[Timestamp: 5:34 p.m.]
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
Street.
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 Street.
Jim Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of
the September 21, 2022 regular meeting as presented.
Anne Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 9-0.
[Timestamp: 5:35 p.m.]
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
4. 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 Civil Rights Community Meeting, Museo Adobe remudding, and the
upcoming Women’s Suffrage Events.
Public Input
None.
[Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.]
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)
DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 October 19, 2022
(**Secretary’s Note: Member Nelsen withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of
interest.)
Staff Report
Jim Bertolini presented the staff report for the conceptual review for a proposed addition to the City
landmark at 220 Remington Street. He showed slides of the property and noted the original footprint
has been in place since 1901 with the exception of a very small shed addition that was later removed.
Mr. Bertolini outlined the role of the Commission and discussed the history of the property, which was
designated in 2014 under standard three for design and construction. He noted the project received
a grant from the City’s design assistance program and he discussed the design concept provided with
that assistance. He noted the applicant found that design would not meet the desired needs and
therefore designed an alternative plan.
Mr. Bertolini outlined the applicant’s proposal for an 850-square-foot rear addition that would attach
onto and wrap around the northeast corner of the property. He stated staff’s overall analysis of the
conceptual design is that it is generally consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for
rehabilitation.
Applicant Presentation:
Dr. Jenna Slootmaker, property owner, presented the applicant presentation. She discussed the
challenges of the small space related to her dental practice.
Chris Aronson, VFLA, presented the applicant presentation. He discussed the challenges of the small
space for a medical office, including having an ADA restroom, lab room, a larger sterilization area and
an adequate break room to help with staff retention. Additionally, the design seeks to maintain the
proper parking lot depth. He also noted the design has changed to keep the north wall at or inside
the existing wall.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Knierim discussed the applicable Secretary of Interior standards.
Member M. Dunn asked Mr. Aronson about the response to the design assistance program. Mr.
Aronson replied the design assistance program design was not large enough and abutted to a portion
of the building where there was a desire to maintain a window. He stated that design did not seem to
delineate enough between the new architecture and the historic architecture.
Member M. Dunn commended the applicant’s addition of the hyphen. She asked about the roof on
the design assistance version. Mr. Aronson replied the ceiling height was too low.
Member M. Dunn asked about the applicant’s proposal to place the gabled roof over the exam rooms.
Mr. Aronson replied one of the goals was to enhance the patient experience through taller ceilings
and additional natural light.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard two.
Member Rose stated the applicant’s proposal achieves a better articulation of new versus old and is
compatible yet distinctive. Member Carlock concurred.
Member M. Dunn stated the proposal works well in terms of this standard particularly because it
leaves more of the original building exposed and allows for reversibility. She stated she believes it is
appropriate to remove the mud porch in this case.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard three.
Member M. Dunn asked about the proposed siding material. Mr. Aronson replied he wants the
Commission to weigh in on whether painted lap siding or corrugated metal would be more
appropriate.
Member M. Dunn stated metal is more of an industrial material and she would be concerned about its
use.
Member Rose asked if the metal would be installed horizontally or vertically. Mr. Aronson replied it
would likely be vertical, but that could still be explored, as could be the color. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 October 19, 2022
Member Rose stated he would be concerned about the use of metal, though he does believe it is
necessary to depart from the painted brick to make a distinction.
Member Carlock agreed the metal siding may not be appropriate and she suggested a tighter row
pattern for lap siding might be a better fit.
Member Guenther commented on his desire to see good examples of the proposed siding and what it
would look like on the addition.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard four.
Member Carlock stated she has no concerns about the removal of the wall. Member M. Dunn and
Chair Knierim concurred.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard five. He noted the proposal does not offer
many changes to the original structure. Member M. Dunn stated she believes the standard is met by
the proposal.
Member Rose commented on the scale of the addition not overwhelming the scale of the house and
not changing the view from the street.
Member Guenther discussed the scale of recent projects and noted the Secretary of Interior
standards suggest additions be no larger than 30% of the original footprint whereas this proposal is
68%. He asked how that can be justified in terms of setting precedent for future requests. Mr.
Bertolini replied the 30% threshold is actually not in the federal guidelines; those guidelines call for
additions to be compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and reversible. He stated the 30% number
is used as a rule of thumb, but is not a requirement.
Member M. Dunn noted design is more critical than size and she cited the Ginger and Baker site as
one with a very large addition, but one that highlights the historic building. She commended this
proposed design, particularly given the inclusion of the hyphen.
Member Guenther concurred the proposed design is acceptable; however, he expressed concern the
Commission’s messaging to the community is not consistent. Chair Knierim suggested placing the
topic on a work session agenda.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard nine.
Member M. Dunn asked about the broadness of the western side of the gable stating it seems a bit
out of sorts. Member Guenther concurred and suggested exploring the angle of the gable in the back
to possibly make it consistent with the angles of the historic building. Mr. Aronson discussed the view
of the project from the street and stated the design will aim to be sensitive to the existing roof line.
Members further discussed the roof line and appropriate treatment.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss standard ten regarding reversibility, which he stated
is generally met.
Mr. Aronson asked Mr. Bertolini about the next steps in the process. Mr. Bertolini replied the
drawings should be refined into an actual drawing set with renderings then the project would go
before the Commission as part of a final design review. He also noted there is a DDA easement on
the property that was part of the 2014 rehabilitation.
Public Input
None.
[Timestamp: 6: 32p.m.]
(**Secretary’s Note: Member Nelsen returned at this point in the meeting.)
DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 October 19, 2022
6. 825 N COLLEGE- APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBLITY
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)
Claire Havelda, City Attorney’s Office, stated a procedural mistake was made on the City’s part
regarding the publishing of a hearing notice in a newspaper of regional circulation. She asked Grem
Armstrong, appellant, whether he would prefer to have the City correct that error or continue with the
hearing while waiving any objection to the City missing that procedural item. Mr. Armstrong opted to
proceed and acknowledged he will not be able to allege the hearing was unfair in the future.
Staff Report
Jim Bertolini presented the staff report noting this is an appeal of a staff finding determining that the
property at 825 North College is eligible to be considered an historic resource under the City’s
landmark criteria. He showed slides of the property and discussed the three distinct buildings on the
property: a service station, a residence, and a garage. He noted this is a de novo hearing and the
Commission is tasked with providing a determination of eligibility as to whether the property qualifies
as an historic resource.
Mr. Bertolini noted the historic survey of the property was kicked off by the receipt of a development
proposal for a conceptual review in August. He summarized the reasons staff found the property to
be eligible. Regarding the exterior material of the service station, Mr. Bertolini noted it is concrete
block with metal paneling over the top on the front and sides and stucco on the rear. He went on to
outline the history of the property and noted he received a verbal public comment over the phone
from a resident who is opposed to the finding of eligibility.
Applicant Presentation
Grem Armstrong provided the applicant presentation. He discussed his experience with the City in
2005 in developing the Human Bean on North College Avenue. He questioned the qualifications of
the individual at CDOT who determined the property to be historic in 2010. Mr. Bertolini replied
CDOT regularly employs historians and added the main reason CDOT provided a historic survey form
was because there was federal funding being utilized for the redevelopment of the North College
Avenue highway, and as part of that, CDOT has responsibilities under the National Historic
Preservation Act to account for its affects on any historic resources, or any property eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Armstrong showed photos of the residence on the property and discussed the history of its
additions, windows, and roof. He commented on the proposed project that would raze the buildings
and pave Alpine Street. He stated he does not believe there is any historical integrity in the property
and there is not enough room to incorporate the original gas station in the proposal. He requested
the Commission allow him to move forward with its planned development with some type of
recognition of the history of the property on the new development.
DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 October 19, 2022
Commission Questions and Discussion
Member Guenther asked Mr. Bertolini about the CDOT determination of eligibility in 2010. Mr.
Bertolini replied it was completed by an individual who met the federal standards for a preservation
related field and would have been verified by others in the organization.
Member Nelsen requested clarification regarding the integrity of the residence on the site. Mr.
Bertolini replied the questions about integrity were based on the photographs of the home and the
lack of documentation regarding its history.
Member M. Dunn asked about the determination of the 2010 CDOT survey. Mr. Bertolini replied the
survey found the service station and residence to both be potentially eligible for the National Register.
He noted the argument for significance was much clearer for the service station and was not well
supported for the residence.
Member M. Dunn commented on other landmarked service stations on Route 66 and asked about
other service stations that may have been designated nationally.
Member Rose commented on an article published by History Colorado on the oblong box as a service
station.
Member Guenther asked why all the buildings on the property are being considered when the
significance of the residence is not well established. Mr. Bertolini replied the Commission can
consider each building individually.
Member Guenther asked Mr. Armstrong if he owned the property in 2010 when the CDOT survey was
completed. Mr. Armstrong replied in the affirmative and stated he knew nothing about CDOT’s
designation until this year when the conceptual review was completed. He also noted the oblong box
is not porcelain or enamel but is painted metal in this case.
Member M. Dunn stated the CDOT report was written by a trained preservation historian who works
for CDOT and the other people who examined the report were with History Colorado. Mr. Bertolini
confirmed that information and stated that is the typical process under the National Historic
Preservation Act for federal undertakings.
Member Guenther asked if there is a process to notify the property owner that a determination has
been made relative to their property that could have a future impact on its market value. Mr. Bertolini
replied he is unfamiliar with CDOT’s internal policies for notification and noted the City is not
beholden to CDOT’s findings in cases such as this and the 2010 report was only used as a secondary
piece of literature to support the process required in the City Code.
Member Guenther stated he finds the CDOT process to be flawed given the property owner is not at
a minimum informed.
Member Edwards asked if the City still provided its own finding. Mr. Bertolini replied in the
affirmative.
Member Gibson requested clarification regarding the difference between a property being
recommended as being eligible and a property being designated. Mr. Bertolini replied a property that
is found eligible for the development review process is still offered some protections under the Land
Use Code and the responsibility of a developer is to incorporate eligible resources into their project;
however, one potential outcome is still demolition if the developer makes a successful request for a
modification of standards which is not an option for a designated City landmark.
Member M. Dunn stated the best way to avoid these types of surprises is for City Council to provide a
budget item to help provide surveys to inform property owners in advance of the consideration of
selling a property. She stated the ad hoc system wherein the development request triggers the
survey causes these types of surprises.
Member Nelsen asked about Section 106. Mr. Bertolini replied it refers to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act which requires federal agencies to account for their effects on historic
resources for their undertakings. He noted most CDOT projects involve federal funding of some type
from the Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Bertolini and members commented on an article from History Colorado that was referenced but
not included in the packet. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 October 19, 2022
Ms. Havelda suggested the Commission could adjourn to the next hearing time to allow the applicant
time to review the article, or the applicant could waive that right. Mr. Armstrong stated he would not
waive that as the full article was not in the packet.
Ms. Havelda requested the Commission not consider the parts of the article that were not referenced
in the staff report.
Commission Deliberation
Chair Knierim requested the Commission consider whether the property fits the criteria for
significance under events and trends for the service station and the garage.
Member M. Dunn stated she struggles with the significance of the garage for events; however, the
service station seems to fit the criteria based on movement of the community across the river.
Member Guenther, Chair Knierim, and Member Nelsen concurred.
Member Carlock stated she does not necessarily agree with the significance of any of the buildings
under events and trends and the garage should not be considered. Member W. Dunn concurred.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission consider whether the property fits the criteria for
significance under persons and groups for the residence.
Member Guenther stated he does not believe the events and trends were sufficiently established to
warrant designation given the events do not necessarily represent the history of Fort Collins.
Member Carlock stated the residence does not likely have any resemblance to what it looked like
when events took place and it does not have historical significance.
Member M. Dunn expressed concern about the number of shingle houses being lost in Fort Collins;
however, she stated she does not believe this house has the level of significance necessary. She
also stated she is not convinced the argument for historical significance based on people is pivotal
enough to landmark the house. Member Nelsen concurred and shared trepidation regarding the
house’s integrity.
Member Rose concurred with concerns about integrity of the residence.
Chair Knierim agreed the role of the women associated with the residence does not rise to a standard
of being historically pivotal.
Member Carlock commented on the possibility of the placement of a plaque and noted more people
will be made aware of the history of the women from that than from the saving of the house.
Member Rose commented on the lack of feeling and other aspects that keep the residence from
meeting the standards for integrity.
Chair Knierim requested the Commission discuss the architecture of the oblong station.
Member Carlock stated the original 1937 structure was unique; however, the modifications made in
the 1960’s severely changed the original building and keep it from being an example of the oblong
architecture.
Member M. Dunn disagreed and stated the modified structure exactly meets the oblong box
architecture. She stated it is classic and clear to her what the building is based on its structure.
Member Guenther concurred with Member Carlock and stated the architectural significance is only
functional. He stated the site as a whole is blighted, deteriorated, and has not been well maintained
and he is compelled to look toward the future for the site.
Member Rose concurred with Member M. Dunn and stated this station structure is relevant and
eligible and fits exactly the prototypical style of the era in which it was modified.
Member M. Dunn commented on not knowing the future of a property simply because it may be
dilapidated now. She stated important buildings can be considered for landmarking regardless of
whether they are dilapidated.
Chair Knierim concurred with Member M. Dunn and stated this building tells a story. He stated he
believes the station is eligible though the house and garage may not be.
Member M. Dunn commented on the value of preserving car history for future generations. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 October 19, 2022
Ms. Havelda suggested motions could be made for the station separate from those related to the
house and garage.
Member M. Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission find the residential house
and the accessory garage located at 825 North College Avenue do not meet the eligibility
standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and are not historic
resources for the purpose of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 based on the following
findings of fact: they lack the level of significance and integrity that would be expected.
Member Rose seconded.
Yeas: Guenther, Nelsen, W. Dunn, Edwards, M. Dunn, Rose, Gibson, Carlock and Knierim.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Chair Knierim requested the Commission address the service station regarding its significance in
terms of events and trends and architecture.
Member Rose commented on the commercial aspect of this kind of a facility weaving itself into history
by the development and evolution of commerce in Fort Collins and the improvement of highways and
transportation. He noted this was the first service station north of the river and stated he believes the
building is eligible.
Member Guenther stated he struggles with this designation and commented on early automotive
advertising and his work in helping Ford develop dealerships over time. However, he stated he
struggles with this particular oblong box being a very important architectural style as many of these
buildings were built with a dispensable mindset.
Member Carlock agreed the introduction of the automobile and the importance it played in the
development of society are very important and legitimate, and looking at the original structures would
have been more around the time when that trend occurred. She stated it was a well-established
pattern by the 1960’s; therefore, it is not as significant of an event and trend. She noted there will be
no ability to redevelop the area if the building is determined to be eligible.
Ms. Havelda reminded the Commission that in this forum, the policy regarding what happens with
future development is not relevant to its consideration.
Member Guenther asked if that consideration is stated somewhere. Ms. Havelda replied City Council
did not see fit to include future considerations of development within the purview of the Historic
Preservation Commission as the Code stands now; however, Council does have the ability to take
into account other policy considerations should a decision be appealed.
Mr. Armstrong noted none of this would have occurred had a development request not been made.
Ms. Havelda noted that is the frustration with the Code that Member M. Dunn discussed earlier. She
suggested Mr. Armstrong make comments to Council because that will inform changes to the Code.
Member M. Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission find the service station 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 fact that it embodies an important evolution in commerce
and transportation in Fort Collins as businesses began to move north of the Poudre River in
part enabled by the growing use of motorized transportation and on the fact that the
architecture is a classic example of the utterly unornate oblong box style of garage
architecture, and finding that the building has integrity to support both aspects of
significance.
Member Rose seconded.
Yeas: Nelsen, W. Dunn, M. Dunn, Rose, Gibson and Knierim. Nays: Guenther, Edwards and
Carlock.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
[Timestamp: 8:25 p.m.] DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 October 19, 2022
• OTHER BUSINESS
Member M. Dunn announced an archeological tour of Roberts Ranch hosted by Historic Larimer
County.
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 8:26 pm.
Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.
_____________________________________
Kurt Knierim, Chair DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
ADOPTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S 2023 WORK PLAN
STAFF
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
PROJECT INFORMATION
The purpose of this item is to discuss and adopt the Historic Preservation Commission’s Work Plan for 2023.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s Municipal Code requires boards and commissions to develop work plans identifying goals for the next
year. Work plans for 2022 are due November 30, 2023 take effect on January 1, 2023.
The full Historic Preservation Commission provided input to staff on priorities and specific suggested actions for
its 2023 work plan. Those suggestions have been summarized and formatted in the attached work plan, which will
be formally adopted at the November 16, 2022 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. HPC 2023 Work Plan_Draft
Packet Pg. 15
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
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 16, 2022
TO: Susan Gutowsky, Council Liaison
CC: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk
FROM: Kurt Knierim, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission
RE: Historic Preservation Commission 2023 Work Plan
The 2023 work plan reflects the results of a planning session held on October 12, 2022, at which the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) set priorities that coalesced into 4 primary work plan initiatives
that will be undertaken in addition to the Commission’s ongoing quasi-judicial and legislative business.
2023 Work Plan Initiatives
The 2023 work plan categories are aligned with the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Impact
Agenda, the Colorado Statewide Historic Preservation Plan, and most importantly the City’s strategic
plans and key outcome areas.
1.Support Building an Equitable, Affordable, and Vibrant Community
•Provide feedback and ideas for the following staff-led initiatives:
o share local history and elevate appreciation of historic building stock that provides
affordable housing for the community
o prioritize inclusion in order to tell a more accurate and comprehensive story of our
community
o encourage emphasis on the history of individual Fort Collins neighborhoods to help
residents learn about and appreciate where they live
o follow National Register process to consider updating the significance criteria to include
cultural significance and evaluate local potential for application.
2.Grow a Collaborative and Inclusive Network through Improved Public Engagement
•Expanded public engagement opportunities:
o Assist staff with informal presentations to community groups, focusing first on the key
interest groups of cultural and heritage non-profits, realtors, construction and building
trades, and developers as well as youth K-12 education (Jim Rose)
o Use HPC meetings to engage with and empower the participation, self-advocacy, and
storytelling of underrepresented groups who are not typically connected to historic
preservation work
o Interact more closely with Energy Board, Human Relations Board, and others (Jim Rose)
o Help staff to identify new stakeholder interest groups and partner agencies and
organizations to work on shared goals
•Network with community contacts and encourage City Clerk’s Office and City Council to recruit
and appoint new HPC members who represent the diversity of our community’s demographics
•Incorporate the City’s future land acknowledgement statement into HPC meetings.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 16
Historic Preservation Commission 2023 Work Plan
3. Strengthen Connection to Climate Resilience Work
• Use HPC work sessions and other educational outlets led by HPC members to educate residents
and contractors about value and passive energy performance of pre-WWII building stock and
material conservation/embodied energy, as well as methods for maintaining and improving
ongoing energy performance of historic buildings
• Provide feedback to staff on conceptual design of effective graphics to represent comparative
effects of demolition versus adaptive reuse/rehabilitation of buildings
• Provide comments for City’s effort to consider a future deconstruction ordinance that is connected
to a regional network of participants
4. Develop Modernized and Expanded Tools for Historic Preservation
• Engage a younger demographic with connections to emerging professionals in graduate
programs and emerging digital tools (Jenna Edwards)
• Support effort to create new and more numerous tools for recognizing historic places and learning
about their history (on site and online)
• Participate in staff-led effort to evaluate, address, and strengthen incentives and financial support
programs to encourage and support local landmarks (Jim Rose)
• Use HPC meetings to promote the existing Cost Calculator Tool on the City’s website
• Provide ideas to staff for new information and helpful resources to add to City’s website
--------------------------------------------
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Purpose and Overview:
• The HPC was established in 1968 and is a nine-member quasi-judicial body composed of
qualified residents of the City of Fort Collins. Per Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements
in the United States historic preservation system, the City must demonstrate an effort to maintain
at least 40% of the HPC membership with professional expertise in history, archaeology,
architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture.
o Currently, that expertise is represented on the Fort Collins HPC by 7 of the 9 members
(78%) as follows: Architecture (Anne Nelsen); Historic Architecture and Architectural
History (Jim Rose); History (Jenna Edwards, Margo Carlock, Kurt Knierim); Archaeology
(William Dunn, Bonnie Gibson).
o Two HPC members are Old Town residents who represent the interests of historic property
owners in the community and have relevant backgrounds in local history activities and
education (Meg Dunn) and corporate business, finance, and marketing (Eric Guenther).
• The HPC performs the CLG responsibilities for the City of Fort Collins:
o Enables the City to administer preservation regulations on behalf of the state and federal
governments; residents to receive 25% Colorado State Tax Credits for Historic
Preservation; and City to receive CLG grants for training, surveys, building preservation,
and community education
o Requires enforcement of state and local legislation for the designation and protection of
historic properties consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards; requires on-going
survey of historic resources.
• The HPC is the final decision-maker on:
o Exterior alterations to properties designated as Fort Collins Landmarks; determinations of
eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation; and allocation of Landmark Rehabilitation
Loan funds.
• The HPC makes formal recommendations:
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 17
Historic Preservation Commission 2023 Work Plan
o To Council on Fort Collins Landmark designations and matters of policy related to historic
preservation and land use; to the Colorado State Review Board on nominations of Fort
Collins properties to the National and State Registers of Historic Places
o To the Planning and Zoning Commission, Hearing Officers, and City staff on design
compatibility of developments adjacent to and/or containing historic resources, as well as
proposed treatment plans for adaptive reuse of those historic resources.
• HPC advises Council on the identification and significance of historic resources, threats to their
preservation, and methods for their protection; and advises Council and staff about policies,
incentives, and regulations for historic preservation.
• The HPC proactively addresses barriers that perpetuate inequality, to help minimize impacts to
historically under-represented and under-resourced community members; and directly supports
the City's goals of sustaining an environment where residents and visitors feel welcomed, safe,
and valued in the community.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1110 MAPLE ST.
STAFF
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Demolition review and notification for single-family residences 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.
1110 Maple St.
Historical Background
The property at 1110 Maple St. was built c. 1924, according to the Tax Assessor estimate. This house was
built in Tennyson Heights on an originally unnamed street that was eventually named Jackson Court; the
address first appears in City Directories in 1948, likely as 1200 ½ Jackson Ct., given that Byron Stearly
purchased the parcel in 1947 (Book 840, Page 261) and is listed as living at that address with his wife, Marian.
The 1949 Tax Assessor record identifies this house as 1116 Maple St. City Directories list both 1110 and 1116
Maple St. addresses starting in 1962. The map below from the City Engineer’s Office from the 1950s (Fort
Collins History Connection) shows the street names and layouts from that period. The Stearlys lived in this
house for about 14 years. There is no detailed survey record for this property.
Packet Pg. 19
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 2
The owner of this property also owns the parcel between 1110 Maple St. and the street (1116 Maple St.) and
does not currently intend to build anything to replace the house and secondary structure proposed for
demolition. Please refer to the map below showing these two parcels.
Construction History
DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION
11/19/1993 933295 Richard Saracino Reroof
11/24/2008 B0807152 Roma Saracino Reroof
Residents (to 1975)
YEAR 700 E Elizabeth NOTES
1948 Byron A. and Marian Stearly 1200 1/2 Jackson Ct.; Byron - printer
1950 same
Byron - printer at Robinson-Warfield
Printing Co.
1954 same
1956 same Byron - foreman Robinson Warfield
1957 same
Byron - printer at Robinson-Warfield
Printing Co.
1959 same
1960 same
1962 Byron A. and Marlan E. Stearly
No more Jackson Ct - Stearlys at 1110
Maple St; Saracinos at 1116 Maple;
Byron - printer Kistler's
1963 Kenneth J. and Evelyn N. Brown
Kenneth - caretaker City of Fort
Collins; Evelyn - kitchen helper South
Eventide Nursing Home
Packet Pg. 20
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 3
1964 same
Kenneth - caretaker Grandview
Roselawn Cemeteries; Evelyn - cook
for South Eventide Rest Home
1966 same; Jim Brown (1110) same; no emp. Listed Jim Brown
1968 illegible
1969 James and Duane Brown; Marietta Anderson
James and Duane - College students;
Marietta - no emp. Listed
1970 "student housing"
1971 same
1972 Rossie Moore
no emp. Listed (Rossie Moore and
Roma Saracino purchase property
1971)
1973 Robert D. Foxwell no emp. Listed
1975 Dean Hubbell; Kevin Murray
Kevin - Carpenter at Peterson
Construction Co; Dean - no emp.
Listed
1110 Maple St. – 1948 Tax Assessor Photo
Packet Pg. 21
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 4
1110 Maple St. – 1968 Tax Assessor Photo
1110 Maple St. – 1977 Tax Assessor Photo
ATTACHMENTS
1. Current Photos
Packet Pg. 22
From:micah
To:Historic Preservation
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Demolition of Property at 1110 Maple St
Date:Thursday, September 29, 2022 5:10:54 PM
I was notified that I need to start the process of notifications and permissions with the City of
Fort Collins Historic Preservation regarding my plan to demolish a building at 1110 Maple St.
Fort Collins 80521.
In an email from Yani Jones she outlined 4 things that I needed to provide to initiate the
process the following are my responses:
1. "A statement requesting the initiation of the Single-Family Demolition Notification
process."
I, Micah Eckhardt, would like to request the initiation of the demolition of a Single-Family
home that I recently purchased, that is in disrepair and falling down.
2. "A confirmation that the proposed new construction would be another single-family
residence."
We are not currently planning to build on the property. It will be several years until we are
able to build on the property. We own the lots connected to this property and we are first
restoring these lots.
3. "Photos of all sides of the house and any secondary structures that would be demolished."
See attached, there are 4 photos of the outside of the house and 1 photo of a shed that will all
be demolished.
4. "If they are available, a copy of any proposed plans."
At this time we have no proposed plans, as we are not going to be building another home on
the property in the immediate future.
Best regards,
Micah
617 858 9932
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 23
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 24
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 25
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 516 N. GRANT AVE.
STAFF
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Demolition review and notification for single-family residences 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.
516 N. Grant Ave.
Historical Background
The property at 516 N. Grant Ave. was built c. 1908. Byron Rooker, a laborer, and his wife, Helen, lived there
at the time. Joe Cienfuegos and his wife, Teresa, lived in this house briefly from 1945 until 1948 (based on title
records). It was around this time that Joe was trained under Bill Hawley in auto upholstery at Hawley’s Auto
Top Shop at 247 Linden St., and, according to an interview from Joe’s son, Richard Cienfuegos, he purchased
the business from Hawley soon after. The 1954 City Directory first shows the business name change to Joe’s
Auto Upholstery. Joe and Teresa moved to 326 Wood St. in 1952, and they lived there for twelve years; their
son, Richard, and his wife, Ruby, moved into the Wood St. house after them. There is no detailed survey
record for this property.
The proposed demolition includes the c. 1908 house and the secondary structure on the property (construction
date unknown).
Construction History
DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION
5/19/1924 465 C.A. Whallon
Frame addition, 12x16, 1 story, concrete
foundations, drop siding, shingle roof
5/25/1943 7382 C.A. Whallon Repair porches
4/26/1946 9082 Joe Cienfuegos Reshingling; repairs
10/14/1976 26402 Sadie Hubbard Repair porches
12/7/1990 902558 Ron Hubbard Reroof
Packet Pg. 26
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 2
Residents (to 1975)
YEAR 516 N. Grant Ave. NOTES
1908-1909 Byron and Helen Rooker Byron - laborer
1909-1910 W.A. and Amanda J. Diamond
1910-1911 Vacant
1913-1914 Henry and Ethel Kennedy Henry - laborer
1917 Charles F. and Nanie Wilt Charles - laborer
1919 Harry V. and Margaret Summerton Harry - driver Union Delivery Co.
1922 Charles Allen and Hattie Whallon
1925 same Charles - plasterer
1927 same no emp listed
1929 same Charles - plasterer
1931 same no emp listed
1933 same
1934 same
1936 same; Mrs. Goldie Lathrum Goldie - waiter at Thomann Café
1938
Charles A. Whallon; Goldie Lathrom (wid.
Andrew) no emp listed
1940 Goldie Lathrum Waitress at Dunigan's Café
1948 Joseph C. and Teresa M. Cienfugeos
Joe - upholstery apprentice Hawley
Auto Top Shop
1950 Al and Mary Lucero Al - emp. GW Sugar Co.
1954 Albert M. and Arvilla Buckendorf Albert - odd jobs
1956 James and Sadie R. Valdez James - emp Cheyenne Wyo res
1957 John Y. Martinez
1959 James and Sadie R. Valdez James - hod (?) carrier
1960 same Sadie - dishwasher; James - same
1962 NL
1963 James M. and Mary E. Valdez bed? Carrier Halbert Construction Co.
1964 Cecelia E. Mondragon no emp listed
1966
Barbara A. Valdez and Ronald W. and Sadie R.
Hubbard
Barbara - student; Ronald - cook
Walgreen Drug
1968 same
1969 same; Felix Valdez no emp listed
1970 same (minus Barbara); Josephina Valdez
Josephina - Four Seasons Nursing;
Felix - First National Bank; Ronald -
Pipeline construction City of Fort
Collins; Sadie - janitor (?) First National
Bank
1971 same (minus Felix)
Same; Josephina - aide Four Seasons
Nursing Center
1972 same (minus Josephina) same
1973 same
1975 same; Felix Valdez
Packet Pg. 27
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 3
516 N. Grant Ave. – 1948 Tax Assessor Photo
516 N. Grant Ave. – 1968 Tax Assessor Photo
ATTACHMENTS
1. Current Photos
Packet Pg. 28
Packet Pg. 29
Packet Pg. 30
Packet Pg. 31
Packet Pg. 32
Packet Pg. 33
Packet Pg. 34
Packet Pg. 35
Packet Pg. 36
Packet Pg. 37
Packet Pg. 38
Packet Pg. 39
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING OCTOBER 6 TO NOVEMBER 2, 2022)
STAFF
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
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 October 6 to November 2, 2022.
There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting items and events from the previous month.
Packet Pg. 40
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, 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
Hispanic Heritage Tour
City of Fort Collins
ENCORE and Natural
Areas
Tour focusing on Hispanic
heritage in the Holy Family
neighborhood area
10 October 7,
2022
CSU Professional
Development Seminar
Colorado State
University – History
Department
Maren participated to
provide guidance on
professional workplace
expectations for graduate
students
12 October 7,
2022
Hispanic Heritage Tour Poudre Libraries
District
Tour focusing on Hispanic
heritage in the Holy Family
Neighborhood area
10 October 8,
2022
Architectural History
Tour
Ridgeview Classical
Schools
Tour about architecture and
culture around Old Town
for Mr. Trapp’s 7th and 8th
grade art class
Approx.
20
October 19,
2022
Hispanic Heritage Tour City – Economic
Health Team
Tour focusing on Hispanic
heritage in the Tres
Colonias Neighborhood
5 October 24,
2022
Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision
2005 N. Overland
Trail (Fort Collins
Waterworks)
Removal of non-original door and replacement
with compatible door in same opening. City
Landmark and State register designation.
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approval October 6, 2022
129 S. Whitcomb St.
(129 S. Whitcomb St.)
Gutters. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval October 10, 2022
903 Mathews St. (E.J.
Robinson Residence)
Re-roofing. Contributing property in Laurel
School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approval October 11, 2022
622 Remington St.
(C.M. Smith House)
Window rehab and lead abatement. City
Landmark and contributing property in Laurel
School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approval October 11, 2022
1006 Laporte Ave.
(Marsh-Geist House &
Garage)
Window rehab. City Landmark. Reviewed by
staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval October 13, 2022
412 Wood St. (Juan
and Mary Barraza
Proprety)
Window repair and wood screens to match
existing wood storms. City Landmark.
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approval October 13, 2022
116 Pearl St.
(Landblom Property)
Reroofing. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval October 17, 2022
Packet Pg. 41
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 3
223 Linden St. (Reed-
Dauth Block)
New recessed, accessible entry with design of
door matching historic drawing; awning over
entry; patio reconfiguration. City Landmark and
contributing property in Old Town NRHP
District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approval October 18, 2022
322 Whedbee St. (J.
Hansen/John Houser
House)
Reroofing. Contributing property in Laurel
School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approval October 19, 2022
1510 S. College Ave.
(Bradley Residence
and Rock Walls)
Fin sign. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval October 24, 2022
512 E. Magnolia St.
(512 E. Magnolia St.)
Reroofing. Contributing property in Laurel
School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approval October 26, 2022
121 N. Grant Ave.
(McMillen-Patterson
Property)
Wood storm door restoration. City Landmark.
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV. (extension granted)
Approval October 26, 2022
1510 S. College Ave.
(Bradley Residence
and Rock Walls)
Sign. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approval October 31, 2022
Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision /
Recommendation
N. Mason St. near
Hibdon
Fort Collins Rescue Mission – Multi-
service campus.
Minor design compatibility
requirements.
November 2,
2022
300 Impala Circle Impala Housing Catalyst (FC Housing
Authority) project.
Confirmed design
compatibility with
adjacent Ricketts
Farmhouse
November 2,
2022
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
1901 Hull St. Eligible (Appealed) Yes (modified) October 14
1925 Hull St. Eligible (Appealed) Yes October 14
1839 Hyline Dr. Not Eligible Yes October 14
147 N. Washington
Ave Eligible Yes October 14
301 S. Washington
Ave. Not Eligible Yes October 14
Packet Pg. 42
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 4
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
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 29 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 13 seen for the first time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. FY 2022 CLG Annual Report
Packet Pg. 43
Staff Activity Report
November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner &Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
Design Review Highlight 2
223 Linden St. – Reed-Dauth Block
• New recessed, accessible entry
• Door and opening location to match historic drawing
from 1881 city map
1
2
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 44
Historic Survey Highlight 3
147 N. Washington Ave
- Standard 2, Persons/Groups
- Frank X. Gassner, advances in veterinary
medicine
- Standard 3, Design/Construction
- Stone-built Hipped Roof Box
Education and Outreach Highlights 4
Hispanic Heritage Tour (Holy Family
area) for City of Fort Collins ENCORE
and Natural Areas. In front of 728
Sycamore St. – Lee Martinez
Residence
Architectural History Tour for
Ridgeview Classical 7th/8th Grade Art
Students; E. Oak Street by Library
Park.
3
4
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 45
FY2022 CLG Annual Report 5
• 9 members
• 78% (7 of 9) are credentialed
preservation professionals
•Exceeds CLG 40% minimum
• Diverse representation remains
ongoing recruitment goal
• 11 regular meetings; 10 work
sessions
•297 locally designated
properties
• 0 new landmarks
• 86 total Landmark Design
Review decisions (6 by HPC)
• 18 reviews of non-designated
historic resources
•20 resources inventoried
(intensive-level)
• 3 Section 106 (all HUD)
• FOP Awards/Reception
• Scott Apartments NRHP Listing
• DOE and Design Review
appeals
• HPC and staff not at full
capacity
•FY 2023 priorities listed
HPC Historic Resource Data Highlights
5
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 46
1$1
History Colorado
Colorado Certified Local Government
2022 Annual Report
Federal Fiscal Year 2022: October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2022
Due Date: November 1, 2022
Please save this file in the original PDF format, DO NOT PRINT AND SCAN.
Submit via email to lindsey.flewelling@state.co.us
Name of CLG :
Name of Commission/Board:
Contact Name: Contact Title:
Contact Phone: Contact Fax:
Contact Email:
Contact Address:
City: State: CO Zip:
Website for your historic preservation program:
Provide a list of all local government staff members with duties assigned to your local preservation program and their job
titles. Then, list the percentage of their job duties that are related to historic preservation and check each staff member that
meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. Please include any consultants contracted to
perform designation, design, or tax credit reviews on a regular basis.
Name Title Percent SOI Qualified
An accurately completed annual report is a CLG requirement
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 47
Preservation Planning & Operational Documents
1)In Federal Fiscal Year 2022, were any of the following newly developed or revised (check all that apply):
Preservation Ordinance (including Amendments)
By-Laws or Administrative Rules
Preservation Plan
Survey Plan
Design Guidelines
Commission/Board
2)Provide a list of all current Commission/Board Members. Check any Commission/Board Members newly appointed in
Federal Fiscal Year 2022 and attach their resumes and/or applications. Also, check all Commission/Board Members that
are professionals in preservation-related disciplines and list their profession beside their names.
Preservation-related disciplines include: history, architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, p rehistoric or
historic archaeology, planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geography, cultural anthropology, or
related disciplines such as building trades, real estate, or law.
New Preservation
Name Member P rofessional Discipline(s)
3)If 40% of the current Commission/Board is not comprised of preservation-related professionals, please describe your
efforts to recruit.
4)How does the Commission/Board seek additional expertise in the fields of architecture, architectural history or
archaeology when needed?
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 48
5)Do the members of the Commission/Board represent the general ethnic diversity of the community?
6)List the SHPO-approved educational/training sessions attended by Commission/Board Members in Federal Fiscal Year
2022. Please list name of session or conference (list conference, not individual sessions when a conference was attended)
and the name(s) of Commission/Board Member that attended.
7)What is your Commission/Board’s regular meeting schedule? (i.e. First Thursday of every other month at 6pm)
8)Please list the number of meetings and dates held in Federal Fiscal Year 2022:
Regular Meetings Special Meetings Work/Study Sessions
Total Number Total Number Total Number
Dates Dates Dates
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 49
Historic Contexts & Surveys
9) List any Historic Context Studies completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2022.
10) List any Cultural/Historic Resource Surveys completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2022.
11) How many resources were inventoried in Federal Fiscal Year 2022?
Inventoried means any buildings, structures, objects, or sites for which the Commission/Board obtained information not
previously held. This information may come from newly surveyed properties or properties nominated that had not been
surveyed. Inventoried properties can be either eligible or non-eligible for listing.
Designations
12) How many contributing resources (buildings, structures, objects, sites) are locally designated? This count includes ALL
listings since the Commission/Board was originally formed. For Districts, count all contributing buildings, structures and
sites individually.
13) How many contributing resources (buildings, structures, objects, sites) were locally designated in Federal Fiscal Year
2022? For Districts, count all contributing buildings, structures and sites individually.
Please list. For Districts, list name with number of contributing resources in parenthesis.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 50
Project Review
14) How many design review applications were considered by the Commission/Board for designated resources in Federal
Fiscal Year 2022?
a. Total Reviewed
b. Review by Full Commission
c. Review by Design Review Subcommittee Only
d. Reviewed by Staff Only
15) How many design review applications were considered by the Commission/Board for non-designated resources in
Federal Fiscal Year 2022?
a. Total Reviewed
b. Review by Full Commission
c. Review by Design Review Subcommittee Only
d. Reviewed by Staff Only
16) Did your County/Municipality comment or participate in any Section 106 Reviews as a consulting party in Federal Fiscal
Year 2022?
If yes, list name of project or property and the Federal Agency initiating the review.
Preservation Incentives
17) Does your County/Municipality have any local incentives programs for preservation or for the benefit of historic
properties? Please check all that apply.
Tax incentive program (Sales Tax Rebate, Property Tax Rebate, etc)
Government-funded loan program
Government-funded grant program
Zoning Variances/Use Allowances
Acquisition of historic properties through purchase or donation Preservation
Awards
Other (Please describe)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 51
Narrative Questions
18) Did your Board/Commission develop, sponsor, or participate in any public outreach, education, or interpretive
events/meetings/tours/materials in Federal Fiscal Year 2022?
If yes, please describe.
19) What CLG accomplishment/achievement/event in Federal Fiscal Year 2022 makes the Commission/Board most proud?
20) Describe any problems – operational, political or financial – encountered by the CLG in Federal Fiscal Year 2022.
21) Describe any planned/projected Commission/Board activities for Federal Fiscal Year 2023.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment Checklist
All documents listed below are required for a complete report unless listed as “if applicable” or “if adopted.” Providing a
link to an online document, if downloadable, may be substituted for actual attachment of a document when available. Please
include all documents as separate attachments.
All meeting minutes for Federal Fiscal Year 2022 (unless previously submitted)
List of all locally d esignated properties (from inception of local listing)
Resumes or applications for commission/board members appointed in FY22 (if applicable)
Sample of Public Notice announcing commission/board Meeting
Sample advertisement for new commission/board members
Current preservation ordinance and amendments (if adopted during FY22)
Current by-laws or administrative rules for the commission/board (if adopted during FY22)
Current Preservation Plan or preservation chapter in Comprehensive Plan (if adopted during FY22)
Current Survey Plan (if adopted during FY22)
Historic Context Surveys completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2022 or date submitted to SHPO (if applicable)
Cultural/Historic Resource Surveys completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2022 or date submitted to SHPO (if applicable)
Please provide links to any online documents or additional details:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 53
Agenda Item 6
Item 6, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
THE LESLIE P. AND RUTH A. WARE PROPERTY AT 1801 SHEELY DR. - APPLICATION FOR FORT
COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION
STAFF
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Ralph and Cheryl Olson
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark
designation of the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property at 1801 Sheely Dr.
COMMISSION’S ROLE AND ACTION: One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to provide a recommendation to
City Council on applications for the designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. Chapter 14 of the Municipal
Code provides the standards and process for designation. At the hearing, the Commission shall determine whether
the following two (2) criteria are satisfied: (1) the proposed resource is eligible for designation; and (2) the requested
designation will advance the policies and the purposes in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested
designation. Following its review, and once the Commission feels it has the information it needs, the Commission
should adopt a motion providing its recommendation on the property’s Landmark eligibility to City Council.
STAFF EVALUATION OF REVIEW CRITERIA
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY
The Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property is significant under Standard 3 (Design/Construction) because it is a
representative example of the Usonian style of architecture. This 1961 house followed the design of Colorado Springs
architect Robert Bullock and used materials from the Valley Block Company. The design was called “The Silhouette
of the Sixties,” and it served as a show home for builder Ben Olds and Valley Block Company’s Ormond Sherwood.
Olds and Sherwood intended “to show future homeowners, architects, and builders, and the bankers who finance
home building, that concrete block houses were not always minimum housing” (Joanne Ditmer, 1961). Character-
defining features include the streamlined appearance, achieved by the white-painted concrete, clerestory windows,
“floating” roof with wide overhangs and plexiglass globe details, attached carport with decorative screen, the
horizontality of the structure, the general absence of street-facing windows with significant glazing on the rear
elevation, and the integration of the home within the landscape.
This property retains sufficient integrity to reflect its significance. The most significant change this house has
undergone was the addition of the rear garage, but, constructed in the late 1960s, it can be considered a historic
change; this garage is also integrated into the landscape like the rest of the house. The breezeway was enclosed in
2006, but this change is not visible from the street because it is hidden behind an original wall. Otherwise, the
design of the house has changed very little since its construction. Likewise, few materials have been lost, and
window replacements appear to have been made in-kind. The workmanship displayed in the concrete block
construction and elements like the floating roof also contribute to the integrity of association with Orm Sherwood of
the Valley Block Company and builder Ben Olds. Because of these reasons, and because of the integrity of location
and setting, the house continues to feel like an early 1960s residence and can clearly convey its significance.
Packet Pg. 54
Agenda Item 6
Item 6, Page 2
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY CODE AND PURPOSE
The designation of historic properties and the work of historic preservation promote the policies and purposes
adopted by City Council for the City of Fort Collins. Designation furthers the City’s goals of environmental, economic,
and social sustainability. By continuing the use of an existing building and preserving the embodied energy of its
existing materials, landmark designation is environmentally sustainable. The designation of historic properties also
contributes to the City’s economic standing directly, through property, use, and sales taxes and revenues, and
indirectly, through the promotion of heritage tourism. Furthermore, historic designation encourages the continuation of
private property ownership. The City’s cultural standing is also upheld because the preservation of the built
environment helps residents and visitors tangibly gain a better understanding of our history and the diversity of
people who shaped Fort Collins. Landmark designation enhances and perpetuates significant resources in the City
through the protection and acknowledgement of those historic properties as well as through the financial incentives
offered to landmark owners. Finally, the designation of historic properties also maintains and enhances the City’s
aesthetics through the protection and recognition of significant local architecture and history, contributing to the
promotion of good urban design and fostering civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past. Taken
together, these benefits of landmark designation help strengthen Fort Collins’s community and support our vision of a
livable, sustainable city. (Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2; City Plan)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In evaluating the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Leslie P. and
Ruth A. Ware Property at 1801 Sheely Dr., staff make the following findings of fact:
1. That all owners of the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property have consented in writing to this request
for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the property;
2. That the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property has significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3,
Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in this staff report and accompanying
nomination form;
3. That the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property has integrity of Location, Setting, Design, Materials,
Workmanship, Feeling, and Association sufficient to convey its significance as supported by the
analysis provided in this staff report;
4. That the designation will advance the policies and purposes stated in the code in a manner and extent
sufficient to justify the requested designation, as supported by the analysis provided in this staff
report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a motion recommending to Council the landmark designation of the
Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property.
SAMPLE MOTIONS
SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution
recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property at 1801
Sheely Dr. as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under
Standard 3, Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report and Landmark nomination
dated October 20, 2022, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through integrity of Location, Setting,
Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association to a sufficient degree; and finding also that the
designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the
Municipal Code.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution
recommending that City Council does not adopt an ordinance to designate the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property
at 1801 Sheely Dr. as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is not eligible because of a lack of
significance and/or the failure of the property to convey its significance through its integrity, and/or finding that the
Packet Pg. 55
Agenda Item 6
Item 6, Page 3
designation of this property will not promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the
Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Landmark Designation Application
2. Owner Acknowledgement
3. Draft HPC Resolution
4. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 56
Historic Preservation Services
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.4250
preservation@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/historicpreservation
1
Fort Collins Landmark Designation
LOCATION INFORMATION
Address: 1801 Sheely Dr.
Legal Description: Lot 22, Peck Minor Sub, Fort Collins
Property Name (historic and/or common): Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property
OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Ralph G. and Chery L. Olson
Phone: 970-690-8517; 970-231-7140
Email: raffle20@yahoo.com
Mailing Address: 1801 Sheely Dr., Fort Collins, CO 80526
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: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner0F
1
Address: 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO
Phone: 970-224-6045
Email: yjones@fcgov.com
DATE: October 20, 2022
1 The contents of this nomination are largely based on the intensive-level cultural resources survey
competed by Mary Therese Anstey (Historitecture, LLC) on November 19, 2010, but additional information has been
added from a Landmark nomination form provided by Ralph and Cheryl Olson and by research and writing from
Historic Preservation Services staff; all sources referenced in this nomination are listed in the References section of
this form, including the sources from the 2010 Anstey report, the 2022 Olson nomination, and additional sources
found by staff. Photos were taken by Yani Jones 2022 and copies can be found with City of Fort Collins Historic
Preservation Services.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 57
2
TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES
Individual Landmark Property Landmark District
Explanation of Boundaries:
The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond
to the legal description of the property (hereinafter the “Property”), above.
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and INTEGRITY
Properties are eligible for designation if they possess both significance and integrity.
Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history,
architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For
designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must
meet one (1) or more of the following standards set forth in Fort Collins Municipal Code
Section 14-22(a):
Standard 1: Events
This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to
the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with
either (or both) of these two (2) types of events:
a) A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or
history; and/or
b) A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable
contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation.
Standard 2: Persons/Groups
This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable
in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that
history can be identified and documented.
Standard 3: Design/Construction
This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of
construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is
distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic
values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of
properties.
The Leslie and Ruth Ware Property is significant under Standard 3 (Design/Construction)
because it is representative of the Usonian style of architecture. This 1961 house
followed the sophisticated design of Colorado Springs architect Robert Bullock and used
materials from the Valley Block Company. The design was declared “The Silhouette of the
Sixties” in an advertisement from the Valley Block Company and in newspaper articles. It
served as a show home for builder Ben Olds and Valley Block Company’s Ormond
Sherwood, who intended “to show future homeowners, architects, and builders, and the
bankers who finance home building, that concrete block houses were not always
minimum housing” (Ditmer). Character-defining features include the streamlined
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 58
3
appearance, achieved by the white-painted concrete, clerestory windows, “floating” roof
with wide overhangs and plexiglass globe details, attached carport with decorative
screen, the horizontality of the structure, the general absence of street-facing windows
with significant glazing on the rear elevation, and the integration of the home within the
landscape.
Standard 4: Information Potential
This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Period of Significance is the discrete chronological period (or periods) during which a
historic property gained its significance. Additions or alterations to a property that have
significance in their own right can warrant the extension of a Period of Significance.
Period(s) of Significance:
1961 – The year of the house’s construction
Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its
significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or
some of seven (7) aspects or qualities set forth in Fort Collins Municipal Code Section
14-22(b): location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All
seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be
eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident.
Standard 1: Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place
where the historic or prehistoric event occurred.
The location of the house has not changed.
Standard 2: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space,
structure and style of a resource.
The design of this house clearly represents the Usonian style of architecture. It features
architectural elements and design choices characteristic of that style, such as the
dominant horizontal lines, emphasized by the clerestory windows with plexiglass orbs,
the flat roof with large overhangs, the large windows at the rear elevation meant to bring
the outside in, the integration of the house in the landscape, and the carport. The lower-
level garage and workshop was added in the late 1960s, a historic change; this garage is
integrated into the landscape much like the rest of the house. Although the breezeway
was enclosed from the carport to the main house, this change is not visible from the
façade.
Standard 3: Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Setting refers to the
character of the place; it involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its
relationship to the surrounding features and open space.
The setting of this property has not changed significantly over time. The house continues
to integrate in with its surrounding yard space and landscaping, including landscape
features like the large circular steps or the plexiglass orb topped light posts. The
neighborhood this property is situated in also includes many other homes constructed
around 1961, including those in the Sheely Drive Landmark District.
Standard 4: Materials are the physical elements that form a resource.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 59
4
This house has sufficient integrity of materials. It was constructed primarily of concrete,
which is significant to the design and history of this particular house; there has been
little, if any, loss of this material. The plexiglass orbs have also been retained. Ruth Ware
reported that she replaced the first level windows and garage door in the 1980s; because
there are not early photos of the rear elevation of this property, it cannot be known for
sure, but it is likely that these were in-kind or compatible replacements given the type of
windows and doors elsewhere on the property.
Standard 5: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture
or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans'
labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site.
Workmanship is evident on this house in the techniques and choices made to achieve the
appearance of the floating roof by employing the clerestory windows and using the
plexiglass orbs to camouflage structural posts. The builder’s ability to create a
streamlined, “high-end” look using concrete block as intended also demonstrates his
workmanship. Details, such as the diamond-shaped screens in the carport, or the
patterned balcony wall, also show workmanship.
Standard 6: Feeling is a resource’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together,
convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character.
Because of this home’s clear embodiment of the Usonian style of architecture, and
because of the integrity of materials, setting, and workmanship, the Leslie and Ruth Ware
Property continues to feel like a 1960s residence.
Standard 7: Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a
historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the
event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an
observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that
convey a property's historic character.
The concrete block material and the workmanship displayed on the house demonstrate
the home’s association with Ormond Sherwood of the Valley Block Company and Ben
Olds, the builder.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 60
5
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
By the 1950s, many American families began to outgrow their starter homes. New housing
construction frequently featured large family rooms, two-car garages, and multiple bathrooms.
Additionally, postwar prosperity contributed to the emergence of an upper-middle class in Fort
Collins. Roomy ranch type homes sprouted up across the city, especially in new subdivisions like
the Carolyn Mantz subdivision and Sheely subdivision, both developed at least in part by builder
Ben Olds. Although the Mantz subdivision features a variety of housing styles, types, and sizes
from the postwar era, the Sheely Subdivision, and nearby area where 1801 Sheely Dr. would be
constructed, included homes with a more consistently contemporary style and was targeted at
more affluent homeowners.
The original owners of 1801 Sheely Dr. were Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware. The Wares moved from
St. Louis to Fort Collins when Leslie, owner of Ware Broadcasting, purchased local radio station
KZIX. In 1958, when in town searching for a new home, the couple met with homebuilder Ben
Olds and Valley Block Company partner Ormond Sherwood at the Charco Broiler restaurant to
study house plans Colorado Springs architect Robert Bullock had prepared. The Wares were keen
to move into a home of similar quality as their Missouri, architect-designed residence. Olds was
interested in drawing more homeowners to the new Sheely Drive housing area and Sherwood
wanted to demonstrate how concrete construction materials from his company could be used in
upscale homes. In 1959, the Wares agreed to purchase the Bullock-designed house, and
construction got underway.
The house was labeled the “Silhouette of the Sixties.” Olds and Sherwood used it temporarily as a
show home. During the construction these promoters had to erect wooden sawhorse barricades
to keep the interested public from interfering with the building work. Joanne Ditmer, in a Denver
Post article about the home, noted that the Valley Block Company “wanted to show future home
owners, architects, and builders, and the bankers who finance home building, that concrete block
houses were not always minimum housing.” Sherwood even hosted a site visit to 1801 Sheely Dr.
for the Colorado Concrete Masonry Association and the president of the National Concrete
Masonry Association.
The house’s design includes a number of notable features remarked on by 1961 newspaper
articles. The house was set parallel to the route of the winter sun, and it was wired with an
intercom system in the house and to the front door. It also employed new materials like Polyestro
resin covered masonry blocks in the bathrooms, also used at the Rollerland skating rink, to help
prevent stains. Ruth Ware described some of the other striking feature of the home, such as the
floor to ceiling windows in the rear of the house that afforded stunning views to the west, the
sound and fireproof qualities of the construction materials, the pieces from the Bowling Furniture
Company, and the basement bomb shelter. The public continued to show a great deal of interest
in the home, even after July 1961 when the Wares moved in, and the property ceased to be an
open attraction.1F
2
Leslie Ware, in addition to owning Ware Broadcasting and KZIX Radio Station, was also the
president of Horsetooth Broadcasting Company from 1964 – 1966. He opened The Top
2 Although the house had been sold to the Wares, who would move into the house in the summer of 1961,
newspaper articles discuss Mr. and Mrs. Sherwood moving into the house during the first half of that year.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 61
6
Restaurant c. 1968 as well, and then sold it at the end of 1970. In 1976, he opened Cars, Ltd. This
industrious individual retired around 1982, according to City Directory records, just three years
before his death. Ruth Ware was a well-known local artist and silversmith. She had silver and
beaded jewelry featured in local and national exhibits. Ruth was active in the local art community
and worked to bring art exhibits to the city; she served on the Visual Arts Committee, including as
president for a period. She married Victor Koelzer in 1987. Victor passed away in 1994.
In 1995 the house transferred from Ruth Ware to the Ruth Koelzer Ware Trust and ten years
later, in 2005, the current owners, Ralph G. and Cheryl L. Olson, took possession of the home.
Both of the Olsons attended Colorado State University and the couple has lived in a total of six
historic homes in Fort Collins. Colorado Preservation, Inc., awarded the couple a state
preservation award in 1992. Cheryl has been active with the Poudre Landmarks home tour since
1986, opening her home for gala parties as part of past tours. The house at 1801 Sheely Drive
was on the 2010 tour.
Usonian Architecture
Frank Lloyd Wright envisioned the Usonian design philosophy around 1900, but it evolved over
the next three decades. The term “Usonian” comes from Wright’s idea that this architecture
would serve “the residents of a culturally reformed United States of North America,” and even
extended further into community planning by emphasizing serving human needs through the
decentralization of use in an area. During and following the Great Depression, Wright attempted
to address the need for more affordable housing with simple, human-scale, integrated design, a
departure from his sprawling Prairie style work. But like the Prairie style, Usonian houses were
still incorporated into the landscape, and Wright continued to attempt to bring the outside in
through his designs, as in the incorporation of large windows or walls extending beyond the
interior. Character-defining features of Usonian buildings include dominant horizontal lines, flat
roofs with large overhangs, integrated windows, organic siting (a private side and an open side,
usually facing south), carports, zoned plans (living space, small bedrooms, kitchen/dining at the
intersection), open living areas, concrete slab floors with integral gravity heating, built-in
components, inside-outside walls, and central hearths.
Architect of 1801 Sheely Dr., Robert F. Bullock, according to Ruth Ware, borrowed or adapted
many of the design elements on this house from a home built by Wright in 1950s that was
featured in House Beautiful and House and Gardens magazines. Elements characteristic to the
Usonian style are evident in the design, such as the horizontality of the home, the large
overhangs of the roof, the carport, the large windows or glass doors, and the integration of the
house into the landscape.
Construction History
Construction of 1801 Sheely Dr. was completed at the very end of 1960 or beginning of 1961.
Historic images illustrate how little this home has changed over time. Ruth Ware’s 1987
correspondence with the City of Fort Collins provides a concise list of changes made to the home
during her tenure. These alterations included the lower-level garage addition in the late 1960s;
converting the downstairs from three bedrooms to one bedroom plus a den/ office in 1968;
replacement of all first level windows and a new garage door in 1986 (likely on the rear of the
property); a new hot water heater, new backyard fence, and exterior painting in 1988; interior
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 62
7
painting and humidifiers in 1989; two new furnaces in 1993; and a new sewer line in 1997. The
Olsons have applied for three building permits for installation of a new in-ground swimming pool
(December 2006), breezeway enclosure (December 2006), and construction of a poolside cabana
(August 2007). Building permit research also found record of reroofing in 1972, 1980, and 2005.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 63
8
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1961
Architect/Builder: Robert Bullock (architect); Ben Olds (Builder)
Building Materials: Concrete/Concrete Block
Architectural Style & Type: Modern Movements
Description:
This house is located on an irregularly shaped and extremely large corner lot at the intersection
of Sheely Drive and Wallenberg Drive. An alley off of Wallenberg Drive goes behind this property,
giving access for the rear, lower-level garage. The front yard features a grass with large, circular
steppingstones in gravel. There are also rock beds with ornamental grasses and other low plants.
A large circular planter of concrete blocks painted white to match the house appears near the
façade, between the carport and the front door. The back yard contains several mature trees,
juniper bushes, and a mixture of grass, mulch, rock, and concrete patio sections. Descending into
the back yard from the enclosed breezeway are original circular concrete steps; there are similar,
newer, concrete steps on the opposite side of the yard. There is also a pool in this back yard with
an open cabana structure with an angled roof covering supported by an hourglass shaped
decorative post and featuring a hanging light fixture.
Oriented to the northeast, this 1961 Modern Movements home rests on a concrete foundation.
The house is constructed of concrete blocks painted white. Unless otherwise specified, the
windows on this house are aluminum. The roof appears to float above the house as if supported
by a series of plexiglass globes that appear within the space of the clerestory windows. The
overhanging eaves and wide cornice enhance this sense of a floating roof.
The primary entry is centered on the façade. The lightly stained wooden door features a
distinctive center doorknob and there is a sidelight window to the left of the door. On the other
side of the door, mounted on the façade, there is a stylized mailbox of highly polished metal. A
solid half-height wall extends from the northern corner of the façade, giving the house an even
more expansive appearance. Along this wall and leading to the rear of the property there is an
iron gate which features a series of circles; the pattern in this ironwork mimics the plexiglass
spheres along the façade and the large round steppingstones in the front yard. There is a less
expansive wall extending from the south end of the façade as well. This wall attaches to a two-car
carport. Inside the carport there is a decorative screen with two large diamonds featuring a
breezeblock center and wide, stylized, painted outlines. More plexiglass globes appear to support
the roof of the carport. Between the front door and the carport, on the façade, there are three
small metal planters.
The northwest elevation is relatively unadorned, including some HVAC or ventilation equipment,
what may be an access panel toward the center of the wall face, and two aluminum basement
windows.
The southeast elevation is also relatively unadorned and includes both part of the main house to
on the east side and the lower-level garage on the west side. The lower-level garage portion
includes some utility equipment. The main house portion is obscured by an enclosure of concrete
block walls and wood fencing.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 64
9
The southwest (rear) elevation consists of 3 main portions, the lower-level garage and upper-
level carport furthest south, the enclosed breezeway, and the main house furthest north. The
garage projects southwest from beneath the rear part of the carport into the yard. On the
southwest elevation, it has a single-car garage door and a wood human door to its left with a
large central light. On the garage’s northwest elevation, there are two aluminum windows near
the southwest end of the structure. The land slopes up along the side of the garage. Large, round,
concrete steps also ascend to a deck in front of the breezeway. The right side of this area has a
simple, black-painted metal gate through which the carport’s decorative diamond screen can be
seen, as can some of the plexiglass orbs. The rest of the breezeway has been enclosed, and is
dominated by a large, sliding glass door. There is a light fixture to the left of this door. The main
house on this elevation includes, on the lower level, from south to north, a set of paired
aluminum sliding glass doors flanked by orb light fixtures, another aluminum sliding glass door
with another orb light fixture to its left, and one final aluminum sliding glass door. Extending over
these doors is a balcony extending the length of the main house; its concrete wall is perforated
with a repeating pattern. The balcony wall is higher on the north end of the building than the
south end. Behind the north end of the balcony, toward the edge of the building, is an aluminum
sliding glass door with a light fixture to its left; above these doors and extending to the right are
the house’s characteristic aluminum clerestory windows. Behind the shorter portion of the
balcony is a wall of windows, including the clerestory windows and two large pictured wnidows
centered below them with three square windows stacked vertically on each side. There is another
light fixture to the right of this collection of windows. Extended off the northmost edge of this
elevation is a concrete wall with outdoor cooking features.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 65
10
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Ditmer, Joanne. “Concrete House Cheaper than It Looks.” Denver Post. January 23, 1961.
“Drive Begun to Purchase Paintings for Fort Collins.” Fort Collins Coloradoan. November 20, 1966.
Fort Collins City Directory Collection. Local History Archive at the Fort Collins Museum of
Discovery. Fort Collins, CO.
Google Search: Cheryl Olson.
Harris, Cindy and Adam Thomas. “’Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S’: The City’s Postwar Development
1945-1969.” Historitecture, LLC. Prepared for Advance Planning Department, City of Fort
Collins. June 2011. https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/pdf/postwar-context.pdf
History Colorado. “Usonian.” https://www.historycolorado.org/usonian.
Koelzer, Ruth Ware. “1873-1998: Memories of Fort Collins - Simpler Time Greeted Newcomers.”
Fort Collins Coloradoan. April 19, 1998.
Larimer County Tax Assessor Property Search.
https://www.larimer.gov/assessor/search#/property/
“New Masonry Block Home Has Distinctive Features.” Fort Collins Coloradoan. January 8, 1961.
Poudre Landmarks Foundation. Retro Revival Homes Tour brochure. 2010. “1801 Sheely Owner
File.” 1801 Sheely Dr. Digital Property File. City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation
Services. Fort Collins, CO.
“Ruth A. Ware.” Obituary. Fort Collins Coloradoan. November 9, 2013.
“State Concrete Association to Meet.” Fort Collins Coloradoan. January 5, 1961.
Valley Block Company Cover Page. “1801 Sheely Owner File.” 1801 Sheely Dr. Digital Property
File. City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services. Fort Collins, CO.
Ware, Ruth A. Correspondence with City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program. 9 January
1987.
“Ware Sells Top Restaurant; Name Changed to ‘Skyroom.’” Fort Collins Coloradoan. November
19, 1970.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 66
11
MAPS and PHOTOGRAPHS
Map 1 Location Map
Map 2 Aerial View
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 67
12
Figure 1 Bullock drawing of 1801 Sheely Dr.
Historic Photo 1 Coloradoan photo 1961
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 68
13
Historic Photo 2 Tax Assessor Photo 1962
Historic Photo 3 Tax Assessor Photo 1968
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 69
14
Historic Photo 4 Tax Assessor Photo 1977
Photo 1 Setting
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 70
15
Photo 2 Façade
Photo 3 Facade - North wall and gate
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 71
16
Photo 4 Facade - Front door
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 72
17
Photo 5 Carport diamond screen and plexiglass orb
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 73
18
Photo 6 North wall leading to alley off Wallenberg Dr.
Photo 7 Northwest Elevation and orb light post
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 74
19
Photo 8 Northwest Elevation – Windows
Photo 9 Southwest Elevation
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 75
20
Photo 10 Southwest Elevation - Northmost sliding glass door and outdoor kitchen area
Photo 11 Southwest Elevation - Middle sliding glass door
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 76
21
Photo 12 Southwest Elevation - Southmost paired sliding glass doors
Photo 13 Southwest Elevation – Upper-level balcony, sliding glass door, and clerestory windows
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 77
22
Photo 14 Southwest Elevation - Upper-level shorter balcony and windows
Photo 15 Southwest Elevation - Enclosed breezeway and gate to carport
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 78
23
Photo 16 Garage northwest elevation
Photo 17 Garage northwest elevation windows
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 79
24
Photo 18 Garage southwest elevation
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 80
25
Photo 19 Garage southwest elevation - person door
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 81
26
Photo 20 Southeast Elevation, wall, and fence
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 82
27
Photo 21 Backyard concrete steps to breezeway deck (original, according to owner)
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 83
28
Photo 22 Backyard
Photo 23 Backyard - showing north wall and non-original cement steps
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 84
29
Photo 24 Pool and cabana
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 85
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 86
RESOLUTION #, 2022
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE LESLIE P. AND RUTH A.
WARE PROPERTY
1801 SHEELY DR., FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, it is a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation
of sites, structures, objects, and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic
significance, located within the city, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the
prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic
standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic, architectural,
archeological and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement
of such cultural assets; and
WHEREAS, the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property, located at 1801 Sheely Dr. in Fort Collins
(the “Property”) is eligible for Landmark designation for the property’s significance to Fort Collins
under Standard 3, Design/Construction, contained in City Code Section 14-22(a): and retaining
sufficient historic integrity of Location, Setting, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and
Association, as described in City Code Section 14-22(b); and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the Property meets the
criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section l4-22 of the code and is eligible for designation as a
Fort Collins Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the Property has consented to such landmark designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Fort Collins as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the Historic Preservation
Commission as findings of fact:
1.That the designation of this property will advance the City of Fort Collins’ Policies and
Purposes for Historic Preservation; and
2.That the property is significant under Standard 3, Design/Construction, as a good example
of the Usonian style of architecture; and
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 87
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. #, 2022
2
3. That the property retains a sufficient historic integrity to convey its significance under the
following aspects: Location, Setting, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association; and
4. That the owner’s desire to protect this historic property and its resources will be furthered
by the property’s status as a Fort Collins Landmark and the accompanying protections and review
mechanisms such designation confers; and
Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado,
described as follows, to wit:
LOT 22, PECK MINOR SUB, FORT COLLINS
ALSO KNOWN BY STREET AND NUMBER AS 1801 SHEELY DRIVE,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins.
Section 3. That the criteria contained in Chapter 14, Article IV of the City Code will serve as the
standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to buildings and structures located
upon the above described property will be reviewed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City
of Fort Collins held this 16th day of November, A.D. 2022.
X
NAME
Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Secretary/Staff
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 88
Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – Leslie P.
and Ruth A. Ware Property (1801 Sheely Dr.)
11-16-2022
Yani Jones
Historic Preservation Planner
Role of the HPC
Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:”
• Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark
• Must possess both significance and exterior integrity
• Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered
Sec. 14-33(a): If all owners consent in writing and a majority of Commission approves:
• Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation
1
2
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 89
Location and Historic Photos
Tax Assessor Photo -
1962
Tax Assessor Photo -
1968
Tax Assessor Photo -
1977
History
Ruth Ware on right,
1966
• 1957: Ben Olds, a local builder, and Ormond Sherwood,
owner of the Valley Block Company and owner of several lots
in or around the Sheely Addition, teamed up to contract with
Robert F. Bullock on the design for 1801 Sheely Dr.
• 1958: Leslie and Ruth Ware moved to Fort Collins when
Leslie purchased radio station KZIX.
• 1959: The Wares agreed to purchase 1801 Sheely Dr.
following Bullock’s design, using Valley Block Company
materials, and Ben Olds as the builder.
• 1961: Completed very early in the year, the “Silhouette of the
Sixties” was used as a show home until July 1961, when the
Wares moved in.
• 1961 – 2005: The home was owned by either Leslie or Ruth
Ware/Koelzer until 2005, when the property was sold to
current owners Ralph and Cheryl Olson.
3
4
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 90
Significance – Standard 3 (Design/Construction)
Bachman-Wilson House at
Crystal Bridges Museum in
Bentonville, AR
Usonian Style – Frank Lloyd Wright
• Architecture for the United States of North America
• Affordable, simple, human-scale, integrated design
• Character-defining features:
• Dominant horizontal lines
• Flat roofs with large overhangs
• Integrated windows
• Organic siting
• Carports
• Concrete slab floors
• Inside-outside walls
• Central hearths
Historic Photos
Tax Assessor Photo -
1962
Tax Assessor Photo - 1968 Tax Assessor Photo - 1977
Coloradoan Photo -
1961
5
6
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 91
Facade (northeast elevation)
Façade
7
8
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 92
Façade, Inside Carport
Northwest Elevation
9
10
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 93
Southwest Elevation (rear)
Southwest Elevation (rear, continued)
Northmost
door
Center
door
Southmost doors
11
12
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 94
Southwest Elevation (rear, continued)
Upper story, north Upper story, south
Southwest Elevation (rear, continued)
Enclosed breezeway
Garage northwest
elevation, photo
from breezeway
deck
Garage northwest
elevation windows
13
14
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 95
Southwest Elevation (rear, continued)
Garage southwest elevation Garage person door
Southeast Elevation
15
16
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 96
Landscape/Other Features
Steps to
breezeway deck
Backyard (south)
Backyard (north)
and concrete wall
Landscape/Other Features
Backyard pool and cabana
17
18
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 97
Summary of Findings
• Construction:
1961
• Significance under Standard 3: Design/Construction
Usonian architecture
Period of significance – 1961 (date of construction)
• Exterior Integrity: Location, Setting, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association
Role of the HPC
Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:”
• Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark
• Must possess both significance and exterior integrity
• Integrity – Consider especially Location, Association, Feeling, and Setting for a
nomination significant under Standard 2
• Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered
Sec. 14-33(a): If all owners consent in writing and a majority of Commission approves:
• Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation
19
20
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 98
Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – Leslie P.
and Ruth A. Ware Property (1801 Sheely Dr.)
11-16-2022
Yani Jones
Historic Preservation Planner
21
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 99
Agenda Item 7
Item 7, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
209 CHERRY STREET – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of the vacant lot at the southwest corner of Cherry and
Mason Streets for a 114-unit mixed use building. The decision maker for
this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission.
APPLICANT: Ashley Stiles, Tribe Development Company, Fort Collins, CO
(owner/developer)
Chris Aronson, VFLA (design)
RECOMMENDATION: TBD
HPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker concerning the
project’s compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, specifically regarding the proposed
rehabilitation treatment of the historic resources on the site and the design compatibility of new construction
with those resources. This hearing is a conceptual review, but the HPC may proceed to final recommendation
to the decision-maker if it feels it has sufficient information to do so.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant completed a Preliminary Design Review round with City staff on October 5. Since the lot is
vacant, and there is an abutting property across the alley that is designated as a City Landmark (the Trolley
Barn at 330 N. Howes Street), no historic survey was completed or required by staff. The only other property
within 200 feet that is over fifty years of age is the former Colorado Motorways/Jack Cramer Auto Body shop
(now Eco-Thrift) at 300 N. Howes Street built in c.1960– staff did not require historic survey for this property
since it is off the development site and there is a designated City Landmark directly across a side alley from
the development site.
The land use code calls for design compatibility with historic properties (designated City Landmarks and
eligible resources); therefore, the applicant is required to use the design requirements in LUC 3.4.7(E), Table
1, Column A to design the new building’s exterior. Buffering via the new alley design is also a component of
the project.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES:
For compatibility under 3.4.7, the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Trolley Barn is immediately across a side alley
from the development site, as viewed from Cherry Street. Staff has identified the trolley barn as the primary
reference source for design compatibility under Land Use Code 3.4.7(E), Table 1, Column A. Key character-
defining features of the Trolley Barn include its red brick exterior walls and chimneys, its prominent west
garage entry for streetcars that includes a pediment with entablature, with a matching rear (east) pediment,
Packet Pg. 100
Agenda Item 7
Item 7, Page 2
and large wood carriage doors on the façade with four 2x2 wood windows daylighting the upper portion of each
door. It also has tall wood windows (mostly four-over-four) with stone sills, wood doors with 2x2 lighting, and a
stone foundation,
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to build a 114-unit mixed use building on the vacant lot at 209 Cherry Street. The new
building is proposed at seven stories while remaining under 85 feet (in reference to a downtown height limit).
The building would include two commercial tenants and a micro-retail space along Cherry Street and
apartments of various sizes with a combination of interior or exterior (street) access. The site plan includes an
expanded alley to the west. The applicant notes that there is a total of 68 feet of separation between the new
proposed building and the historic Trolley Barn – this takes into account the existing setback the Trolley Barn
has from its east property line, the alleyway itself, and the setback from the property line proposed for the new
building.
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review of the proposed development is the 200 foot buffer
around the development site because the site is vacant. The area includes a designated City Landmark, the
Trolley Barn at 330 N. Howes Street, which is the primary compatibility reference in the Area of Adjacency. It
also includes the existing structure at 300 N. Howes built in 1960 – this property is unevaluated for Landmark
eligibility and staff did not require its survey as part of this project.
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for
new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development
site or surrounding neighborhood context. Since the project does not involve the direct treatment of historic
properties, staff has omitted an analysis of how the project complies with the Standards for Rehabilitation and
instead has focused on the design compatibility requirements in 3.4.7(E).
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Complies/Does
Not Comply
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Massing and
Building
Articulation
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be
articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a
side alley.
Discussion Notes:
Staff recommends that the Commission provide comments related to the
building portions that are closest to the Trolley Barn, especially as viewed
from Cherry and Howes Streets. Planning staff has advised the applicant
that a seven-story build will require a Modification of Standard (Standard
is a maximum of 85 feet AND a maximum of 6 stories), and has informed
the applicant of the need for additional step-back and façade articulation
to comply with the Downtown Zone District requirements.
Staff provided the following comment to the applicant as part of the
Conceptual Development Review: Both the historic Trolley Barn and
proposed new building have a fairly large footprint, both taking about a
quarter of the city block on which they rest. The slope downward allows
the first two stories of the proposed construction to roughly match the
TBD
Packet Pg. 101
Agenda Item 7
Item 7, Page 3
Trolley Barn height. However, a height reduction above the lower two
stories is encouraged due to the significant difference in height and
massing between the historic and proposed buildings.
Massing and
Building
Articulation
2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings
to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one
story above the height of historic resources on the development
site, abutting, or across a side alley.
As noted above for standard 1, further review of this standard will likely
be necessary as the project design adjusts to meet Planning staff’s
concerns re: the massing strategy for the new construction.
Staff provided the following comment to the applicant as part of the
Conceptual Development Review: The overall building makes good use
of stepbacks between the 2nd and 3rd floors. On the west elevation, staff
would consider the buffer added between the alley and the west wall of
the proposed building is a reasonable way to meet this standard and will
encourage HPC discussion on this point. However, the stepback is
missing at the northwest corner of the new construction, which is likely
the most important transition point between the two sites, so
incorporating the stepback at this point is also encouraged.
TBD
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Building
Materials
3. The lower story facades until any stepback (required or
otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality
materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS),
precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to
industry standards.
Discussion Notes:
The proposed materials include design brick on the lower floors before
the building stepbacks, referencing the Trolley Barn’s red brick exterior
walls.
Staff provided the following comment to the applicant as part of the
Conceptual Development Review: On lower floors (first and second for
this proposal), durable, high-quality materials are needed. The use of
masonry, mostly brick, on the lower two floors would likely meet this
standard.
TBD
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Building
Materials
4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate
material(s) on historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the
following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three
story building, or the lower story facades until any stepbacks
(required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-
dimensionality; 5) pattern.
Discussion Notes:
Staff provided the following comment to the applicant as part of the
Conceptual Development Review: At least two of the material elements
listed in this item should be met, using the Trolley Barn at 330 N Howes
as a reference. The use of brick masonry on much of the 1st floor
TBD
Packet Pg. 102
Agenda Item 7
Item 7, Page 4
building exterior seems consistent with this standard, specifically related
to type, scale, pattern, and three dimensionality.
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Fenestration
5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2)
similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-
void pattern as found on historic resources on the development
site, abutting, or across a side alley.
Discussion:
The applicant notes that they are meeting this provision primarily by
adopting similar window proportions in the new building, specifically on its
north elevation adjacent to the Trolley Barn.
Staff provided the following comment to the applicant as part of the
Conceptual Development Review: At least one design element related to
windows needs met. The Trolley Barn’s windows are defined largely by
wood sash and casement windows of varying sizes, with larger doors
incorporating transoms. Existing plans appear to meet this under two
categories: window pattern, where many of the lower-floor windows
include a small transom above the main window unit; and window
proportion, with many tall windows incorporated on the east, west, and
south elevations. Compliance with this component could be improved by
incorporating more taller windows on the north elevation of the building,
particularly on the lower floors.
TBD
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Design
Details
6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such
as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new
construction to historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley.
Discussion:
The applicant notes that the Trolley Barn sites 4 feet higher than the
finish floor height of the proposed new building. At present, staff would
note that it is not clear if there is a logical alignment between some
feature on the north elevation of the Trolley Barn and the new
construction and encourages HPC discussion on this point.
Staff provided the following comment to the applicant as part of the
Conceptual Development Review: From the available renderings, it is not
clear if this Standard is being met. The setback between the second and
third stories seems to provide that, but additional renderings or visual
aids that allow for comparison between the trolley barn and new
construction more directly will help make a determination here.
TBD
Packet Pg. 103
Agenda Item 7
Item 7, Page 5
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Visibility of
Historic
Features
New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining
architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features
of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a
side alley.
Discussion:
Staff provided the following comment to the applicant as part of the
Conceptual Development Review: Based on the setbacks and site plan,
this element appears to be met.
TBD
SAMPLE MOTION FORMAT:
The Commission is not being asked for a final recommendation to the decision-maker at this hearing. However, the
Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval or denial of the development proposal, if
Commission members feel there is sufficient evidence to do so, based on the following suggested format:
“I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker [approval/denial] of the
development proposal for 209 Cherry Street, finding it [is/is not] in compliance with the standards contained in
Land Use Code section 3.4.7 based on the following:
• The design of new construction [reflects/does not reflect] massing, building materials, and façade details
that are compatible with the historic context, [creates/does not create] a visual relationship between the
historic architecture and the new construction, and [meets/does not meet] the requirements outlined in
Table 1 of Section 3.4.7, [upon satisfaction of the following conditions, if applicable . . .].
• The proposed design [protects/does not protect] the visibility of nearby historic resources, [upon
satisfaction of the following conditions, if applicable . . .].
Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings or conditions, or remove
any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant Submittal/Presentation
2. Landmark Nomination and Ordinance for Trolley Barn, 330 N. Howes St.
3. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 104
City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1
Design Review Application
Historic Preservation Division
Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins.
Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
Applicant Information
Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone
Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence)State Zip Code
Email
Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant)
Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone
Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence)State Zip Code
Email
Project Description
Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as
necessary to explain your project.
Reminders:
Complete application would need
all of checklist items as well as both
pages of this document.
Detailed scope of work should
include measurements of existing
and proposed.
The following attachments are REQUIRED:
Complete Application for Design Review
Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available)
Color photos of existing conditions
Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate
demolition application will need to be approved.
Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window
study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required
to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense).
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 105
City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2
Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required)
If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each
feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature.
Feature A Name:
Describe property feature and
its condition:
Describe proposed work on feature:
Feature B Name:
Describe property feature and
its condition:
Describe proposed work on feature:
Use Additional Worksheets as needed.
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 106
City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3
Required Additional information
The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for
photographs, and for other items where possible.
At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled
with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as
prints, photos shall be labeled
Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo
files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example,
smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc.
Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your
contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application.
Drawing with dimensions.
Product specification sheet(s).
Description of materials included in the proposed work.
Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors.
Partial or full demolition is a part of this project.
Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new
addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing
residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition.
Signature of Date
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 107
209 CHERRY STREET
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE –CONCEPT MEETING 1
10.21.22 PACKET
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 108
SITE INFORMATION
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
GRAPHIC PREPARED BY TRIBE.
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
SITE
2
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 109
SITE PHOTOS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 08.22.22
NORTHEAST CORNER
NORTHWEST CORNER
LOOKING NORTHLOOKING SOUTHLOOKING SOUTH
3
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 110
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.comCOLLEGE AVE.LAPORTE AVE.
Project Description
MUSEUM OF
DISCOVERY
HISTORIC
CORE
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
4
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 111
TROLLEY CAR BARN
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
GRAPHIC PREPARED BY TRIBE.
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
5
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 112
TROLLEY CAR BARN
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
WEST/HOWES ST. ELEVATION
EAST/ALLEY ELEVATION NORTH/CHERRY ST. ELEVATION
6
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 113
SITE ANALYSIS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
•ZONE DISTRICT = DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
•SUB DISTRICT = NORTH MASON
•TRANSIT OVERLAY DISTRICT
•85’ OR 6 STORY MAXIMUM ZONE
•SURROUNDED BY 115’ OR 7 STORY
MAX ZONE AREA TO THE SOUTH AND
EAST
•TROLLEY BARN IS LOCATED TO THE
WEST
7
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 114
SITE ANALYSIS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
8
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 115
SITE ANALYSIS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
9
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 116
SITE ANALYSIS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
ZONING MAPS
10
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 117
MOOD BOARD – MIXED-USE ARCHITECTURE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
11
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 118
MOOD BOARD – APARTMENT AMENTITIES
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
12
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 119
MOOD BOARD – LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
13
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 120
MOOD BOARD – SITE ELEMENTS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
14
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 121
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
15
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 122
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
16
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 123
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
17
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 124
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
18
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 125
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
19
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 126
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
20
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 127
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
21
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 128
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
22
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 129
GROUND FLOOR PLAN & SITE PLAN
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
23
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 130
GROUND FLOOR PLAN & SITE PLAN
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
68’-0”
SEPARATION
46’-0”
SEPARATION
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
24
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 131
FLOOR PLANS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
25
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 132
UNDERGROUND PARKING FLOOR PLAN
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
10’-0”
STEPBACK
10’-0”
STEPBACK
3’-0”
STEPBACK
20’-0”
STEPBACK
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
26
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 133
UNDERGROUND PARKING FLOOR PLAN
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
27
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 134
UNDERGROUND PARKING FLOOR PLAN
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
28
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 135
BUILDING DATA
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
TOTAL UNIT COUNT
75 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED
87 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
29
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 136
LANDUSE CODE SECTION 3.4.7
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
The proposed project is larger
than the Trolley Car Barn.
Stepbacks have been integrated
into the design at the third floor
to relate to the scale of the
Trolley Car Barn.
Nominal size dark grey brick is
used at the base of the proposed
building. This matches the scale
of the brick on the Trolley Car
Barn. Brick details of soldier
courses, headers and row locks
will be used to elevate the design
of the brick work on the
proposed building.
Design Team’s Approach
Existing Trolley Barn Brick Proposed Design BrickExisting Trolley Barn Dark Green Paint
30
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 137
LANDUSE CODE SECTION 3.4.7
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
The windows on the Trolley Car
Barn are a variety of sizes and
proportions. The design team has
reviewed the existing and
implemented similar proportions
to the first two floors of the
building
Trolley Barn North Elevation
8:3 Proportion1:1.3 Proportion
209 Cherry Street North Elevation
Th i d h T ll
Design Team’s Approach
8:3 Proportion
1:1.3 Proportion
31
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 138
LANDUSE CODE SECTION 3.4.7
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
Below are graphics showing
the relationship to the building
and Trolley Barn. The Trolley
Barn’s finish floor sits
approximately 4’-0” higher
than the proposed finish floor
Bl hi h i
Design Team’s Approach
32
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 139
LANDUSE CODE SECTION 3.4.7
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
33
Below are graphics showing
the relationship to the building
and Trolley Barn. The Trolley
Barn’s finish floor sits
approximately 4’-0” higher
than the proposed finish floor
Bl hi h i
Design Team’s Approach
68’-0” SEPARATION
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 140
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
34
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 141
LANDUSE CODE SECTION 3.4.7
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
The Trolley Car Barn sits 68’
from the face of the proposed
building. The goal is to
integrate and highlight the
Trolley Car Barn for potential
future redevelopment.
Th T ll C B it 68
Design Team’s Approach
68’-0”
SEPARATION
35
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 142
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
36
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 143
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
37
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 144
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
38
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 145
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
39
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 146
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
40
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 147
SHADOW STUDY
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
9am
12pm
3pm
MARCH SPRING EQUINOX JUNE SUMMER SOLSTICE DECEMBER WINTER SOLSITCE
CHERRY STREET CHERRY STREET
CHERRY STREET
CHERRY STREET
CHERRY STREET
CHERRY STREET
CHERRY STREET
CHERRY STREET
CHERRY STREET
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
41
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 148
EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 |108 EAST LINCOLN WAY |CHEYENNE, WYOMING |307.635.5710 |www.VFLA.com
THANK YOU
209 CHERRY STREET | 10.21.22
42
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 149
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 150
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 151
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 152
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 153
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 154
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 155
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 156
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 157
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 158
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 159
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 160
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 161
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 162
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 163
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 164
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 165
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 166
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 167
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 168
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 169
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 170
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 171
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 172
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 173
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 174
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 175
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 176
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 177
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 178
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 179
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 180
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 181
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 182
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 183
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 184
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 185
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 186
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 187
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 188
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 189
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 190
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 191
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 192
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 193
209 Cherry Street:
Development Review
November 16, 2022
Jim Bertolini
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
2HPC Role
Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC
3.4.7
Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker
(P&Z Commission) regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the
land use code.
1
2
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 194
3Project Summary
Mixed use building
‒7 Stories
‒114 apartment units
‒3 commercial spaces
Site 4
3
4
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 195
Trolley Barn – Historic Significance
• Landmarked September 15, 1992
• Amended 1999
• History – Standard 1
• Fort Collins Municipal
Railway
• 1907-1951
• 6 Trolley Cars based here
• Architecture – Standard 3
• Mission Revival-style
industrial architecture
• Owned by City
5
Proposed Site Plan 6
5
6
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 196
7Renderings
8Renderings
7
8
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 197
9Renderings
10Renderings
9
10
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 198
11North Elevation & Materials
12HPC Role & Requirements
HPC Role
• Conceptual Review – Provide initial design
feedback under LUC 3.4.7
• Final Review - Provide a recommendation to
the decision maker (P&Z Commission)
regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of
the land use code.
Design Compatibility
• Does the design of the new construction comply
with all six of the compatibility standards in
3.4.7(E), Table 1, Column A?
11
12
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 199
13
ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 200
Agenda Item 8
Item 8, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 16, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
121 WEST OLIVE STREET – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of the current Bohlender Funeral Chapel at 121 W. Olive
Street at the southeast corner of Olive and Mason Streets for a 177-unit
mixed use building. The decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
APPLICANT: Jeanne Shaffer, Confluence Development (applicant/developer)
Open Studio Design (design professional)
RECOMMENDATION: TBD
HPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker concerning the project’s
compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, specifically regarding the proposed
rehabilitation treatment of the historic resources on the site and the design compatibility of new construction with
those resources.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant completed a Preliminary Design Review round with City staff on June 8, 2022. Prior to this PDR,
the owner of the property had already completed an historic survey for the existing building on the lot. Staff
issued findings on September 22, 2021, determining that the existing building, although significant, was not
eligible for historic status due to significant losses of historic integrity. The historic survey form, completed by
Ron Sladek/Tatanka Historical Associates, found that the former Jacob & Anna Welch House, turned Bohlender
Funeral Chapel was significant under Standard 1 (Events/Trends) for its long use as a funeral home in Fort
Collins from 1931 to the present. However, the historian determined that extensive alterations over time disrupted
the historic integrity of the property to such a degree that its historic significance could no longer be conveyed.
Staff certified this result and determined the property Not Eligible.
Since the existing property on the lot is Not Eligible as an historic resource, development review will focus on
design compatibility with nearby historic resources. There are several properties over fifty years of age within a
200 ft radius. Staff has prioritized the Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College Avenue to the northeast as the
primary reference point, since it is the only designated City Landmark within the Area of Adjacency. Secondary
points for reference include the Espelin House/Fort Collins Clinic at 109 W. Olive, and the First National Bank
Data Processing Center at 200 W. Olive, both recommended as Landmark-eligible in a 2020 reconnaissance
survey. Staff would note that there is an historic survey underway for this part of downtown Fort Collins but
results have not been finalized and those subject properties are considered Undetermined at this time. Those
properties that are part of the pending survey and within the area of adjacency include resources on the block
receiving this development, and the block to the north.
Packet Pg. 201
Agenda Item 8
Item 8, Page 2
The land use code calls for design compatibility with historic properties (designated City Landmarks and eligible
resources); therefore, the applicant is required to use the design requirements in LUC 3.4.7(E), Table 1, Column
B to design the new building’s exterior. Column B applies because there are no currently-determined Historic
Resources abutting the development site or across a side alley, so only two standards from Column A need be
met to meet this code section.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES:
For compatibility under 3.4.7, staff’s recommendation for the primary source for design compatibility is the City
Landmark within the Area of Adjacency, the Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College Avenue. Key character-
defining features of the Armstrong Hotel include its red brick exterior walls, and overall blocky, rectangular
massing with a simple, triangular pediment along the College Avenue façade. It also has a brick soldier course
near the top of the exterior walls, and brick sills and soldier coursed lintels around the windows. Windows are
wood multi-light sashes on the upper floors, mostly 8-over-1 sash intermixed with smaller 4-over-1 sashes.
Ground level commercial spaces include multi-light wood or leaded glass transoms and wood picture windows
and entryways, as well as the corner entry at Olive & College.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to build a 177-unit mixed use building on the vacant lot at 121 W. Olive Street. The new
building is proposed at six stories and would include a 4,300 square foot commercial space on the ground floor
alongside residential and public space access.
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review of the proposed development is the 200 foot buffer
around the development site because there are no historic resources on the development site. The area includes
a designated City Landmark, the Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College Avenue, which is the primary
compatibility reference in the Area of Adjacency. It also includes the potentially eligible resources at 109 W. Olive
and 200 W. Olive as secondary references.
Staff provided the following comment regarding the basis for design compatibility at the June 8, 2022 PDR
meeting:
For the purposes of design compatibility under 3.4.7, the Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College is the
only designated historic property in the 200 ft Area of Adjacency, although there are other Landmark-
eligible properties within 200 ft that are not designated. The City regularly prioritizes designated
resources over eligible, non-designated resources in selecting a basis for design compatibility. Staff
recommends using the Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College as that basis for compliance with Land
Use Code 3.4.7.
Packet Pg. 202
Agenda Item 8
Item 8, Page 3
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for
new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development
site or surrounding neighborhood context. Since the project does not involve the direct treatment of historic
properties, staff has omitted an analysis of how the project complies with the Standards for Rehabilitation and
instead has focused on the design compatibility requirements in 3.4.7(E).
At the June 8, 2022 PDR meeting, staff provided the following comment:
For this project, there are no currently identified historic resources on or abutting the development site,
so LUC 3.4.7(E), Table 1, Column B includes the design compatibility requirements. The final design of
the building will need to use at least two of the six Standards for Compatibility in Table 1 and demonstrate
compliance in reference to the Armstrong Hotel, 249-261 S. College Avenue, as noted in the previous
comment.
Staff would also direct the Commission to the applicant’s Project Narrative, which selects Standards 2 and 3
from Table 1 as the standards under which they seek to comply.
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Complies/Does
Not Comply
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Massing and
Building
Articulation
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be
articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across
a side alley.
Discussion Notes:
The applicant does not intend to use this Standard as one of the
required two. However, massing and scale of the new building is
similar to the Armstrong Hotel in footprint and horizontal massing,
although the new building will be significantly taller than the Armstrong.
TBD
Massing and
Building
Articulation
2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new
buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same
height or one story above the height of historic resources on
the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
The applicant has selected this as one of the requirements under
which they seek to comply. Staff would note that applying this
Standard is more straightforward when the new development directly
abuts an historic property, which is not the case here. It would be
helpful to see a rendering that showed the 4-story stepback wrapping
the new building’s northwest corner in context with the Armstrong
Hotel, or the potential historic resource at 109 W. Olive, more
specifically.
TBD
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Building
Materials
3. The lower story facades until any stepback (required or
otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high
quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-
EIFS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal)
installed to industry standards.
TBD
Packet Pg. 203
Agenda Item 8
Item 8, Page 4
Discussion Notes:
The applicant has also selected this Standard as one of their required
two and are proposing a potential combination of brick, wood, and/or
metal as the cladding for, at minimum, the lower story facades. Staff
has discouraged the use of metal based on the downtown
commercial/office historic environment in which the new building will
be constructed. While metal was commonly used in agricultural
industrial buildings, those buildings were concentrated in other parts of
town farther to the north and are generally not appropriate within this
site’s immediate historic context.
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Building
Materials
4. New construction shall reference one or more of the
predominate material(s) on historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at
least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for
any one to three story building, or the lower story facades until
any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3)
color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5) pattern.
Discussion Notes:
The applicant does not intend to use this Standard, however, the use
of brick as a dominant exterior cladding, if retained in the final plan,
would meet this standard in reference to the Armstrong Hotel.
TBD
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Fenestration
5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2)
similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-
void pattern as found on historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
Discussion:
The applicant is not intending to use this Standard, and the window
patterns, proportions, and solid-to-void patterns of the proposed new
building do not indicate any relationship with the Armstrong Hotel or
other historic buildings near the development site.
TBD
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Design
Details
6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements
(such as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the
new construction to historic resources on the development
site, abutting, or across a side alley.
Discussion:
The applicant is not intending to use this Standard, but with
confirmation through a rendering showing the new building and the
Armstrong in context, this Standard could be met if horizontal design
features clearly align with architectural elements of the Armstrong
Hotel.
TBD
Packet Pg. 204
Agenda Item 8
Item 8, Page 5
3.4.7E,
Table 1
Visibility of
Historic
Features
New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining
architectural elements, such as windows or primary design
features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or
across a side alley.
Discussion:
This Standard does not apply since no historic resources are abutting
or across a side alley from the development site.
N/A
SAMPLE MOTION FORMAT:
The Commission is not being asked for a final recommendation to the decision-maker at this hearing. However, the
Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval or denial of the development proposal, if
Commission members feel there is sufficient evidence to do so, based on the following suggested format:
“I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker [approval/denial] of the
development proposal for 121 West Olive Street, finding it [is/is not] in compliance with the standards contained in
Land Use Code section 3.4.7 based on the following:
• The design of new construction [reflects/does not reflect] massing, building materials, and façade details
that are compatible with the historic context, [creates/does not create] a visual relationship between the
historic architecture and the new construction, and [meets/does not meet] the requirements outlined in Table
1 of Section 3.4.7, [upon satisfaction of the following conditions, if applicable . . .].
• The proposed design [protects/does not protect] the visibility of nearby historic resources, [upon satisfaction
of the following conditions, if applicable . . .].
Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings or conditions, or remove
any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant Submittal/Presentation
2. Historic Survey for Current Property at 121 W. Olive
3. Landmark Nomination and Ordinance for the Armstrong Hotel, 249-261 S. College Avenue
4. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 205
Confluent Development | 2215 Market Street | Denver, CO 80205
(303) 573-6500 | www.confluentdev.com
City of Fort Collins October 24, 2022
Historic Commission
281 N College Ave
Fort Collins, CO
Confluent Mixed Use – Olive & Mason – Historic Commission Conceptual Review
To Whom It May Concern:
Confluent Development, LLC ispleased to submit theenclosedConceptual Designinformation for
the Confluent Mixed-Use Development at the southeast corner of Olive Street and Mason Street.
This letter reviews the project site location; existing conditions; proposed uses; building and
parking; design intent; and proposed access, utilities, and drainage.
Vicinity Map
Mixed Use Project Data
Location: SE Corner Olive Street & Mason Street
Existing Land area:+/- 0.80 acres redevelopment area
Existing/Proposed Zoning:Downtown District
Current use:Funeral Home, Parking, CenturyLink Facilities
Proposed Use:Mixed Use – 177 residential units & 4,300 sf GFA retail
Building Information: One structure, 6 stories, structured parking
Proposed Building Area:164,245 sf
Proposed parking:171 spaces
SITESITE
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 206
23
Proposed Project & Uses
The project will be mixed use with commercial & residential space on the ground floor and
residential above. The project includes the following:
x Total building footprint of 29,000 sf and total square footage of 164,245 sf.
x Structured parking accessing off the alley
x Total number of residential units: 177
x Total square footage of retail space: 4,300 sf
x Parking spaces provided: 171
x Enclosed courtyard for internal use of the residents
x Public plaza amenity along Mason Street
x Parking structure fully screened by retail, public plaza, lobby for residential uses, and
residential units with lofts at the ground floor.
x Site and building design will meet or exceed all Downtown District requirements.
Building setbacks, build-to, and upper story setbacks and all other design standards
provided per the Downtown District as shown in the attached site and building plans.
Historic Resource Information
On September 22, 2021, the subject property was determined to be not eligible for landmark
status, allowing the property to be redeveloped.
Historic and Cultural Resources Requirements (Section 3.4.7)
A portion of the subject property is within the Area of Adjacency to the Armstrong Hotel. The
design requirements listed in Section3.4.7(E) Table 1, Column B must be met which requires two
of the six Standards for Compatibility with Historic Resources be met. The project meets the
following standards:
x 3.4.7.E (Table 1-2): In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to
create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally,
in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required by the
Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic
resources.
x 3.4.7.E (Table 1-3): The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise)
must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass,
terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal)
installed to industry standards.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
The proposed design looks to maintain a simple and refined form coinciding with the surrounding
buildings including the Armstrong Hotel. The rhythm of the fenestration is extrapolated from the
Armstrong Hotel and is applied as a pattern on each façade. Following the example of the hotel,
the base materials are a neutral brick masonry with large storefront openings and canopies at the
retail, main residential lobby and residential amenities to activate Olive and Mason Street fronts.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 207
33
The upper story stepbacks occur very deliberately to align with adjacent building datums and
scale, while still following all Downtown District requirements. A lighter material palette was
chosen for the upper stories to allow these portions of the building to fade to the background
with the strong masonry base becoming the main character of the Olive & Mason corner. Pops of
color at the upper story residential massing give ode to the surrounding natural red masonry.
We look forward to discussing our project with the commission. If you have questions,
comments or need further information, please contact me at 720-220-8396 or
jshaffer@confluentdev.com.
Respectfully,
Jeanne Shaffer, AICP, PMP
Director of Land Use Entitlements
JShaffer@ConfluentDev.com
2215 Market St. | Denver, CO 80205
o (303) 573-6500 | m (720) 220-8396
www.ConfluentDev.com
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 208
Olive & Mason
Fort Collins, CO // Historic Preservation Meeting // 11.16.2022
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 209
2Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
context
Fort Collins, Colorado
The site is located between the historic downtown of Fort Collins and the Colorado State
University. The surrounding area is a mix of residential and commercial uses, as well as
nearby civic and cultural institutions. The site is also conveniently located within a few
blocks of a grocery and department store.
1 Downtown Fort Collins
2 Colorado State University
3 Lincoln Center - Performing Arts Center
Fort Collins City Hall
Mulberry Pool
4 Old Town Library
Library Park
5 Fort Collins Federal Building (USPS, SSA, IRS)
6 Lucky's Market (Grocery)
7 Target (Big Box Department Store)
8 Armstrong Hotel (Historic Resource)
1
2
3
4
51/4 MILE1/2 MILE
COLLEGE AVENUEMILE
RI
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
OLIVE ST
MASON ST7
6
8
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
MOUNTAIN AVENUE
0.00 // SITE:
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 210
3Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
zoning
Downtown District // Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, employment and cultural
uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing, located along
the backdrop of the Poudre River Corridor. It is divided into nine (9) subdistricts. The development
standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while
providing for high quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian-
oriented character. The site is located within the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict.
Street Frontage // Mixed Use
Found adjacent to the Historic Core Subdistrict on streets such as Mason, this street character is a
hybrid and transition between the Storefront and Green Edge frontage types. Buildings are set a little
farther back from the street than along Storefront streets, often with small landscape beds separating
WKHEXLOGLQJIURPWKHVLGHZDON7KHUHLVVLJQL¿FDQWO\OHVVJURXQGÀRRUUHWDLOVSDFHEXWEXLOGLQJVVWLOO
address the sidewalk in a similar way.
Height Limits //85'-0" // 6 STORIES
0.00 // SITE:
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 211
4Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
context
+LVWRULF,QÀXHQFH$UHD
Any lot or parcel of property shall be considered within the area of adjacency if any portion
of such lot or parcel is within the 200' outer boundary of a historic resources. The Historic
comparison boundary shall be established at 200' in all directions from the perimeter of the
historic resource.
7KH+LVWRULF,QÀXHQFH$UHDLVIRUPHGE\WKHRYHUODSSLQJDUHDEHWZHHQWKHRXWHUERXQGDU\
RIWKHGHYHORSPHQWVLWHDQGWKHKLVWRULFFRPSDULVRQERXQGDU\7KH+LVWRULF,QÀXHQFH$UHD
shall comply with the standards in 3.4.7.E of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Design Compatibility
3.4.7.E (Table 1-2): In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to
create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in
the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required by the Downtown
zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources.
3.4.7.E (Table 1-3): The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise)
must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra
cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to
industry standards.
Area of adjacency
121 Olive & Mason
W Olive Street
Historic Comparison Boundary
20
0
'
R
a
d
i
u
s
W Magnolia Street S Mason StreetS College AveArmstrong Hotel
+LVWRULF,QÀXHQFH$UHD
0.00 // SITE:
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 212
DN
ECNSUBREVZONEDESCRIPTION
D
A
TEECNORIG.
ECNSUBREVZONEDESCRIPTION
D
A
TEECNORIG.RAMP UPRAMP DNTRANSFORMERYARD
RESIDENCESLOBBY
MAIL
RETAIL /RESTAURANT
TRASH &RECYCLING
NW STAIR
FIRE PUMP /WATER ENTRY
BIKE ROOM
DOG WASH
2 BDRM LOFT 2 BDRM LOFT 2 BDRM LOFT
FACP
ELEVATOR LOBBY
53 PARKING STALLS
19'-0"20'-0"19'-0"19'-0"20'-0"19'-0"24'-0"21'-0"
BLDG FRONTAGE
181'-8"BLDGFRONTAGE199'-2 3/8"24'-0"20'-0"19' SETBACK FROM B.O. CURB
19' SETBACK FROM B.O. CURB
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
5' SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE
LOADING
BIKE REPAIR STAND
BIKE REPAIR STAND
RESTAURANT PATIO
BLDG OVERHANG ABOVE
PROPERTY LINE
RETAIL COMMONCORRIDOR
GREASE INTERCEPTOR
ELECTRICALROOM
GENERATOR RM
GYM
RESIDENCELOUNGE
SE STAIR
ENCLOSEDPARKING GARAGE
LEASING OFFICE BLDG MGMTOFFICE
LEASING LOBBY
6'-0"
5% SLOPE5% SLOPE
5% SLOPE
5% SLOPE96.2'97.0'
96.15'97.0'S MASON STREETW OLIVE STREET
VEHICULAR DRIVE ENTRYCELL PHONE TOWER (NOT WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARY)
63 BIKE STALLS
BICYCLE RACKS (32 BIKES)
BICYCLE RACKS (7 BIKES)6'-0"16'-2"ALLEY5% SLOPE96.2'
5% SLOPE
97.6'
97.6'
97.6'
97.0'
97.0'
96.7'
STACKED BLOCK CURBSTACKED BLOCK CURB
EXISTING SITE WALL (NOT WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARY)
97.0'96.0'97.0'95.4'
95.5'
97.0'
97.0'
SITE BENCH SITE BENCH SITE BENCH
Legend
1. Residential Entry
2. Vehicular Entry
3. Stair Core
4. Elevators
5. Retail Tenant
6. (e) Trees to Remain
7. Building Overhang
8. Water Entry Room
9. Trash
10. Generator
11. Grease Interceptor
12. Loading
13. Transformer Vault
14. Electrical Room
NScale: 1" = 30'
Ground Floor
96.2'
RESTAURANTRESTAURANTRTNAATPATIOPATIOPA
PROPERTY LINE
97.0'
LE
96.2
'-0"5% SLOPE5% SLOPE
URB
TAGE
E5% SLOPE
GEDN
16'-2"16'
N
5% SLOPE
19' SETBACKFROM B O C6'BLDG FRONT
URB
TAGE
5% SLOPE
STACKED BLOCK CURB 95.4.4'97.0
SITE BENCHTE BENCH
K CURB 97.0'
BENCH
D BLOCK
SITE B
STACKEDSTACKED96 0'96.0
SIT
0'
B
6'5% SLOPE
19' SETBACKK FFROM B.O. CURBROM B.O. CURB
BLDG OVERHANG BLDG OVERHANGLDG OVERHANAABOVVEE
97.0'
95 5'95.5'95.5
96.15'97.0
2'
5% SLOPE
'
%SLOPE PERTY LINEPRO LE RACKS(7 BIKES)
5Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
Canyon Avenue Subdistrict // Mixed Use
0D[LPXP+HLJKW
• 6 Stories*
• 85'-0"
WK6WRU\3HUPLWWHGIRU0L[HGXVHWKDWFRQWDLQVWKRIWRWDOVTXDUHIRRWDJHGHGLFDWHGUHVLGHQWLDORURFHXVH
6HWEDFNV PLQLPXP
• Front: 19' (From B.O. Curb)
• Side: 0'
• Rear:5'
•Alley:5'
6WUHHW)URQWDJH5HTXLUHPHQWV
•3ULPDU\(QWU\RQ6WUHHW)URQWDJHDQGFOHDUO\GH¿QHG
• Required Street Frontage Build to Range: 75% at 5 to 10'
• Ground Floor Transparency: 40%
• Max Wall Length = 50 FT
•3OD]D *URXQGÀRRURSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHGIRUEXLOGLQJVVWRULHVRUWDOOHU
•1RUHTXLUHGJURXQGÀRRUXVH
Upper Story Stepbacks
All levels: Min 3 FT stepback at building material change
5th Story: 10 FT Average (Max 20 FT) along street frontages
%XLOGLQJ$UWLFXODWLRQ// (Incorporate min 3 articulation techniques)
1. Horizontal Projections (awnings, canopies, cornice articulation) that are integrated into the
architecture;
2. Balconies or terraces;
3. Fenestration details, including window depth and sills or lintels.
Other
• Lower story facades until any stepbacks must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials.
zoning
Parking
0XOWLIDPLO\3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
• 0.75 per 1 Bedroom Unit
• 1.00 per 2 Bedroom Unit
• Loading (adequately sized to accommodate use)
• Bicycle Parking: 1 per bedroom **
• Standard Size (9'-0" x 19'-0") *
*Up to 40% Compact (8'x15') permitted for "long term parking areas"
**60% Enclosed/40% Fixed Bicycle Racks for Multi-Family Residential
TOD Overlay Zone
• 25% of Gross Leasable SF area (not to exceed 5,000SF) exempt from min parking requirements
Other
• Garage entry and service locations shall be located in alley.
• Structured Parking must be screened by retail frontage at street fronts.
•5HWDLORURWKHUQRQUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVVKDOOEHUHTXLUHGDORQJDWOHDVW¿IW\ SHUFHQWRIWKHJURXQGOHYHO
frontage
Planning Comment 5:
$WWKHPHHWLQJVWD௺
will mention the crucial
interplay of citywide utility
easements required by
Street Standards, and the
setbacks in the Downtown
zone district.
Engineering Comment 3:
Frontage improvements
along the east side of
Mason will be required.
Engineering Comment 5:
We are requiring that the
sidewalk be brought to
current street standards,
which would detach the
sidewalk.
0.00 // SITE:
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 213
6Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
5/2 Stack
Maximum Height: 85'-0" // 6 stories
Roof - 177'-0"
Level 6 Residential 166'-0"
Level 5 Residential 155'-0"
Level 4 Residential 144'-0"
Level 3 Residential 133'-0"
Level 2 Residential 122'-0"
Parking P2 Parking 111'-0"
Level 1 / P1 Parking/Retail/Residential 100'-0"
Basement Parking 89'-0"
IBC 2021
Fort Collins to adopt new code April 2022
6HSDUDWHG2FFXSDQFLHV
Residential Parking Garage
Occupancy: R-2, S-2
Construction Type: III-B, Sprinklered I-A, Sprinklered
Max Height: 75 FT 55 FT
Max Stories: 5 (above podium) 3
Accessory Occupancies: Assembly (A-2), Business (B)
1 HR Exterior Wall at Side Property Line
Fire Separation Distance Unprotected, Sprinklered
(FSD) Allowable Area of Openings
0-3 FT 0%
3-5 FT 15%
5-10 FT 25%
10-15 FT 45%
code analysis
OLIVE STREETMASO
N STREETCOLLEGE
AVE
NUE MAGNOLIA STREET5' FSD at Residential Levels
OOOOOONNNNEEEE ((((((PPPP11111/////PPPPP11111))))))
TTTTTWWWWOOOOTHREEFFOOUURRFFIVESSSSSIIXXXXSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS-2222222OOOOOCCCCCCCCC
RRRRRRRRRRRRRR--222222222222222OOOOOOOCCCC
Rated Wall at Property Line
Average 10' Stepback
FFFII VVEE
0.00 // SITE:
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 214
7Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:Massing
00 | Base Massing
03 | Extrapolate Grid
01 | Stepbacks
04 | Patternize
02 | React to Context
05 | Add Dimension
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 215
8Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:NNOLIVE ST
MASON STPlanning Comment 9:
Materiality and Articulation:
Building Base Materials - Lower
story facades until any stepbacks
(required or otherwise) must be
constructed of authentic, durable,
high-quality materials (brick, stone,
glass, terra cotta, stucco (non
EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast
iron, architectural metal - or similar
modular materials) installed to
industry standards.
Section 3.5.3(E)(6) Base and Top
Treatments
Building Articulation-Street
facing facades shall incorporate
a minimum of 3 of the following
articulation techniques to avoid
ORQJXQGL௺HUHQWLDWHGIDFDGHV
1.Minor Facade Plane Changes-
minimum 3 inches.
2.Vertical Projections.
3.Horizontal Projections (awnings,
canopies, cornice articulation) that
are integrated into the architecture.
4.Balconies or terraces.
5.Fenestration details, including
window depth and sills or lintels.
Also be aware of code Section
3.5.1, Compatibility, which will be
addressed in hearing materials
along with the other sections
mentioned.
Northwest Perspective (OLIVE & MASON ST.)
Project Views
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 216
9Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
Alley Entry Perspective (OLIVE ST.)NNOLIVE ST
MASON STProject Views
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 217
10Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
Agriculture : Upbringing of Fort Collins
Corrugated Metal, Corten Steel, Brick, & Timber
Grain Silos: Fort Collins became a thriving agricultural center after the central railroad
arrived in 1877. The city today still nods to its agricultural history through preservation
and similar material use on new builds.
Harmony Mill: one of the few remaining historical
agriculture buildings; started by a farmers' movement.
Auntie Stone's Cabin: Fort Collins' oldest building; began as a cafeteria for
soldiers, which later transformed into the first school, hotel, and first hospital in
the area.
Historical Context
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 218
11Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
Modern architecture in Fort Collins that nods to the historic
materials of the city.
Modern Context
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 219
12Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
Any variation of massing will need to address the courtyard experience above the parking
garage and the pedestrian experience in addition to meeting required step backs. Breaking
down mass through varied facade openings and depths will help maintain a residential
scale to the building. Simple forms and natural, neutral materials can help relate the
building to the Colorado landscape and character of downtown Fort Collins.
Precedent
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 220
13Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
North Elevation (OLIVE ST.)
Brick Masonry (Norman)Architectural MetalCorrugated Metal PanelFormed Metal PanelCorrugated Metal Panel
Elevations
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 221
14Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
West Elevation (MASON ST.)
Elevations
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 222
15Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
Main Entry Perspecitive (MASON ST.)
Planning Comment 2:
Likewise, the plazas and balconies
are consistent. The plaza will
obviously need thoughtful design in
appeal and function.
Planning Comment 8:
Plaza space and Residential Entry
Primary Entrance Articulation - The
primary building entrance shall
EHDFOHDUO\GH¿QHGGHPDUFDWHG
architectural feature of the building
easily distinguishable from
secondary building entrances.
Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
Subdistricts: Plazas. For buildings
located within the Canyon Avenue
and Civic Center Subdistricts that
are four (4) stories or taller, ground
ÀRRURSHQVSDFHVKDOOEHSURYLGHG
that is organized and arranged to
promote both active and passive
activities for the public. Such
space must be highly visible and
easily accessible to the public and
must include features that express
and promote a comfortable human
sense of proportionality between
the individual and the environment,
whether natural or man-made.
Project Views
OLI
V
OOO
E S
T MMASOMAMASAMASMA N STNSTNSTNST
OSOASOASOASOASOOSO NNNN SNNITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 223
16Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
Retail Entry Perspective (OLIVE ST.)
ppersersperspersppppeepppersperppppeppepepectpectpectpectectpepeiveivive ve ive e ive fromfromfromfromfromfrom masmasmasmasmasson son son son son sotreetreetreetreeeereereereereeeetereereeeeeet, lt, lt, ltltltltlt, tt,ookiookiookiookiong eng eng eng eneastastastastastststttttt
Project Views
OLI
V
OOO
E S
T MASOMASOMASOOMASOAMASOMASO N STNNN STNN STN STITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 224
17Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
1.00 // Architecture:
perspective from mason street, looking east
Level 01
Planning Comment 1:
7KHJURXQGÀRRUHQWULHVWRXQLWV
are appreciated. We have found
WKDWUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVGREHQH¿W
from landscape foundation planting
to create a layer of space in the
transition from public to private
space. Awnings could perhaps also
contribute to the layering of space.
A variety of strategies may be
HPSOR\HGWRGH¿QHWKHOLPLQDO
space between the residential
entrances and the public ROW.
These could also include raising
the entry level, providing a stoop or
porch, and/or raising the height of
the windows.
Residential Entries Perspective (OLIVE ST.)
97.0'
SITE BENCH
Project Views
OLI
V
OOO
E S
T MASOMASOMASOOMASOAMASOMASO N STNNN STNN STN STITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 225
DN
ECNSUBREVZONEDESCRIPTION
D
A
TEECNORIG.
ECNSUBREVZONEDESCRIPTION
D
A
TEECNORIG.RAMP UPRAMP DNTRANSFORMERYARD
RESIDENCESLOBBY
MAIL
RETAIL /RESTAURANT
TRASH &RECYCLING
NW STAIR
FIRE PUMP /WATER ENTRY
BIKE ROOM
DOG WASH
2 BDRM LOFT 2 BDRM LOFT 2 BDRM LOFT
FACP
ELEVATOR LOBBY
53 PARKING STALLS
19'-0"20'-0"19'-0"19'-0"20'-0"19'-0"24'-0"21'-0"
BLDG FRONTAGE
181'-8"BLDGFRONTAGE199'-2 3/8"24'-0"20'-0"19' SETBACK FROM B.O. CURB
19' SETBACK FROM B.O. CURB
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
5' SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE
LOADING
BIKE REPAIR STAND
BIKE REPAIR STAND
RESTAURANT PATIO
BLDG OVERHANG ABOVE
PROPERTY LINE
RETAIL COMMONCORRIDOR
GREASE INTERCEPTOR
ELECTRICALROOM
GENERATOR RM
GYM
RESIDENCELOUNGE
SE STAIR
ENCLOSEDPARKING GARAGE
LEASING OFFICE BLDG MGMTOFFICE
LEASING LOBBY
6'-0"
5% SLOPE5% SLOPE
5% SLOPE
5% SLOPE96.2'97.0'
96.15'97.0'S MASON STREETW OLIVE STREET
VEHICULAR DRIVE ENTRYCELL PHONE TOWER (NOT WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARY)
63 BIKE STALLS
BICYCLE RACKS (32 BIKES)
BICYCLE RACKS (7 BIKES)6'-0"16'-2"ALLEY5% SLOPE96.2'
5% SLOPE
97.6'
97.6'
97.6'
97.0'
97.0'
96.7'
STACKED BLOCK CURBSTACKED BLOCK CURB
EXISTING SITE WALL (NOT WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARY)
97.0'96.0'97.0'95.4'
95.5'
97.0'
97.0'
SITE BENCH SITE BENCH SITE BENCH
Legend
1. Residential Entry
2. Vehicular Entry
3. Stair Core
4. Elevators
5. Retail Tenant
6. (e) Trees to Remain
7. Building Overhang
8. Water Entry Room
9. Trash
10. Generator
11. Grease Interceptor
12. Loading
13. Transformer Vault
14. Electrical Room
NScale: 1" = 30'
Ground Floor
96.2'
RESTAURANTRESTAURANTRTNAATPATIOPATIOPA
PROPERTY LINE
97.0'
LE
96.2
'-0"5% SLOPE5% SLOPE
URB
TAGE
E5% SLOPE
GEDN
16'-2"16'
N
5% SLOPE
19' SETBACKFROM B O C6'BLDG FRONT
URB
TAGE
5% SLOPE
STACKED BLOCK CURB 95.4.4'97.0
SITE BENCHTE BENCH
K CURB 97.0'
BENCH
D BLOCK
SITE B
STACKEDSTACKED96 0'96.0
SIT
0'
B
6'5% SLOPE
19' SETBACKK FFROM B.O. CURBROM B.O. CURB
BLDG OVERHANG BLDG OVERHANGLDG OVERHANAABOVVEE
97.0'
95 5'95.5'95.5
96.15'97.0
2'
5% SLOPE
'
%SLOPE PERTY LINEPRO LE RACKS(7 BIKES)
18Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
Canyon Avenue Subdistrict // Mixed Use
0D[LPXP+HLJKW
• 6 Stories*
• 85'-0"
WK6WRU\3HUPLWWHGIRU0L[HGXVHWKDWFRQWDLQVWKRIWRWDOVTXDUHIRRWDJHGHGLFDWHGUHVLGHQWLDORURFHXVH
6HWEDFNV PLQLPXP
• Front: 19' (From B.O. Curb)
• Side: 0'
• Rear:5'
•Alley:5'
6WUHHW)URQWDJH5HTXLUHPHQWV
•3ULPDU\(QWU\RQ6WUHHW)URQWDJHDQGFOHDUO\GH¿QHG
• Required Street Frontage Build to Range: 75% at 5 to 10'
• Ground Floor Transparency: 40%
• Max Wall Length = 50 FT
•3OD]D *URXQGÀRRURSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHGIRUEXLOGLQJVVWRULHVRUWDOOHU
•1RUHTXLUHGJURXQGÀRRUXVH
Upper Story Stepbacks
All levels: Min 3 FT stepback at building material change
5th Story: 10 FT Average (Max 20 FT) along street frontages
%XLOGLQJ$UWLFXODWLRQ// (Incorporate min 3 articulation techniques)
1. Horizontal Projections (awnings, canopies, cornice articulation) that are integrated into the
architecture;
2. Balconies or terraces;
3. Fenestration details, including window depth and sills or lintels.
Other
• Lower story facades until any stepbacks must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials.
zoning
Parking
0XOWLIDPLO\3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
• 0.75 per 1 Bedroom Unit
• 1.00 per 2 Bedroom Unit
• Loading (adequately sized to accommodate use)
• Bicycle Parking: 1 per bedroom **
• Standard Size (9'-0" x 19'-0") *
*Up to 40% Compact (8'x15') permitted for "long term parking areas"
**60% Enclosed/40% Fixed Bicycle Racks for Multi-Family Residential
TOD Overlay Zone
• 25% of Gross Leasable SF area (not to exceed 5,000SF) exempt from min parking requirements
Other
• Garage entry and service locations shall be located in alley.
• Structured Parking must be screened by retail frontage at street fronts.
•5HWDLORURWKHUQRQUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVVKDOOEHUHTXLUHGDORQJDWOHDVW¿IW\ SHUFHQWRIWKHJURXQGOHYHO
frontage
Planning Comment 5:
$WWKHPHHWLQJVWD௺
will mention the crucial
interplay of citywide utility
easements required by
Street Standards, and the
setbacks in the Downtown
zone district.
Engineering Comment 3:
Frontage improvements
along the east side of
Mason will be required.
Engineering Comment 5:
We are requiring that the
sidewalk be brought to
current street standards,
which would detach the
sidewalk.
0.00 // SITE:
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 226
19Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
3.00 // Plans
Legend
1. Residential Entry
2. Vehicular Entry
3. Stair Core
4. Elevators
5. Retail Tenant
6. Retail BOH
7. Building Overhang
8. Speed Ramp
9. Trash
10. Generator
11. Grease Interceptor
12. Transformer Vault
13. Electrical Room
DN
DN
ECNSUBREVZONEDESCRIPTIONDATEECNORIG.
ECNSUBREVZONEDESCRIPTIONDATEECNORIG.
A
1
B C E F H I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
51 PARKING STALLS
19'-0"20'-0"19'-0"
MAIL104
RAMP UPRAMP DN19'-0"20'-0"19'-0"24'-0"1941 SF
RETAIL /RESTAURANT
120
21'-0"
TRASH &RECYCLING
117
8'-0"
181'-8"199'-10"BIKE REPAIR STAND
FIRE PUMP /WATER ENTRY
123
22'-0"GYM
109
BIKE REPAIR STAND
BIKE ROOM
112
DOG WASH113
LEASING OFFICE107 BLDG MGMTOFFICE108
2 BDRM LOFT
124
2 BDRM LOFT125 2 BDRM LOFT
126
20'-0"RESTAURANT PATIO
FACP
102
COURTYARD
RESIDENCESLOBBY
103
ELEVATOR LOBBY100B
RR
111
CORRIDOR
110
RETAIL COMMONCORRIDOR
122
ELECTRICALROOM
119
GENERATOR RM
116
1463 SF
RETAIL /RESTAURANT121
LEASING LOBBY106
RESIDENCELOUNGE105
3'-0"38'-8"16'-0"42'-0"23'-0"41'-8"16'-0"1'-4"12'-4 3/8"28'-0"28'-0"29'-0"27'-6"27'-0"17'-0"26'-8"SE STAIR100C
63 BIKE STALLS
NW STAIR
100A
VESTIBULE
101
ENCLOSEDPARKING GARAGE114
TRANSFORMERYARD
118
LOADING115
26'-0"26'-0"25'-6 3/8"5'-0"
Ground Floor
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
3
3
4
5 5
1
1
1
6
7
81,70,;(1&/26('&2857<$5'
8QLW7\SH 6WXGLR %HG %HG 727$/)/225
$YHUDJH8QLW6L]HVI VI VI
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO3 /2)76
8QLW6XEWRWDO 727$/
3HUFHQWDJH NScale: 1/32" = 1'
Planning Comment 6:
Adequate and convenient
trash and recycling facilities
are required. A design
guidelines document is
available, but I suspect
that the system for this
building will probably meet
and exceed the basic
requirements, which are
geared toward separate
enclosures.
%XLOGLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ
GSF RSF Patio 8QLW&RXQW
Lvl B1 ( 89' -0") 5,716 GSF* - - -
Lvl 1 (100' - 0") 13,997 GSF* 2,009 RSF - 3
Lvl P2 (110' - 0") 2,000 GSF* 974 RSF - -
Lvl 2 (120' - 0") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 3 (131' - 4") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 4 (142' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 5 (153' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 6 (164' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Total 164,245 GSF 119,480 RSF 5,025 SF 177 Units
*Excludes Parking areas and courtyard, listed below.
Courtyard = 3,580 SF
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHG
Retail -Not Required for less than 5,000sf 0 Stalls
Residences:
-Studio .75/ Unit 30 Stalls
-1 Bdrm .75/ Unit 82 Stalls
-2 Bdrm 1 /Unit 28 Stalls
Total Req. 140 Stalls
Parking Provided 171 Stalls
(63,932 SF)
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 227
20Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
3.00 // Plans
Legend
1. Elevator Lobby
2. Stair Core
3. Elevators
4. Storage Lockers
5.0DLQWHQDQFH2ႈFH
6. Speed Ramp
7. Grease Interceptor Rm
A
1
B C E F H I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
61 PARKING STALLS
RAMP UPELEVATOR LOBBY
B100B
STORAGE UNITB104
80 STORAGE LOCKERS
BUILDINGMAINTENANCE
B103
38'-8"16'-0"42'-0"23'-0"41'-8"16'-0"12'-4 3/8"28'-0"28'-0"29'-0"27'-6"27'-0"17'-0"26'-8"BICYCLE RACKS (35 BIKES)BICYCLE RACKS (23 BIKES)UNDERGROUNDPARKING GARAGE
B101
GREASEINTERCEPTORB102
SE STAIR
B100C
NW STAIRB100A
Level B1
81,70,;(1&/26('&2857<$5'
8QLW7\SH 6WXGLR %HG %HG 727$/)/225
$YHUDJH8QLW6L]HVI VI VI
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO3 /2)76
8QLW6XEWRWDO 727$/
3HUFHQWDJH
1
3
2
2
7
6
5
4
NScale: 1/32" = 1'
%XLOGLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ
GSF RSF Patio 8QLW&RXQW
Lvl B1 ( 89' -0") 5,716 GSF* - - -
Lvl 1 (100' - 0") 13,997 GSF* 2,009 RSF - 3
Lvl P2 (110' - 0") 2,000 GSF* 974 RSF - -
Lvl 2 (120' - 0") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 3 (131' - 4") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 4 (142' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 5 (153' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 6 (164' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Total 164,245 GSF 119,480 RSF 5,025 SF 177 Units
*Excludes Parking areas and courtyard, listed below.
Courtyard = 3,580 SF
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHG
Retail -Not Required for less than 5,000sf 0 Stalls
Residences:
-Studio .75/ Unit 30 Stalls
-1 Bdrm .75/ Unit 82 Stalls
-2 Bdrm 1 /Unit 28 Stalls
Total Req. 140 Stalls
Parking Provided 171 Stalls
(63,932 SF)
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 228
21Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
3.00 // Plans
A
1
B C E F H I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
58 PARKING STALLS
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO VAULT BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
2 BDRM LOFT
126A
2 BDRM LOFT
124A
2 BDRM LOFT
125A
RAMP DOWN38'-8"16'-0"42'-0"23'-0"41'-8"16'-0"12'-4 3/8"28'-0"28'-0"29'-0"27'-6"27'-0"17'-0"26'-8"BICYCLE RACK (9 BIKES)BICYCLE RACK (9 BIKES)BICYCLE RACKS (28 BIKES)SE STAIR
P200C
NW STAIR
P200A
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOWOPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW
ENCLOSEDPARKING GARAGEP201
ELEVATOR LOBBYP200B
Level P2
81,70,;(1&/26('&2857<$5'
8QLW7\SH 6WXGLR %HG %HG 727$/)/225
$YHUDJH8QLW6L]HVI VI VI
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO3 /2)76
8QLW6XEWRWDO 727$/
3HUFHQWDJH
Legend
1. Elevator Lobby
2. Stair Core
3. Elevators
4. 2nd Story Lofts
5. Speed Ramp
6. High Retail Bay
7. High Amenity Bay
2
5
6
7
44 4
Scale: 1/32" = 1'
1
3
2
%XLOGLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ
GSF RSF Patio 8QLW&RXQW
Lvl B1 ( 89' -0") 5,716 GSF* - - -
Lvl 1 (100' - 0") 13,997 GSF* 2,009 RSF - 3
Lvl P2 (110' - 0") 2,000 GSF* 974 RSF - -
Lvl 2 (120' - 0") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 3 (131' - 4") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 4 (142' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 5 (153' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 6 (164' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Total 164,245 GSF 119,480 RSF 5,025 SF 177 Units
*Excludes Parking areas and courtyard, listed below.
Courtyard = 3,580 SF
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHG
Retail -Not Required for less than 5,000sf 0 Stalls
Residences:
-Studio .75/ Unit 30 Stalls
-1 Bdrm .75/ Unit 82 Stalls
-2 Bdrm 1 /Unit 28 Stalls
Total Req. 140 Stalls
Parking Provided 171 Stalls
(63,932 SF)
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 229
22Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
3.00 // Plans
NA
1
B C E F H I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
181'-8"
1 BDRM A
751 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
2 BDRM A
889 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
2 BDRM C
945 SF
BALCONY 50 SF
1 BDRM D
602 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
STUDIO B
535 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
STUDIO B
535 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
STUDIO B
535 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
1 BDRM D
604 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
1 BDRM D
604 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
1 BDRM D
604 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
2 BDRM B
946 SF
BALCONY 54 SF
2 BDRM B
952 SF
BALCONY 54 SF
1 BDRM B
621 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
621 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
621 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
2 BDRM A*
891 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM A*
752 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
STUDIO A
568 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
STUDIO A
566 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
38'-8"16'-0"42'-0"23'-0"41'-8"16'-0"12'-4 3/8"28'-0"28'-0"29'-0"27'-6"27'-0"17'-0"26'-8"25'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-7"40'-4"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"40'-0"40'-9"10'-2 1/4"24'-10 3/4"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"18'-0"14'-0"24'-10 3/4"40'-11"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"40'-9"
149 SFNW STAIR
150 SFSE STAIR
75 SF
TRASH
51 SF
ELEC
3585 SF
COURTYARD
197 SFELEVATOR LOBBY50'-0"2'-0"122'-2"1 BDRM A
751 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM A
751 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM A
751 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY
JULIETTE BALCONY
JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY
10' SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE
Scale: 1/32" = 1'
Levels 2 - 3
81,70,;(1&/26('&2857<$5'
8QLW7\SH 6WXGLR %HG %HG 727$/)/225
$YHUDJH8QLW6L]HVI VI VI
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO3 /2)76
8QLW6XEWRWDO 727$/
3HUFHQWDJH
Legend
1. Elevator Lobby
2. Stair Core
3. Elevators
4. Outdoor Courtyard
5. Data/ Electrical
6. Trash Chute
2
6 5
4
ASTUDIO A
566 SF
YJULIETTE BALCONYYJULIETTE BALCONY
44444
%XLOGLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ
GSF RSF Patio 8QLW&RXQW
Lvl B1 ( 89' -0") 5,716 GSF* - - -
Lvl 1 (100' - 0") 13,997 GSF* 2,009 RSF - 3
Lvl P2 (110' - 0") 2,000 GSF* 974 RSF - -
Lvl 2 (120' - 0") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 3 (131' - 4") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 4 (142' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 5 (153' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 6 (164' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Total 164,245 GSF 119,480 RSF 5,025 SF 177 Units
*Excludes Parking areas and courtyard, listed below.
Courtyard = 3,580 SF
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHG
Retail -Not Required for less than 5,000sf 0 Stalls
Residences:
-Studio .75/ Unit 30 Stalls
-1 Bdrm .75/ Unit 82 Stalls
-2 Bdrm 1 /Unit 28 Stalls
Total Req. 140 Stalls
Parking Provided 171 Stalls
(63,932 SF)
1
3
2
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 230
23Olive & Mason // Fort Collins, CO 2022.11.16
3.00 // Plans
A
1
B C E F H I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 BDRM E
705 SF
BALCONY 218 SF
2 BDRM C
BALCONY 52 SF
946 SF
STUDIO B
BALCONY 35 SF
535 SF
STUDIO B
BALCONY 40 SF
535 SF
STUDIO B
BALCONY 35 SF
535 SF
2 BDRM B
BALCONY 54 SF
946 SF
2 BDRM B
BALCONY 54 SF
960 SF
STUDIO C
471 SF
BALCONY 178 SF
2 BDRM B
BALCONY 277 SF
952 SF
2 BDRM D
BALCONY 317 SF
1041 SF
STUDIO A
568 SF
BALCONY 32 SF
STUDIO A
568 SF
BALCONY 32 SF
STUDIO A
568 SF
BALCONY 178 SF
STUDIO A
568 SF
BALCONY 178 SF
STUDIO A
568 SF
BALCONY 178 SF
30'-7 3/4"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"
171'-4 3/4"
10'-3 1/4"171'-4 3/4"38'-10 3/4"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-10 3/4"10'-3 1/4"30'-7 3/4"40'-0"20'-0"40'-0"40'-9"10'-1 1/4"183'-9 1/2"3 1/4"40'-9"24'-10 3/4"14'-0"18'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"24'-10 3/4"10'-1 1/4"183'-9 1/2"NW STAIR400A
SE STAIR400C
TRASH
400D
ELEC
400E
OPEN TO COURTYARD BELOW
ELEVATOR LOBBY400B
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM D
602 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
1 BDRM D
604 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
1 BDRM D
604 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
1 BDRM D
604 SF
BALCONY 35 SF
STUDIO A
566 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM B
623 SF
BALCONY 40 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
1 BDRM C
672 SF
JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY
JULIETTE BALCONY
JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY JULIETTE BALCONY
AVG. 10' SETBACK FROM F.O. BUILDING BELOWAVG. 10' SETBACK FROM F.O. BUILDING BELOW
AVG. 10' SETBACK FROM F.O. BUILDING BELOW
Levels 4-6
81,70,;(1&/26('&2857<$5'
8QLW7\SH 6WXGLR %HG %HG 727$/)/225
$YHUDJH8QLW6L]HVI VI VI
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO3 /2)76
8QLW6XEWRWDO 727$/
3HUFHQWDJH NScale: 1/32" = 1'
Legend
1. Elevator Lobby
2. Stair Core
3. Elevators
4. Data/ Electrical
5. Trash Chute
2
5 4
1
3
2
%XLOGLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ
GSF RSF Patio 8QLW&RXQW
Lvl B1 ( 89' -0") 5,716 GSF* - - -
Lvl 1 (100' - 0") 13,997 GSF* 2,009 RSF - 3
Lvl P2 (110' - 0") 2,000 GSF* 974 RSF - -
Lvl 2 (120' - 0") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 3 (131' - 4") 29,920 GSF 24,629 RSF 1,047 SF 36
Lvl 4 (142' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 5 (153' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Lvl 6 (164' - 8") 27,565 GSF 22,413 RSF 977 SF 34
Total 164,245 GSF 119,480 RSF 5,025 SF 177 Units
*Excludes Parking areas and courtyard, listed below.
Courtyard = 3,580 SF
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHG
Retail -Not Required for less than 5,000sf 0 Stalls
Residences:
-Studio .75/ Unit 30 Stalls
-1 Bdrm .75/ Unit 82 Stalls
-2 Bdrm 1 /Unit 28 Stalls
Total Req. 140 Stalls
Parking Provided 171 Stalls
(63,932 SF)
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 231
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: B2983 / 5LR 2045
Historic Building Name: Jacob & Anna Welch House, Day Funeral Home, Warren Funeral
Chapel
Property Address: 121 W. Olive Street
Determination: NOT ELIGIBLE
Issued: September 22, 2021
Expiration: September 22, 2026
Bohlender Funeral Chapel, Inc.
121 W. Olive Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Property Owner/Developer:
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 not eligible for landmark designation.
An intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form was completed by a third-party historic
preservation consultant in order to provide the information that serves 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.
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
Consultant’s evaluation:
Based upon the results of this study, the property at 121 W. Olive St. is found to be ineligible for
individual designation asa City of Fort Collins landmark under the criteria found in the
municipal code.The property might have been eligible for its association with significant events
that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community.
This is in relation to its long history of use as a prominent funeral home from 1931 to the present
time. However, due to the extent of non-historic alterations, its eligibility under this criterion is
not supported. It is consequently not individually eligible under Criterion A.
The property is not associated with the lives any persons found to be of recognizable significance
in the history of the city, state or nation. While Jacob Welch was an important businessman and
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 232
- 2 -
served as an early town mayor, his house has been extensively altered. It is consequently not
individually eligible under Criterion B.
Because of the mid-twentieth century additions that were constructed to expand the original
house’s use as a funeral home, the building is now characterized as a House with a Commercial
Addition. This form has come to be recognized in the past two decades as worthy of its own
category of potential architectural significance. However, the building continued to experience
non-historic additions along with a major exterior remodel in 2011. These changes effectively
erased its mid-twentieth century appearance and introduced new decorative elements. Due to the
extent of these alterations, the property is not individually eligible under Criterion C.
The property is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history, and is not
individually eligible under Criterion D.
This property was previously recorded and evaluated for the City of Fort Collins in 1996 by
Jason Marmor of Retrospect. Mr. Marmor concluded that the extensive changes to the historic
house rendered it ineligible for landmark designation on any level. He did not consider the
building’s potential eligibility as a mid-twentieth century funeral home because at the time the
fifty-year mark was 1946, four years prior to the first addition to the house. That made all of its
additions and alterations non-historic. Also, the category of a House with a Commercial Addition
was not yet recognized by architectural historians as a form worthy of potential landmark
eligibility.
In 2011, the property was reviewed again by City staff and the LPC in response to a permit
application that had been submitted for an exterior remodel of the first floor additions. That work
was described by staff as “a façade ‘face-lift’ that would include a complete exterior
reconstruction of the 1st level of the structure.” Staff recommended that the building no longer
retained adequate integrity, failed to meet the designation standards as presented in the
Municipal Code, and was not eligible for landmark designation. The LPC concurred with that
recommendation and the owners completed the exterior remodel.
Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance under Criteria A and
C, based on the following findings.
• The property’s statement of significance is supported by a discussion of historical context and a
comparative analysis that is appropriate for the property. Relevant context reports have been
referenced and cited.
• Each significance criterion is addressed in the statement of significance, even if not applicable.
• For eligible properties, a period of significance is provided and justified based on the available
records.
Integrity
Consultant’s evaluation: [see above]
Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s integrity based on the following
findings.
• Essential physical features are identified in the integrity analysis and related to period of
significance.
• Discussion of integrity relates to the property’s most relevant aspects of integrity per its
significance.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 233
- 3 -
• Discussion of integrity focuses on the property’s essential physical features, and relates to period
of significance.
• Discussion and conclusion responds directly to previous conclusions and assessments of the
property, whether in opposition or in agreement.
Statement of Eligibility:
While the property’s history exhibits significance to the city’s commercial and architectural history, it has
lost historic integrity to convey that significance due to recent losses of character-defining features. It no
longer has the historic integrity to represent its history as a significant House w/ Commercial Addition in
Fort Collins or the neighborhood during its period of important operation and development between 1930
and 1969. Key losses of historic integrity occurred in 2011 which removed the mid-century Modern
elements installed as part of, or before, the Bohlender transition in 1969.
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
Historic Preservation Planner
Attachment: Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated XXXX
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 234
OAHP1403 Official Eligibility Determination
Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials
Determined Eligible - NR
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Determined Not Eligible - NR
Determined Eligible - SR
Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible - SR
(Page 1 of 24) Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
I. Identification
1. Resource Number: 5LR2045
2. Temporary Resource Number: Not Applicable
3. County: Larimer
4. City: Fort Collins
5. Historic Building Name: Jacob and Anna Welch House
Day Funeral Home
Warren Funeral Chapel
6. Current Building Name: Bohlender Funeral Chapel
7. Building Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
8. Owner Name & Address: Bohlender Funeral Chapel Inc.
121 W. Olive St.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 235
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 2 of 24)
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6th Township 7 North Range 69 West
NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11
10. UTM Reference Zone: 13 Easting: 493378 Northing: 4492574
11. USGS Quad Name: Fort Collins, Colorado
Year: 1960 (revised 1984) Map scale: 7.5'
12. Lot(s): E 100’ of Lots 9-12 Block: 113
E 60’ of Lots 13-14
E 60’ of N 20’ of Lot 15
Addition: Fort Collins Original Townsite Year of Addition: 1873
13. Boundary Description and Justification: This legally defined parcel (#97114-24-011),
clearly delineated by an urban lot and block description, includes the historic
building and its surrounding grounds.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building Plan: Rectangular Plan
15. Dimensions in Feet: 70’ x 120’
16. Number of Stories: 2½
17. Primary External Wall Material(s): Stone, Stucco, Concrete Block
18. Roof Configuration: Truncated Hipped Roof
19. Primary External Roof Material: Composition Roof
20. Special Features: Chimney, Decorative Shingles, Dormer, Portico, Carport,
Attached Garage
21. General Architectural Description: This property is occupied by a tall historic 2½-
story masonry Foursquare house that dates from the late 19th century, faces
north, and has a rectangular footprint of about 32’ x 50’. Its exterior walls are
constructed of coursed grayish-buff sandstone blocks, ornamented with red
sandstone quoins and window surrounds. The building had an open front porch
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 236
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 3 of 24)
at its northwest corner that is no longer present, along with two-story bay
windows on the east and west sides. These bays are capped by pyramidal roofs.
Several original or early windows are present. Along an exposed first-floor area
of the east wall are three-part vertical fixed windows set in what appear to be
wood frames. While these were likely double-hung sash windows, the fixed lights
and framing there today might be historic. Several one-over-one double-hung
sash windows with wood frames are present on the second floor. At the
building’s upper southeast corner is what appears to be an enclosed sleeping
porch with a band of large single-light windows.
The house’s truncated hipped roof is finished with composition shingles and
boxed eaves around the perimeter. Dentil bands used to be present below the
eaves, but these have been removed, leaving flat fascia boards in their place. Two
gabled roof dormers with small windows are present on the north slope and a
shed dormer is found on the south slope. A historic chimney rises from the west
roof slope (another one that was on the east slope has been removed).
Constructed of either brick or stone, the chimney has been stuccoed. Just south
of the west bay window is a tall non-historic concrete block wall chimney that
pierces the eave.
The house is surrounded on all four sides by sizable additions that bring the
building to its overall footprint of approximately 70’ x 120’. Within the additions
are the chapel, offices, restrooms, hallways and mortuary spaces. These date
from the post-World War II years to the present and appear to be constructed of
concrete blocks. Their exterior walls are mostly stuccoed (actually a similar
modern material such as Dryvit), with faux stone cladding below. All of the
additions appear to have flat or slightly sloped roofs.
To the north is the tall funeral chapel addition. This has been remodeled on the
exterior in recent years to project an Egyptian Revival appearance with battered,
obelisk-like pilasters supporting deeply curved entablatures. Bands of tall narrow
fixed windows are present near the building’s northwest corner. Battered piers
extend along the west side of the building to form a long portico that shelters the
entrances into the chapel and office. To the east is a tall, full-length carport used
for funerals. An entry into the chapel is located there, with a ramp outside for
bringing coffins out to the hearses. The carport’s eastern edge is also lined with
a series of battered piers. All of the piers on the building have stuccoed uppers
with faux stone cladding below.
To the rear, the south addition is two-stories in height and constructed of exposed
concrete block walls. Its east wall at the carport holds two pedestrian entrances
along with a vehicular entry with an overhead metal panel door. This is
presumably where bodies are brought into the mortuary area of the building. The
addition has fixed windows with faux divided lights, a gabled roof, and a tall
concrete block chimney.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 237
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 4 of 24)
22. Architectural Style / Building Type: House with Commercial Addition
23. Landscaping or Special Setting Features: The property is located on the southeast
corner of Olive Street and Mason Street, and occupies the northwest quarter of
the block. It is surrounded by commercial buildings and parking lots in all
directions. The western half of the property holds a paved parking lot. Two
detached garages used by the funeral home stand to the south and southwest.
24. Associated Buildings, Features or Objects:
Small Garage (1935) – This detached garage is located southwest of the funeral
home and faces to the north. The masonry building rests upon a concrete
foundation and its exterior walls are constructed of bricks laid in common bond
coursing. Wire-cut bricks alternate with pressed bricks, and the stepped parapet
walls are capped by a single row of headers. The north wall holds four vehicle
bays, each containing a metal overhead garage door set in wood framing. A
pedestrian entry with a slab door is found on the west wall. The south, rear wall
contains two pairs of windows. Each consists of a three-light fixed window with
an adjacent three-light casement. These are set in metal frames and have a brick
rowlock sill.
Large Garage (1947-1987) – Located south of the funeral home is an L-shaped
detached garage that faces east toward the alley. The masonry building rests
upon a concrete foundation and its exterior walls are constructed of concrete
blocks. Two pedestrian entries face north. One contains a wood panel door with
a single light and the other holds a slab door. The east-facing walls (one set back
from the other) holds five vehicle bays with overhead garage doors. At least one
window appears to be present in the north wall. On the west is a single two-light
fixed window. The building has a flat roof.
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1887
Source of Information: “Ex-Mayor Welch’s elegant stone residence…,” Fort
Collins Courier, 1 September 1887, p. 1
26. Architect: Unknown
Source of Information: Not Applicable
27. Builder/Contractor: Lars P. Kemoe
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 238
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 5 of 24)
Source of Information: “Capt. L. P. Kemoe has taken the contract…,” Fort Collins
Express, 12 February 1887, p. 1
28. Original Owner: Jacob and Anna Welch
Source of Information: “Ex-Mayor Welch’s elegant stone residence…,” Fort
Collins Courier, 1 September 1887, p. 1
29. Construction History: The historic house on this property was constructed in 1887.
It appears to have remained largely unchanged through the mid-twentieth
century. In 1950, the building was enlarged with a 12’ x 33’ one-story commercial
addition on the front. That was greatly expanded in 1960 to hold the funeral
chapel that remains in use today. The chapel addition faced west and had
concrete block walls with stone or faux stone facing below, a low-sloped gabled
roof, and a covered walkway at the western main entrance. A new embalming
room was added in 1968. In 1969, the east porch was removed and replaced with
a covered driveway sheltered by a large canopy.
Further non-historic changes were made between 1978 and 1986, when additions
and a longer covered walkway were constructed to the west. The rear two-story
addition on the south appears to have been built as a one-story garage that was
expanded in 1986 to install a crematory. Finally, in 2011 the entire exterior of the
building, except for the original house at its core, was remodeled to its current
appearance. That work completely changed the appearance of the historic
additions and alterations dating from prior to 1970.
Between 1935 and 1947, two masonry garages were constructed to the south and
southwest of the original house, by then in use as a funeral home. The south
garage was originally rectangular and was expanded to the east in the 1980s,
bringing it to its current L-shaped plan. The adjacent historic house at 129 W.
Olive St. was demolished in 1969 to make room for an on-site parking lot.
30. Original Location: Yes
V. Historical Associations
31. Original Use(s): Domestic / Single Dwelling
32. Intermediate Use(s): Education / Education-Related
Funerary / Mortuary
33. Current Use(s): Funerary / Mortuary
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 239
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 6 of 24)
34. Site Type(s): Single-Family Home, Sorority House, Funeral Chapel and
Mortuary
35. Historical background: On 19 December 1885, the Fort Collins Express newspaper
reported that merchant Jacob Welch had purchased a “valuable piece of property
on Olive street, near the railroad.” This identified its location as close to Mason
Street. Born in Pennsylvania in 1819, Welch moved to Akron, Ohio twelve years
later with his parents and lived there for the next several decades. He married
Anna Achison in 1839 and they had five children. In 1870, the family headed west
to the Colorado Territory and settled in the Union Colony, which eventually
became Greeley. Three years later, they relocated to the town of Fort Collins,
where Welch opened a mercantile store and constructed the Welch Block to
house his business on the northwest corner of College Ave. and Mountain Ave.
By the early 1880s, around the time he was elected mayor of Fort Collins, Welch
had turned the business over to his son, Louis W. Welch. He then spent the rest
of his life managing his real estate interests. In December 1886, the newspaper
wrote that Welch would be erecting a stone house on his property at 121 W. Olive
St., with construction to begin the coming spring. In February 1887, he engaged
contractor Lars P. Kemoe to handle the project.
Born in Norway in 1842, Kemoe arrived in Fort Collins by 1880 and began to
advertise his services as a skilled contractor and stonemason. Numerous
newspaper articles from the 1880s indicate that he was in high demand for
commercial and residential projects, along with government contracts. For
example, in 1887 he worked on the construction of the Larimer County
courthouse. After working in Fort Collins for over a decade, Kemoe moved to
Washington State prior to 1900, resumed his contracting business there, and died
in Seattle in 1914.
Ground was broken on the large Welch house at 121 W. Olive St. in March 1887,
when the basement and foundation were excavated. The cost of the building was
estimated to run between $6,000 and $7,000. Its stone exterior walls were finished
in June. On September 1, the newspaper reported that the “elegant stone
residence on Olive street…is nearly completed. It is built of gray sandstone
trimmed with red sandstone, and presents a very pretty appearance.” In the
spring of 1888, Welch had a stone stable constructed at the rear of the property.
In addition to his home at 121 W. Olive St., Welch arranged for a very similar
masonry house to be erected, also possibly by Kemoe, in the western area of the
property closer to the intersection of Mason and Olive. Addressed as 129 W. Olive
St., that house was occupied by his son Louis and wife Mary. At the time they
were built, these side-by-side residences were notable as two of the larger, more
elegant houses in Fort Collins. Jacob Welch died at home in September 1907 and
was buried in Grandview Cemetery. Anna joined her husband three years later.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 240
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 7 of 24)
Following Anna’s death, the house at 121 W. Olive St. was occupied for a short
time by Louis and Mary Welch, who moved from next door and rented their home
to Mrs. Lucy Davison. Throughout the 1910s and into the 1920s, the former Welch
residences were occupied as Greek houses. From 1911 to at least 1914, 121 W.
Olive St. was occupied by the Tau Kappa Sigma sorority. This was replaced by
the Kappa Delta sorority, which remained there until 1926. The house at 129 W.
Olive St. held the Alpha Pi Lambda fraternity from around 1913 to 1920.
In May 1920, the Fort Collins Courier reported that the W. T. Hollowell funeral
home, located on W. Mountain Ave., had arranged to occupy the former Louis
Welch house at 129 W. Olive St. Hollowell’s Home Mortuary moved into the
building, and owners Walter and Emma Hollowell occupied the adjacent house at
121 W. Olive St. as their residence. The business remained at 129 W. Olive St.
through the 1930s and in the 1940s became known as the Blythe-Holloway
Mortuary. In the 1950s its name changed again, this time to the Blythe-Goodrich
Mortuary, and it continued to operate there into the 1960s. In 1969, the historic
Louis Welch house was demolished to make way for a parking lot. These
developments corresponded with a similar change in use at 121 W. Olive St.
During the second half of the 1920s, 121 W. Olive St. was occupied by Bailey and
Josephine Cornwall followed by Guy and Hazel Jennings. The property’s use
changed dramatically starting in the summer of 1930, when Charles J. and Betty
Day, owners of the Day Funeral Home, remodeled the interior to accommodate
their business. Born in Missouri in 1886, Charles attended Iowa Wesleyan College
and then moved to Denver in 1905 followed by Grand Junction, where he worked
as an undertaker. He married Betty Chaffee in 1914. Over the following decade,
Charles operated mortuaries in Las Vegas, New Mexico, and Longmont, Colorado.
In 1924, the couple relocated to Fort Collins and opened the Day Funeral Home in
a house on the northeast corner of College Avenue and Magnolia Street.
In early 1931, the Days moved their funeral home into the large house at 121 W.
Olive St. and it remained there into the early 1940s. From 1930 to 1937, Charles
also served as Larimer County coroner. Throughout much of that period, the
Days lived and worked in the building. Harold A. Warren was employed there as
an assistant mortician starting around 1933. In 1935, the business purchased a
Pierce Arrow ambulance that was used to transport ill and injured citizens to the
hospital and deceased bodies to the funeral home. The Days appear to have had
a four-car garage constructed southwest of the funeral home to house the vehicle
along with several others.
Charles died suddenly in February 1941 and Betty worked with Harold Warren to
keep the business running. In October of that year, morticians Milo and Edna
Rice, who operated a funeral home in Sidney, Nebraska, purchased the Day
Funeral Home. They continued to employ Harold Warren as manager, and he
acquired a partnership share in the business. Around the beginning of
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 241
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 8 of 24)
September 1942, the business began to be advertised as the Day-Rice Funeral
Home. Milo Rice died in December 1942, by which time Harold Warren had been
drafted to serve in World War II. In 1944, it was renamed the Rice Funeral Home
and Edna managed it through 1945.
Harold Warren was born in Cleveland, Oklahoma in 1913 and grew up in Fort
Collins. In 1935, after assisting at the Day Funeral Home for about two years, he
attended the Williams institute of Embalming in Kansas City. He returned to work
in Fort Collins for several years prior to being drafted in 1942 to serve with the US
Army in a medical unit in the European Theater. While he was overseas, the
mortuary he partly owned in Fort Collins was renamed the Rice Funeral Home.
Warren returned home in late 1945 and resumed his management role as a part
owner and funeral director along with Edna Rice. Edna died in December 1946
and operation of the funeral home fell to Harold Warren.
In early 1947, Warren and a new partner, Robert Bishop of Lamar, acquired the
Rice family’s interest in the funeral home. Bishop had been involved in the
mortuary business in Lamar and Canon City. In May 1950, they secured a permit
from the City of Fort Collins for the construction of a 12’ x 33’ concrete block
commercial addition to the front of the building. The partners operated as the
Rice Funeral Home until around 1952, when the name was changed to the Rice-
Warren Funeral Home. In 1957, the business became the Warren Funeral Chapel,
apparently reflecting Robert Bishop’s exit from the partnership. Throughout the
decade, the Warrens lived and worked in the building.
During the summer of 1960, the facility was expanded again to the north, this time
with a large funeral chapel that remains in use today. Around 1968, Milo
Bohlender purchased an interest in the funeral home and became its vice
president. He and his wife Gwen lived in the building into the early 1970s. In
1969, they had the east driveway covered by a large canopy. Further changes
were made to the building between 1978 and 1986, when additions and a covered
walkway were constructed to the west. The rear two-story addition on the south
was originally a one-story garage that appears to have been enlarged in 1986 to
install a crematory, possibly the first to operate in Fort Collins. Finally, in 2011
the entire exterior of the building, except for original house at its core, was
remodeled to its current appearance.
Harold Warren remained president of the Warren Funeral Chapel until 1980 and
Edna continued to work there as well. He died in 1999 and Dorothy in 2010. They
are buried in Grandview Cemetery. In 1980, the business’ name was changed to
the Warren-Bohlender Funeral Chapel and Milo became its president. For the past
two decades or more, it has been known as the Bohlender Funeral Chapel,
reflecting the business’ ownership by Milo’s son Gary and his wife Kristin.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 242
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 9 of 24)
36. Sources of information:
Burial Record, Harold Albert Warren (died 1999), Grandview Cemetery, Fort
Collins, CO. Located at www.findagrave.com.
Burial Record, Jacob Welch (died 1907) and Anna Welch (died 1910), Grandview
Cemetery, Fort Collins, CO. Located at www.findagrave.com.
City Records and Building Permits, 121 & 129 W. Olive St.
Remodeling Stone House, 1922 (#1)
Reshingling Porch, 1926 (#1462)
Remodeling, 1930 (#2697)
Rebuild Rear Porch, 1932 (#3267)
Brick Chimney in Rear Garage, 1936 (#4539)
Reroofing, 1942 (#6894)
New Roof Over Porch, 1942 (#6975)
Remodeling, 1944 (#7789)
Sign, 1947 (#9870)
Build Garage, 1947 (#9964)
Build Front Addition, 1950 (#11802)
Reshingle Roof, 1954 (#13926)
Funeral Chapel Addition, 1960 (#3600)
Demolish Mortuary at 129 W. Olive St., 1969 (#13865)
Construct Covered Driveway on East, 1969 (#13904)
Crematory Addition, 1986 (#19295)
Garage Addition, 1987 (#25676)
Colorado State Census, L. P. Kemoe, Larimer County, 1885.
Fire Insurance Maps of Fort Collins, Sanborn Map Company, 1901-1963.
Fort Collins City Directories, Listings for 121 and 129 W. Olive St., 1902-1973.
Fort Collins Coloradoan
“Rice Funeral Home,” 13 November 1945, p. 2.
“Rice Funeral Home,” 30 December 1945, p. 2.
“Warren to Seek Post of Coroner,” 2 July 1946, p. 3.
“Mrs. Rice Dies in East,” 23 December 1946, p. 1.
“Partnership Announced at Rice Mortuary Here,” 25 February 1947, p. 8.
“Warren Funeral Chapel,” 7 November 1965, p. 25.
“Dorothy Louise Warren,” 7 December 2010, p. 14.
Fort Collins Express, Courier and Weekly Courier
“L. P. Kemoe, Contractor and Builder,” 7 May 1880, p. 2.
“Jacob Welch has bought…,” 19 December 1885, p. 1.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 243
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 10 of 24)
“We understand that Jacob Welch…,” 18 December 1886, p. 1.
“Capt. L. P. Kemoe has taken the contract…,” 12 February 1887, p. 1.
“Excavations are being made…,” 17 March 1887, p. 1.
“Work is again progressing…,” 21 May 1887, p. 1.
“The walls of Jacob Welch’s handsome stone residence…,” 4 June 1887, p. 1.
“Captain L. P. Kemoe…,” 4 June 1887, p. 1.
“Ex-Mayor Welch’s elegant stone residence…,” 1 September 1887, p. 1.
“Our New Buildings,” 7 January 1888, p. 1.
“Our Busy Builders,” 19 May 1888, p. 1.
“Mrs. J. Welch gave a delightful afternoon lunch…,” 24 November 1888, p. 1.
“Former Mayor of Ft. Collins Joins Silent Majority,” 18 September 1907, p. 15.
“Pioneer Welch Passes Away,” 25 September 1907, p. 7.
“College Notes,” 29 September 1911, p. 2.
“Hollowell Purchases Mortuary Home,” 12 May 1920, p. 2.
“Day Funeral Home Opens in the City,” 3 February 1924, p. 5.
“The Day Funeral Home,” 8 February 1924, p. 8.
“The Kappa Delta sorority will move…,” 3 September 1926, p. 3.
“For Coroner,” 31 October 1930, p. 11.
“Charles J. Day,” 18 January 1931, p. 11.
“Harold Warren…,” 23 September 1935, p. 4.
“Quiet Dignity in Day Funeral Home,” 6 October 1935, p. 8.
“Charles J. Day Dies Suddenly,” 27 February 1941, p. 1.
“The personnel…,” 6 April 1941, p. 2.
“Warren Will Continue at Day Funeral Home,” 8 October 1941, p. 2.
“Day-Rice Funeral Home,” 3 September 1942, p. 2.
“Milo G. Rice Goes in Death,” 6 December 1942, p. 3.
“Harold A. Warren,” 12 December 1943, p. 2.
“Rice Funeral Home,” 15 October 1944, p. 2.
“Among the war relics sent home…,” 10 November 1944, p. 2.
Historic Building Inventory Record, 121 W. Olive St., Fort Collins, CO (Site
#5LR2045). Completed by Jason Marmor, Retrospect, 3 July 1996.
Historic Photograph of the Kappa Delta Sorority House, 121 W. Olive St. Silver
Spruce Yearbook, Colorado A & M, 1923. From the Collection of the Fort
Collins Museum of Discovery Archive, Image #KD_22_1.
Historic Photograph of the Welch House, 121 W. Olive St., 1909. From the
Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archive, Image #H01928.
Larimer County Assessor’s Office, Real Estate Appraisal Cards for 121 W. Olive
St. (Parcel (#97114-24-011), Photograph Dated 1969.
US Census Records, Charles and Betty Day, Denver, CO, 1910; Fort Collins, CO,
1930-1940.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 244
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 11 of 24)
US Census Records, Jacob and Anna Welch, Fort Collins, CO, 1900.
US Census Records, Lars P. Kemoe, Fort Collins, CO, 1880; Ballard, WA, 1900.
US Census Records, L. W. and Mary Welch, Fort Collins, CO, 1900.
Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Courier
Printing & Publishing Company, 1911. (Section on Jacob Welch, p. 307)
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation:
Applicable Fort Collins Criteria (Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Section 14-5)
A. Events: Associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution
to the broad patterns of the history of the community, state or nation (a
specific event or pattern of events)
B. Persons/Groups: Associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons
recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific
contributions to that history can be identified and documented
C. Design/Construction: 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 part of a
recognizable and distinguished group of properties
D. Information potential: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history
X Does not meet any of the above Fort Collins designation criteria
Analysis of Fort Collins Significance: Based upon the results of this study, the
property at 121 W. Olive St. is found to be ineligible for individual designation as
a City of Fort Collins landmark under the criteria found in the municipal code.
The property might have been eligible for its association with significant events
that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of
the community. This is in relation to its long history of use as a prominent funeral
home from 1931 to the present time. However, due to the extent of non-historic
alterations, its eligibility under this criterion is not supported. It is consequently
not individually eligible under Criterion A.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 245
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 12 of 24)
The property is not associated with the lives any persons found to be of
recognizable significance in the history of the city, state or nation. While Jacob
Welch was an important businessman and served as an early town mayor, his
house has been extensively altered. It is consequently not individually eligible
under Criterion B.
Because of the mid-twentieth century additions that were constructed to expand
the original house’s use as a funeral home, the building is now characterized as
a House with a Commercial Addition. This form has come to be recognized in the
past two decades as worthy of its own category of potential architectural
significance. However, the building continued to experience non-historic
additions along with a major exterior remodel in 2011. These changes effectively
erased its mid-twentieth century appearance and introduced new decorative
elements. Due to the extent of these alterations, the property is not individually
eligible under Criterion C.
The property is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history,
and is not individually eligible under Criterion D.
This property was previously recorded and evaluated for the City of Fort Collins
in 1996 by Jason Marmor of Retrospect. Mr. Marmor concluded that the extensive
changes to the historic house rendered it ineligible for landmark designation on
any level. He did not consider the building’s potential eligibility as a mid-twentieth
century funeral home because at the time the fifty-year mark was 1946, four years
prior to the first addition to the house. That made all of its additions and
alterations non-historic. Also, the category of a House with a Commercial
Addition was not yet recognized by architectural historians as a form worthy of
potential landmark eligibility.
In 2011, the property was reviewed again by City staff and the LPC in response to
a permit application that had been submitted for an exterior remodel of the first-
floor additions. That work was described by staff as “a façade ‘face-lift’ that
would include a complete exterior reconstruction of the 1st level of the structure.”
Staff recommended that the building no longer retained adequate integrity, failed
to meet the designation standards as presented in the Municipal Code, and was
not eligible for landmark designation. The LPC concurred with that
recommendation and the owners completed the exterior remodel.
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
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 246
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 13 of 24)
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable 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
X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable
40. Period of significance: Not Applicable
41. Level of significance: National No State No Local No
42. Statement of significance: Based upon the archival research completed for this
project, the Jacob and Anna Welch House was found to have been developed in
1887 and used as a residence and then a sorority house through 1930. In 1930-
1931, it was converted to a funeral home. Starting in 1950, the building was
expanded through a series of commercial additions that were completed through
the end of the century. The additions were then remodeled in 2011, bringing the
building to its current appearance.
For the same reasons as those discussed under the local eligibility analysis, the
property is not individually eligible for the SRHP or NRHP under any of the criteria.
This is entirely due to the extensive non-historic additions and alterations that
have occurred over the past fifty years.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The original building
on this property was constructed as a residence in 1887. It was converted to a
funeral home in 1931 that operated for two decades within the confines of the
historic house. Starting in 1950 and continuing through the end of the century,
the building was enlarged in several stages. The funeral chapel to the north was
constructed in two stages between 1950 and 1960, and in 1969 the eastern
driveway was covered with a canopy. Because they are now over fifty years old,
these changes are considered historic alterations to the original building.
Between 1978 and 2011, the building experienced ongoing changes that greatly
altered its historic appearance. These included the construction of several
additions to the south and west, along with a complete exterior remodel in 2011
that brought the facility to its current appearance.
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 247
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 14 of 24)
Evaluation of the property must be considered in light of the seven aspects of
integrity, as defined by the US Department of the Interior:
Location – The enlarged house and two garages on this property have not been
moved and are in their original locations. The aspect of location is excellent.
Setting – When the house was built in 1887, it was located in a residential
neighborhood south of downtown along the Mason Street rail corridor. As the
downtown commercial district spread southward, the houses began to be
replaced by commercial property uses. This trend picked up steam around the
1920s and by the 1960s the area was largely commercial with few houses
remaining. This included demolition of the adjacent, historically related house at
129 W. Olive St. in 1969. The area is entirely commercial today and many of its
early commercial buildings have been removed or remodeled. Due to the extent
of non-historic changes that have occurred in the vicinity of this property, the
aspect of setting as it relates to the area is diminished.
The landscaped grounds that surrounded the house for more than six decades
have been erased by additions to the building and the construction of two garages
along with driveways and parking lots. The same goes for the grounds as they
appeared over fifty years ago when the property was already in use as an
expanded funeral home. While the western parking lot may have been in place
following the 1969 removal of the house at 129 W. Olive St., the grounds
surrounding the building appear to have been taken up by additions or re-
landscaped. The aspect of setting as it relates to the site is diminished.
Design – As described above, the historic house experienced substantial exterior
alterations to its design between 1950 and 2011 as it was surrounded by funeral
home additions and further changed by remodeling. The lower level of the house
has been almost completely obscured from view and the wood porches were
removed. As a House with Commercial Addition form of architecture dating from
the mid-twentieth century, the extent of continued non-historic additions and
more recent exterior remodeling have also impacted its appearance. This work
changed the roofline on the prominent funeral chapel, added stucco to its exterior
concrete block walls, and introduced modest Egyptian Revival decorative
elements to the entire north, east and west sides of the building. Today the
building exhibits a diminished level of integrity in relation to the aspect of design.
Materials – The house’s original exterior materials, including its character-
defining stonework, remain visible on an area of the eastern main floor and across
the entire upper area of the building that stands above the additions. However,
most of the main floor is now encased in historic and non-historic additions, and
the extent of surviving materials is unknown. Some of its exterior features, such
as its wood porches, are known to have been removed. As it relates to the mid-
twentieth century funeral home expansion, the remodel completed in 2011
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 248
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 15 of 24)
effectively obscured its original materials from view. Today the building exhibits
a diminished level of integrity in relation to the aspect of materials.
Workmanship – The skills that it took to construct the historic house and
expanded funeral home are only partially apparent today due to the alterations,
additions and remodeling that have taken place. Consequently, the property
exhibits a diminished level of integrity in relation to the aspect of workmanship.
Feeling – The residential core of the building is apparent as a single-family home
dating from the late nineteenth century and the funeral home additions speak to
that use since the mid-twentieth century. However, the building’s feeling as a
historic resource was muddled by the 2011 remodel, removing any sense that it
was enlarged prior to around fifty years ago. Today it conveys a combination of
old and new. Consequently, the property exhibits a diminished level of integrity
in relation to the aspect of feeling.
Association – As a heavily modified historic home with additions that appear
contemporary to the present time, the property no longer conveys a clear historic
association with its past use and occupants as a residence or as a historic funeral
home. To the average viewer, its sense of association would appear to be
confusing. Consequently, the property exhibits a diminished level of integrity in
relation to the aspect of association.
In general, this property exhibits an overall diminished level of integrity in relation
to all aspects except for location. As a result, it fails to support possible historic
and architectural significance and landmark eligibility.
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Not Eligible
45. Is there National Register district potential? No
Discuss: This property is not associated with an adequate concentration of
historically and architecturally significant properties that are contiguous to
one another and might allow for the creation of a National Register district.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building contributing: N/A
46. If the building is in an existing National Register district, is it contributing: N/A
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 249
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 16 of 24)
VIII.Recording Information
47.Photograph numbers: #749-829
Negatives filed at: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
48.Report title:Not Applicable
49.Date(s):20 September 2021
50.Recorder(s):Ron Sladek, President
51.Organization:Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
52.Address:P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
53.Phone number(s):970 / 689-4855
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 250
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 17 of 24)
Site Location Map
USGS Fort Collins 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle
1960 (photorevised 1984)
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 251
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 18 of 24)
Site Diagram
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 252
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 19 of 24)
Current Photographs
Front of the Building, View to the Southeast
Front of the Building, View to the Southwest
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 253
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 20 of 24)
Current Photographs
Rear of the Building, View to the Northwest
West Side of the Building, View to the East
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 254
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 21 of 24)
Current Photographs
Small Garage, View to the Southeast
Large Garage, View to the Southwest
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 255
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 22 of 24)
Historic Images
Jacob and Anna Welch House
In use as the Kappa Delta Sorority House
Source: Colorado A&M, Silver Spruce Yearbook, 1923
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 256
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 23 of 24)
Historic Images
Warren Funeral Chapel
Source: Fort Collins Coloradoan Advertisement, 6 November 1966, p. 18
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 257
Resource Number: 5LR2045 Address: 121 W. Olive St.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 24 of 24)
Warren Funeral Chapel
Source: Larimer County Assessor, 1969
(Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery)
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 258
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 259
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 260
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 261
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 262
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 263
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 264
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 265
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 266
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 267
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 268
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 269
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 270
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 271
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 272
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 273
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 274
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 275
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 276
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 277
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 278
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 279
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 280
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 281
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 282
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 283
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 284
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 285
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 286
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 287
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 288
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 289
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 290
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 291
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 292
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 293
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 294
121 W. Olive Street:
Development Review
November 16, 2022
Jim Bertolini
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
2HPC Role
Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC
3.4.7
Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker
(P&Z Commission) regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the
land use code.
1
2
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 295
3Project Summary
Mixed use building
‒6 Stories
‒177 apartment units
‒1 commercial space (4300 sf)
Site 4
3
4
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 296
Armstrong – Historic Significance
• Landmarked December 16, 1997
• NRHP Aug. 31, 2000
• History – Standard 1
• Transportation
• Entertainment/Recreation
• Architecture – Standard 3
• Outstanding local
example of a hotel
5
Proposed Site Plan 6
5
6
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 297
7Renderings
8North Elevation & Materials
7
8
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 298
9HPC Role & Requirements
HPC Role
• Conceptual Review – Provide initial design
feedback under LUC 3.4.7
• Final Review - Provide a recommendation to
the decision maker (P&Z Commission)
regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of
the land use code.
Design Compatibility
• Does the design of the new construction comply
with at least two of the compatibility standards in
3.4.7(E), Table 1, Column A?
9
10
ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 299
DATE:
STAFF:
November 16, 2022
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
REGULAR SESSION
ITEM 9
Historic Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
City Council Ordinance to Allow Remote Participation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Remote participation at quasi-judicial hearings by commission members, applicants, and members of the public
was suspended as of October 17, 2022 when emergency ordinance 079, which temporarily allowed for this
procedure during the pandemic, was lifted. At its December 6, 2022 meeting, the Fort Collins City Council will
consider an ordinance to implement a new remote participation plan for quasi-judicial commissions. While a
recommendation on this matter from the HPC is not required, all potentially affected commissions are welcome to
provide a recommendation about the new ordinance, which would re-establish the possibility of remote
participation for meetings beginning in 2023.
The proposed ordinance would address the following identified priorities:
1. Allow remote participation by Commission members. Staff’s observation is that this allows for greater
participation by Commissioners, allows Commissioners to participate even if they are feeling unwell, and
hasn’t detracted from the quality of participation.
2. Allow remote participation by members of the public. Staff’s observation is that this has opened up
opportunities for members the public to provide comment who wouldn’t/couldn’t otherwise.
3. Allow remote participation by applicant team members. Staff’s observation is that we are more likely
to get all of the specialist professionals who worked on the plan to be available for Commission questions
if they can participate remotely. For some Commissions this has also made it easier to get projects
scheduled for hearings.
SAMPLE MOTIONS
SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation
Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to allow for remote participation in quasi-judicial
meetings based on the above staff finding(s) [and/or the following additional findings (if applicable, list here)].
SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend denial of the
proposed ordinance to allow for remote participation in quasi-judicial meetings based on the following findings:
[list here].
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff PowerPoint Presentation
Packet Pg. 300
Remote Participation
Ordinance
November 16, 2022
Maren Bzdek
Historic Preservation Services Manager
2Staff Findings– Proposed Ordinance
1. Allow remote participation by Commission members.Allows for greater participation by
Commissioners, allows Commissioners to participate even if they are feeling unwell, and hasn’t
detracted from the quality of participation.
2. Allow remote participation by members of the public. Has opened up opportunities for members the
public to provide comment who wouldn’t/couldn’t otherwise.
3. Allow remote participation by applicant team members. Specialist professionals who worked on the
plan are more likely to participate and be available for Commission questions; some applications have
been easier to schedule
1
2
ITEM 9, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 301
3Optional Recommendation
If the Commission would like to provide input, create motion/vote based on one
of the following options:
Recommend approval, based on staff findings and/or additional findings
Recommendation denial based on additional findings
3
ITEM 9, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 302