Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/15/2023 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Work Session
Page 1 Kurt Knierim, Chair Location: Jim Rose, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Jenna Edwards And remotely via Zoom Bonnie Gibson Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting March 15, 2023 5:30 PM Historic Preservation Commission AGENDA Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 143, 2022, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. This hybrid Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone and in person. The online meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join online or in person at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. 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. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/95421717693. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 954 2171 7693. Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission for its consideration must be emailed to preservation@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to preservation@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items. Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately with Commission-pulled items considered before 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 • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 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). 3. 323 S. LOOMIS AVE., A.J. HOOD/THOMPSON PROPERTY – APPLICATION FOR INVOLUNTARY FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION (HPC HEARING #2) DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jacqueline Zipser and Holger Kley. This is the second of two code-required hearings following a determination of eligibility in the affirmative by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on December 14, 2022. OWNERS: Jacqueline Zipser and Dr. Holger Kley COMMISSION’S ROLE AND ACTION: Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code charges the Commission with providing a recommendation to City Council on nominations for Fort Collins Landmark designation. Nominations that are not supported by the owner are processed under Sec. 14-33(b) and (c) of Municipal Code. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at this time. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2023 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC February 15, 2023 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 4 Page 1 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Jenna Edwards Fort Collins, Colorado And Remotely Via Zoom Bonnie Gibson Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting February 15, 2023 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Bonnie Gibson, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose, Jenna Edwards ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Heather Jarvis, Yani Jones, M. Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated Item No. 6, 232 East Vine Drive Landmark Nomination, will be postponed at the applicants request. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek noted that applications are open for the Historic Preservation Commission’s vacant seats. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 Page 2 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 18, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Carlock made a motion, seconded by Member Gibson, to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2023 regular meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 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). Mr. Jim Bertolini reported on the release of a video about Black history in Fort Collins, which is part of the Full Story Fort Collins project, available online. 3. 319 E. PLUM – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW - ROOF DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual design review for a proposed change of roof material on the City Landmark at 319 E. Plum St., the Schalk-Stallings House. The owner is seeking feedback regarding his proposal to change the roof from wood shingle to architectural asphalt shingle material given the deteriorated state of the existing roof. APPLICANT: Wayne Snyder, Owner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission consider moving to a final review and granting a Waiver of Conditions (Municipal Code Sec. 14-5) to permit this alteration because the wood shingle roof is not a character-defining feature of this Craftsman Bungalow home, and so the proposal “does not diverge from the conditions and requirements of [Chapter 14] except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance the purposes of [Chapter 14].” Staff and Applicant Presentations Ms. Yani Jones stated this item is a conceptual design review for a change in roof material from wood shingles to architectural asphalt shingles for the Schalk-Stallings House at 319 East Plum Street. She outlined the role of the Commission to provide feedback to the owner for a future final design review or to proceed to a final design review this evening. Ms. Jones provided a history of the home and its designation and showed photos of the home and proposed roofing product. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 Page 3 Ms. Jones stated the proposed project is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation if the wood roof is considered a character-defining feature. However, the home’s ability to convey it’s architectural significance as a bungalow does not depend on that feature; therefore, staff is recommending the Commission proceed to final design review and consider approving the proposal by granting a waiver of conditions under Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code because the proposal does not diverge from the conditions and requirements of that chapter except in nominal and inconsequential ways and will continue to advance the purposes of the chapter. Wayne Snyder, property owner, noted he and his wife were responsible for securing the original historic designation. He stated this request has to do with re-roofing as a part of routine home maintenance and noted the current shingles are not shake, but smooth wood shingles. He noted re-roofing with wood has become problematic and last year’s Marshall Fire brought to light issues with older wood roofing. He stated wood look-alike shingles are designed to mimic the appearance of shake shingles, and shake shingles were not commonly used in construction in the 1920’s. Additionally, he noted the wood look-alike shingles are extremely costly in comparison to architectural asphalt shingles. Mr. Snyder stated the use of high-quality asphalt shingles does not significantly detract from the unique features that characterize the Craftsman bungalow roof. He went on to detail those character-defining features and requested the Commission consider granting a waiver of conditions. Member Edwards asked which of two colors Mr. Snyder is leaning toward using. Mr. Snyder replied one of the colors matches the current roof much better when it is wet and the other when it is dry. He stated he would be happy with either color, but somewhat prefers the darker. Public Comment Ben Manvel, neighboring property owner, commented on his experience replacing wood shingles with asphalt and expressed support for allowing the change for Mr. Snyder’s property. He thanked the Commissioners for their service. Commission Questions and Discussion Member Nelsen thanked Mr. Snyder for this thoughtful presentation. She stated she does not believe the shingles are a character-defining feature and the request to change them seems to be very reasonable. Member Rose concurred and also stated the shingles are not a character-defining feature and the true character of a bungalow is clearly transmitted. Member Rose made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, to move into final review as the proposed solution will be completely compatible with retaining the historic character of the home. Member Carlock also noted the change to asphalt shingles is a safer alternative. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Member Rose made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve a waiver of conditions under Municipal Code Section 14-5 permitting the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with architectural asphalt shingles at the Schalk-Stallings House at 319 East Plum Street as presented, finding that although the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation, the project does meet the criteria for a waiver of conditions, specifically that the requested waiver is submitted and will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of Chapter 14 except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance its purposes because the wood shingle roof is not a character-defining feature of this property. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 Page 4 4. 1802 N. COLLEGE – NONOWNER-INITIATED LANDMARK NOMINATION HEARING #2 DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the Pobre Pancho’s Property at 1802 N. College Ave. The nomination is not supported by the owner, H & H Properties. This is the second of two code-required hearings following a determination of eligibility in the affirmative by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on January 18, 2023. APPLICANTS: Amelia A. Perez, Resident; Matt D. Perez, Resident; Christopher B. Bird, Resident; Monica Bird, Non-Resident/Nomination Preparer OWNERS: H&H Properties (Darren & Asher Haun, owners; Jeff Cullers, legal representative). Chair Knierim asked if either party would desire a presentation time longer than 20 minutes. Jeff Cullers, property owners’ legal counsel, requested 25 minutes and an opportunity for rebuttal to public comment. Chair Knierim granted both requests. Staff Presentation Mr. Jim Bertolini stated this is the second hearing for the involuntary landmark designation of the property at 1802 North College Avenue. He noted the goal of this hearing is for the Commission to establish whether the designation and protection of this property would meet the City’s historic preservation policies and purposes sufficiently enough to outweigh the property owners’ objection. He stated the process would end should the Commission not adopt a resolution indicating the property is eligible for designation, and if it does adopt such a resolution, the process would move forward to City Council for a final decision. Additionally, he noted there is a special vote requirement for advancing the resolution: all six members must vote to pass the resolution to send it to Council. Mr. Bertolini outlined the history of this item and showed images of the property. He summarized the significance of the property which was established at the previous hearing and noted the building could not be demolished should the Commission recommend the property for designation and Council also makes the same finding. If those circumstances do not occur, the property still remains landmark eligible and is therefore subject to the protections of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7; however, a modification of standards is still allowed with a recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Bertolini discussed questions that were brought up at the previous hearing that are more applicable to this hearing, including those related to the potential use of the building and how modifications for modern use would be handled. He outlined suggested questions for the Commission to consider, including how the property compares to other similar properties within the historic context, how the designation supports or does not support the policies and purposes in Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2, and whether the degree to which the City’s preservation policies and purposes would be supported by landmarking the property is sufficient to outweigh the owners’ objection. Applicant Presentation Monica Bird discussed the importance of history and stated the building at 1802 North College is the definition of history. She detailed her father, Frank Perez’, story and history in starting Pobre Pancho’s. She urged the Commission to look past the monetary value of the property and consider the importance of history that is woven into the foundation of the building. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 Page 5 Owner Presentation Asher Haun, property owner, discussed his ownership of the business and building. He noted he made Carolyn Bird, Frank Perez’ granddaughter, a minority owner in the business aspect with the plan for her to eventually take over that portion. He stated investments were made to attempt to save the business and he is unsure how he will move forward should the building be designated as a landmark. He stated that while he believes Mr. Perez’ history should be documented, the building does not tell that story. Mr. Cullers further detailed Mr. Haun’s financial investment in the property. He summarized some of the practical implications for limitations for the future of the building, including the fact that the building footprint cannot be expanded due to the lot size and parking and setback requirements as well as historic preservation requirements. Mark O’Donnell, commercial real estate broker, stated the property was purchased by the Haun’s with the intent to improve and expand the restaurant; however, it was forced to close two years later due to extensive financial losses. He outlined the market complications that exist for the building noting those limitations would be expanded should the property be designated as an historic landmark, including the fact that the building is not large enough to generate sufficient income to feasibly support a restaurant and the lot size is inadequate to allow for expansion of the building footprint, the building is not well-suited for other uses, and the building façade is aesthetically unappealing for non-restaurant users. He noted Raising Cane’s was under contract to purchase the building and neighboring property; however, that contract was terminated several weeks ago because of the potential historic landmark designation which would render the site unfeasible for their intended use. He stated designating the property as an historic landmark could ultimately result in the property being left vacant for years to come. Mr. Cullers noted landmarking the property will put Mr. Haun personally underwater on the mortgage and will require him to continue carrying costs of approximately $3,000 per month. He outlined the role of the Commission to weigh that heavy burden on the property owner against the policies and purposes of the Code related to historic preservation. He questioned whether community members would feel any civic pride in preserving the building and noted there is intrinsic difficulty in preserving a building for association purposes. He commented on the desire to improve the North College corridor and stated preservation of this building will not improve the aesthetics of the area. He stated landmarking the building does only one thing: prevents the building from being torn down; it does not ensure the building will become another restaurant, museum, or community center. Public Comment Kathleen Kilkelly supported designating 1802 North College as a landmark because the building represents many stories that have great significance to the history of the Mexican-American community in Fort Collins. Owner Rebuttal Mr. Cullers stated the applicant’s presentation did not directly address any of the policies and purposes in the Code, nor did the staff presentation opine on how any of those policies and purposes would be served by designation; therefore, there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the policies outweigh the burden placed on the property owner. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Bird stated that while she did not specifically address each policy and purpose in the Code, she felt her presentation was transparent in its focus on the history that is entwined in the building. She stated she believes the building could have many uses and be well cared for. Staff Response Mr. Bertolini noted the staff presentation did not interpret all policies and purposes as that is not typically done for involuntary landmark designations; however, staff is available for any questions. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 Page 6 Commission Questions Member Carlock asked Ms. Bird about possible uses for the building moving forward. Ms. Bird replied she only has ideas related to the use of the building, possibly including writing grants to help purchase the property. She noted none of those plans can move forward with an unwilling seller. She stated they have discussed using the building as a commissary kitchen for food trucks or having some other type of business that would help fund outreach programs. Member Nelsen requested a response from the property owner and asked if he has discussed any options with design professionals. Mr. Cullers replied there has not been any communication between the Haun’s and the Perez family regarding the family buying the building back. He stated he did not believe the Perez family participated in the Raising Cane’s proposal and, at this point, the Haun’s have not had any communications with design professionals related to possibilities for the building if it were landmarked. Mr. Haun stated he has no intention of investing more money in the building, and he would be willing to sell it to Ms. Bird for an amount equal to his total investment. Member Carlock asked if the possible uses of the property mentioned by Ms. Bird are determinate upon a landmark designation. Ms. Bird replied the purpose would be to save the building and have it be landmarked to keep it from being demolished. Member Gibson asked how long the property is protected as it has been deemed eligible for landmark designation. Mr. Bertolini replied a finding of eligibility applies to a property for five years, after which a finding would need to be reissued. He noted the property could be demolished with a finding of eligibility; however, a modification request would need to be granted. Commission Discussion Member Rose asked about the details of Municipal Code Section 14-33(C). Heather Jarvis replied the 14-33 designation review will result in the Commission’s decision to either not designate the property, in which case the process would be terminated, or to recommend to City Council the property be designated, after which Council would go through the process of determining eligibility and whether designation over the owner’s objection would further the Code’s policies and purposes. Member Rose noted the Council has somewhat different authorities and responsibilities in terms of the judgements it makes about factors the Commission is not charged to consider. Ms. Jarvis noted this hearing is specifically focused on determining whether the requested designation will advance the policies and purposes in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation without the consent of the property owner. Mr. Yatabe noted Council would go through substantially the same analysis the Commission is going through should the recommendation move forward. Chair Knierim suggested the Commission consider the policies in Section 14-1 with the intent of weighing them against the owners’ concerns. He commented on the vagueness of the language related to resources of significance within the city, but also discussed the importance of story and stated this building represents a story which perpetuates a resource of significance. Member Gibson stated she struggles with the non-consensual aspect; however, she also struggles with the idea of development and prosperity of the North College corridor and how its gentrification could result in erasure of cultural identity and stories. She stated she believes it is the duty of the Commission to ensure there is some sort of development and maintenance of those stories and civic pride. She noted that since the original offer from Raising Cane’s to purchase the property is off the table, there is a possibility Ms. Bird could re-purchase the building which would prevent the erasure of that story. Chair Knierim stated there is a story with the property intact; however, without the building, the story is much harder to tell. He commented on the value of the property to heritage tourism and resources for education. Member Carlock agreed the first two purposes, A and B, are served; however, she stated she does not believe it serves the others. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 Page 7 Member Edwards noted the property being eligible does not outright eliminate demolition of the building, but does make that more difficult. She stated designating the property as a landmark would put more restrictions on the property owner, to whom she is sympathetic; however, she stated she believes the building is part of Fort Collins’ cultural history. She asked about the process should the property just remain eligible and the owner wanted to make significant changes. Mr. Bertolini replied the Land Use Code process would be a modification of standards for demolition or any significant changes and any modification request would come before the Commission for a recommendation. Member Carlock asked if it would be one year before another application for designation could be submitted should the Commission not recommend landmarking the property. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative but stated any exception could be made given new substantive information. Member Gibson asked if a change in property ownership would be considered substantive information. Mr. Bertolini replied he did not believe the one-year application prohibition is affected by ownership. Mr. Yatabe concurred a substantive change would be related to the application, not the property owner. Member Gibson asked if that would change should the application be owner-initiated. Mr. Yatabe replied there is a provision that states the one-year prohibition may be waived by the Director upon a showing of changed circumstances that demonstrate the need for designation of the resource or district, which could potentially apply in that case. Member Nelsen stated it is important to recognize the difficulty of this conversation and she was unsure the Commission could come to a consensus that will please all parties involved. She stated she recognizes this is a chronically under-told story of racism; however, Mr. Haun has worked hard, the purchase of this building had good intentions, and landmarking it could have negative financial implications. She stated she would like to hear about the financial opportunities for a landmarked property and whether those might enable other uses that may not be financially viable at this point. She stated she believes landmarking the property would fulfill purposes in Municipal Code 14-2 related to perpetuating resources that reflect important elements of the city’s heritage, fostering civic pride in accomplishments, promoting and encouraging continued private ownership and utilization of resources, promoting the use of resources for education, stimulation, and welfare, and promoting economic, social, and environmental sustainability through identification, use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of resources. She stated she believes the building has the potential to be used for other commercial purposes. Member Carlock concurred in general, but stated it is contingent upon the future use of the building. Chair Knierim noted the building’s location in North Fort Collins is part of the story as well and contributes to the heritage tourism aspect. Member Nelsen asked what financial opportunities would become available if the building were to be landmarked. Mr. Bertolini replied properties that are found eligible do not qualify for any of the preservation funds; however, there are several state and local programs that are available to help offset rehabilitation costs for landmarked properties. He stated the likely maximum local amount that could be leveraged is about $10,000 between loans and design assistance grants however, the state programs tend to be more lucrative because they can fund things such as utility upgrades, insulation, or anything other than demolition, new construction, and appliances. He also noted following the Secretary of the Interior rehabilitation guidelines is a requirement of all assistance programs. Member Nelsen noted there may be community-building grant opportunities depending on the use of the property, as mentioned by Ms. Bird, that are not necessarily tied to the landmark status of the building. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 Page 8 Member Gibson made a motion, seconded by Member Rose, that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution, to be signed by the Chair, finding that the designation of the Pobre Pancho’s property at 1802 North College Avenue will promote the following policies and purposes of the City as specified in Section 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owners’ consent: under 14-2, A, B, D, E, G, and H, and directing that the nomination be forwarded to City Council for a final decision pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-33(C). Member Rose stated the minutes of the last meeting show the rationale for the eligibility decision, and he does not believe that rationale departs significantly from the decision related to a landmark recommendation. He noted there is language related to City Council giving consideration to the owners’ interests. Member Carlock stated the Commission’s task this evening was to look at whether the purposes and policies of the City are advanced sufficiently enough to overcome the objection of the owners’. She noted the property being found eligible already protects it to a great degree and she does not believe the policies and purposes are advanced significantly enough to justify landmark designation. She stated she believes Ms. Bird would find enough assistance and support to purchase the building and have it remain with one of the uses she described; however, she stated she hesitates to designate a building that may remain vacant in perpetuity, which would be detrimental not only to Mr. Haun, but also to the city and the North College corridor. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: Carlock and Edwards. THE MOTION FAILED. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 5. 825 N. COLLEGE – APPEAL OF DESIGNATION OF ELIGIBILITY REMAND HEARING DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the remanded appeal of the determination of eligibility for the commercial property at 825 North College Avenue, which is the basis for identifying historic resources subject to preservation requirements 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 all three structures on the property meet 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 historic survey form. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) heard the appeal on October 19, 2022, and determined that only the main service station building meets the eligibility requirements. The property owner appealed the decision to City Council based on the allegation of an unfair hearing and failure to interpret the code properly, which was heard on December 20, 2022. Council determined that the HPC conducted a fair hearing but remanded the matter back to the HPC to rehear the appeal, which will include consideration of additional information that was not included in the original HPC decision. This process will result in a new determination of eligibility. 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) DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 Page 9 Staff Presentation Mr. Jim Bertolini noted this is a remand hearing for the appeal of the determination of eligibility for the property at 825 North College Avenue. He discussed the Commission’s original determination of eligibility noting it reduced the staff recommendation for eligibility down to just the service station and did not include the house or accessory garage. He outlined the role of the Commission to reconsider the property and its finding of eligibility and establish a new determination. He stated additional information can be considered, and has been provided by staff. Mr. Bertolini provided an overview of the administrative history of the item which started with a conceptual review for a car wash which initiated the historic review process. He stated historic preservation considerations for the site would be ended should the Commission find the property not eligible, and if it does find the property eligible, the development applicant would generally be expected to incorporate the building into its development plans. He outlined the requirements for finding a property to be eligible for historic designation and discussed the ways in which the property was found eligible in the Commission’s previous determination. He noted the subject of this appeal pertains to the service station only. Mr. Bertolini showed photos of the property over time and further detailed the Commission’s previous findings related to significance and integrity. He provided examples of similar property types and discussed the staff evaluations of them. He noted the one public comment received opposed a finding of eligibility. Appellant Presentation Tim Goddard, representative for GARA, the property owner, requested 30 minutes for the appellant presentation and provided an outline of the appellants’ presentation. Wayne Sundberg discussed his history with the city and Landmark Preservation Commission and opposed designating these types of properties. He stated historic designation should be for properties that are truly historic and are either architecturally significant or significant for a relationship to an important individual. He opposed the oblong box as being identified as historic. Mr. Goddard discussed the lack of integrity between the original M.K. Cole building and the existing structure, and the lack of significance of the existing structure given its lack of integrity. He stated integrity is the ability of a building to carry the historical story and argued the current building does not have that integrity. He outlined the aspects of integrity and stated not enough are present, including setting, possibly materials, craftsmanship, and persons or groups, to justify the integrity of the existing service station building. He also stated the history of the original M.K. Cole building cannot be relied upon to make this building a landmark and he commented on the oblong box architecture highlighting characteristics of the oblong box that do not exist in this building, including a car wash bay, two exterior restrooms, a metal roof, and exterior porcelain enamel steel panels. Grem Armstrong, property owner, discussed the inconsistency and lack of clarity regarding the property addresses throughout the reports. He also noted there was no indication the building was added onto in 1960, contrary to the staff report. He discussed the various timelines of the history of the property and other inconsistencies in reports. He stated it is his belief the service station building was constructed in 1970 based on phone book and ownership records. He questioned how integrity could be present when the date and origin of the property are unknown. He stated he and his wife did some research and found 44 oblong boxes in a 25.5-mile span of Highway 287. Commission Questions Member Nelsen requested a staff response to the inconsistencies referenced by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Bertolini replied some are due to poor proof-reading and errors in the report. He stated the service station construction date is based on the building permit record on file; however, he acknowledged there were many changes to the building between 1937 and 1977. Member Carlock asked when the building that is currently located at 825 North College was built. Mr. Armstrong replied he believes it was built in 1970. Member Carlock asked if there are any indications of a demolition permit being granted for the building that was on the property prior. Mr. Armstrong replied in the negative but stated he was unsure those types of permits were required then as he was told building permits were not even required prior to 1975. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 Page 10 Member Gibson asked Mr. Armstrong if he was able to find any historic maps or aerials that would have clarified any of the addresses. Mr. Armstrong replied all of the older Sanborn Maps stop at the river, and even after this parcels north of the river began to show in the 1950’s, it was just the parcel and the block, not actual buildings. Commission Discussion Member Carlock suggested the lack of a phone book entry for the building in 1970 could have been due to the building being vacant and closed, not necessarily being demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Armstrong reiterated his opinion this is a building about which not enough is known to be designated. Member Gibson commented on the History Colorado handout on oblong box gas stations which discusses common elements of the architecture and noted this building has all of those elements, including two bays, a corner office, and a flat roof. Mr. Armstrong replied the building does not have a flat roof and that handout indicates the second bay should be a wash bay, which this building does not have. Additionally, the exterior material is not the common oblong box porcelain material. Chair Knierim stated the integrity is called into question given the materiality and he cited the many other examples of the architecture style mentioned by Mr. Armstrong. Member Rose stated any discussion about prior buildings on the site is irrelevant and this building, which is at least 50 years old, is, in his opinion, a stereotypical example of an oblong box. He stated the roof may be sloped, but is flat, and is iconic of a particular building type and style that is reflective of a given age. He stated it does not matter a great deal as to whether there is real porcelain enamel as the appearance is the same with the painted steel panels. Additionally, the building was affiliated with a major oil company for much of its life which suggests it is a prototypical example of that era’s service station. He stated he believes the building possesses integrity under all seven aspects and it does not matter how many other structures like this exist. He particularly cited the building’s location on North College Avenue. Member Edwards stated the point of history is to record what will be history for future generations. Member Nelsen stated she is unsure this is the building of this type she wants to save and she thanked Mr. Armstrong and his team for their investment in learning about the property. Chair Knierim stated Member Rose’s point about the location of the property on North College gives him pause and stated North College Avenue gained more significance because of this service station. Member Edwards stated the inconsistencies that were pointed out do give her pause; however, Member Rose’s point about the building being significant because of its place and location was valid. Member Rose made a motion, seconded by Member Gibson, 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 following findings of fact: that it conforms to the requirements for significance of both events and architecture, and that it meets all seven criteria for integrity. Member Carlock stated she wished she had more time to review the materials. Member Nelsen asked Member Carlock what specifically she has concerns about. Member Carlock replied the questions about the construction date would change the period of significance; however, it does meet all of the qualifications for an oblong box. She stated she likes the idea of the building being reused rather than being torn down to make way for a car wash, though she admitted that opinion may be irrelevant. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, Carlock, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 Page 11 6. 232 E. VINE DR. – LANDMARK NOMINATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Alexander and Emma Barry Farm Property at 232 E. Vine Dr. APPLICANT: Aziza Syed, Real Estate Director for Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative, dba. Innosphere Ventures (owner) (**Secretary’s Note: Consideration of this item was postponed.) 7. HPC OFFICER ELECTIONS Chair Knierim requested nominations for the Chair position. Member Carlock made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, to nominate Kurt Knierim as Chair. Member Nelsen commended Chair Knierim on his previous work in the role. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, Carlock, Edwards, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Member Carlock made a motion, seconded by Member Nelsen, to nominate Jim Rose as Vice Chair. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, and Knierim. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS Member Gibson announced a talk tomorrow at the Council Tree Library on the Dutch George Cabin and Cherokee Trail. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING FEBRUARY 2, 2023 TO MARCH 1, 2023) 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 February 2, 2023 to March 1, 2023. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting items and events from the previous month. Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, 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 Black & Latinx History Walking Tour Rocky Mountain High School, We the People Course Walking tour for HS students for Black/Latinx history in the Washington Park area 28 February 3, 2023 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 612 S. College Ave. (Darrah House) Landmark Rehab Loan. Repair of siding, shutters, and storms, and repainting/lead paint mitigation on whole exterior. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 15, 2023 119 E. Mountain Ave. (Kissock Block Building) Signs. Contributing property in Old Town Landmark District and Old Town NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 22, 2023 East Mountain Avenue (Trolley tracks) Replace brick surfacing of 2008-reconstructed trolley tracks on E. Mountain with stamped concrete; rails to remain (& visible); ties to remain below ground. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 23, 2023 430 E. Plum St. (G.W. Draper Residence) Re-roofing (asphalt shingles). Contributing property in Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by HPC under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 24, 2023 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 220 E. Oak St. Conceptual Development Review for new Mixed Use development; properties previously determined Not Eligible Design compatibility feedback; primary focus on McIntyre Property at 137 Mathews. February 16, 2023 1001 W. Prospect Conceptual Development Review for multi-unit apartments Historic survey from 2016 needs updated March 2, 2023 208 S. College Ave Conceptual Development Review for mixed use building Draft historic survey (SHF grant) as Not Eligible; design compatibility feedback March 2, 2023 Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 Historic Property Survey Results City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the reporting period for any historic survey for which the two-week appeal period has passed. Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized N/A National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Note: Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small cell/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do not appear in the table below. National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment Issued 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 38 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 20 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 18 Staff Activity Report March 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner,Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner,Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Design Review Highlight 612 S. College Ave. (Darrah House) Landmark Rehab Loan Award ($7,500) • Repair of siding, shutters, and storms • Lead paint mitigation on exterior • Repainting on exterior 2 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 Development Review Highlight - Conceptual Development Reviews -220 E. Oak - 1001 W Prospect - 208 S. College 3 3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 15, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME A.J. HOOD/THOMPSON PROPERTY, 323 S. LOOMIS AVE. - APPLICATION FOR INVOLUNTARY FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION (HPC HEARING #2) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Terri A. Berger, Resident; Thomas Steven Berger, Resident; Jeff Berger, Resident; Jerry L. Hubka, Non-Resident OWNERS: Jacqueline Zipser and Dr. Holger Kley PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jacqueline Zipser and Holger Kley. This is the second of two code-required hearings following a determination of eligibility in the affirmative by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on December 14, 2022. COMMISSION’S ROLE AND ACTION: Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code charges the Commission with providing a recommendation to City Council on nominations for Fort Collins Landmark designation. Nominations that are not supported by the owner are processed under Sec. 14-33(b) and (c) of Municipal Code. This landmark designation review differs from those the Commission typically sees in that, when an application is brought forward without the support of the owners, the questions considered by the HPC are answered in two separate hearings rather than one. At the first hearing, held on December 14, 2022, the HPC determined that the property was eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. The vote was 5-2, with two Commission members absent. At this second hearing, the Commission shall consider whether the requested designation will advance the policies stated in § 14-1 and the purposes stated in § 14-2 in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation without the consent of one (1) or more owners of the resources or properties under review. Regarding involuntary Landmark nominations, Sec. 14-33(c) provides the Commission with latitude to consider evidence related to whether the property should be recommended to City Council for designation. The Commission may consider any information relevant to determining if Landmarking the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property without the owner’s consent supports the policies of 14-1 and purposes of 14-2 sufficiently. That evidence may include, but is not limited to: - Cost of mitigation and rehabilitation vs. demolition and new construction (i.e., an economic hardship claim) - Relative significance of the property - Environmental health concerns and likelihood of successful mitigation without damaging the property if preservation were to be required. - Potential loss of integrity as a result of successful environmental mitigation Generally, that evidence does not consider items unrelated to the policies and purposes in 14-1 and 14-2, such as the motivations of the applicant for requesting the designation. Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 Municipal Code 14-1 declares the following policies regarding the City’s historic preservation program: a) It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. b) It is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural, archeological and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. Municipal Code 14-2 establishes the following purposes regarding the City’s historic preservation program: a) Survey, identify, designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those sites, structures, objects and districts which reflect important elements of the City's cultural, artistic, social, economic, political, architectural, archeological, or other heritage; b) Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; c) Stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality and values of such sites, structures, objects and districts; d) Protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors; e) Promote the use of important historical, archeological, or architectural sites, structures, objects and districts for the education, stimulation and welfare of the people of the City; f) Promote good urban design; g) Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites, structures, objects or districts now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained under such a policy; and h) Promote economic, social, and environmental sustainability through the ongoing survey and inventory, use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing buildings. The Commission’s decision to recommend or not recommend the property for Landmark designation must be adopted as a written resolution with at least 6 votes (or at least 4 votes if fewer than 6 commissioners are able to participate due to conflicts of interest). If fewer commissioners are able to take part in the hearing as outlined in Municipal Code Sec. 14-33(c)(2), then the item will be continued to a special session within two weeks of the originally scheduled hearing. If the Commission finds, by vote of 6 members, that the property should be recommended for landmark designation, then the written resolution is transmitted to City Council within 15 days and a hearing is scheduled for a final decision by Council within 75 days. If the Commission finds that the property should not be recommended for Landmark designation, the application process is terminated, the property is not designated as a Landmark, and the application is not forwarded to City Council. This is not a final decision and is not subject to appeal to City Council. If the Commission fails to pass a written resolution, the designation procedure is terminated. This is not a final decision and is not subject to appeal to City Council. The Commission may also vote to continue the item if, during the hearing, the Commission determines that more information is needed prior to rendering a decision. Sec 14-38 also establishes that for one (1) year, a nomination that is the same, or substantially the same as this proposal cannot be considered by the City. Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 STAFF ANALYSIS: During a second hearing under Sec. 14-33, the HPC can consider a wide array of evidence related to the interpretation and weighing of policies in Sec. 14-1 and purposes in Sec. 14-2. Please also note: - Based on the policies and purposes outlined in 14-1 & 14-2 of Municipal Code, the HPC is tasked with interpreting how designation of the property would specifically meet some or all of those elements and weighing if the degree to which those elements are met justifies designation against the owner’s objection. In this conversation, the owner’s objection carries weight. It should be expected that not every property that qualifies for designation would be recommended to City Council for Landmarking against the owner’s wishes. - Nearly all Landmark nominations in Fort Collins have been brought forward at the request of the owner. Not counting multi-owner Landmark Districts such as Old Town, according to available records, the City has received five (5) involuntary Landmark nominations for individual properties with the following record of municipal action: o 201 S. College, US Post Office, Landmarked 1985 o 1075 Woodward Way, Coy Barn & Milkhouse, Landmarked 2016 (property was already on the Colorado State Register; owner consented after two silos were removed from the list of contributing historic farmstead resources included in the designation, which allowed for their demolition). o 528 W. Mountain Avenue, Moore Property; HPC Recommended, City Council declined to Landmark, 2021 o 1802 N. College Avenue, Pobre Pancho’s; HPC did not adopt resolution recommending designation to City Council 2023 o 323 S. Loomis Avenue, A.J. Hood/Thompson Property, pending HPC hearing #2 2023 - Landmark designation does not guarantee an immediate rehabilitation; while all designated resources are subject to minimum maintenance requirements per Section 14-7 of the municipal code, a successful rehabilitation may take time to attract a willing/able buyer/caretaker for the property. Designation does bring to bear certain Code-based and financial incentives to assist with rehabilitation. Submitted Materials from the Owners The property owners and their representatives have submitted several documents or pieces of information for your consideration. That includes: 1. A cover letter describing their position with the following attachments: a. Exhibit A: Prior Letter (December 14, 2022 HPC Meeting) i. Exhibit A: Home Listing ii. Exhibit B: Home Inspection Report iii. Exhibit C: Asbestos Inspection and Sampling Report iv. Exhibit D: Abatement Services Proposal b. Exhibit B: Contamination Risk Report by Dr. Marc Rumpler, PhD c. Exhibit C: Public Comment by Lisa Hoffman d. Exhibit D: Third-Hand Smoke Article e. Exhibit E: Valuation Report by Dr. Ron Throupe, PhD f. Exhibit F: Email to Applicant Terri Berger Submitted Materials from the Applicants The applicant group has not provided materials for inclusion in the HPC’s read-before packet but may provide materials during the hearing that would then be added to the record for this item. Questions from HPC Work Session: To be updated following work session Public Comments Received Staff has received several written public comments regarding this nomination from City residents, and several additional spoken public comments were made during the December 14, 2022 first hearing for this item. In summary, of 17 total comments, 11 were in opposition to the proposed designation, and 6 were in support of the proposed designation. Written comments: 8 comments were received in advance of the December 14, 2022 hearing regarding eligibility, Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 and 5 comments were received in advance of the March 15 recommendation hearing (13 total written comments). 8 individuals indicated opposition to designation and 5 individuals indicated support for designation. These comments are included as an attachment to this item for reference. Spoken comments: 4 spoken comments were given by members of the public during the December 14, 2022 hearing on eligibility, 3 in opposition of the designation and 1 in favor of it. The following summarizes those comments: • Amy Rosenberg opposed landmarking the property due to lack of integrity and concerns over cigarette smoke, termites, and rot. • Jeff Acker did not believe that the mathematical information cited by the applicant group warranted significance. • Bill Whitley supported the designation of the property. • Andrew McCorkle opposed the designation stating it was sold as a tear-down. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A FINDINGS OF FACT In evaluating the Landmark designation request for the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. That three residents of the city have requested, in writing, that the property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. be considered for Fort Collins Landmark designation and submitted a complete application on October 18, 2022; 2. That the owner of the property has not consented to the nomination via correspondence received on October 27, 2022; 3. That the Historic Preservation Commission determined on December 14, 2022, that the property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. has significance to Fort Collins under Significance Standard 3, Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the nomination; and 4. That the Historic Preservation Commission determined on December 14, 2023, that the property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. has integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association to convey its significance as supported by the analysis provided in the nomination. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that the designation of the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. will promote the following policies and purposes of the City as specified in Sec. 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owner’s consent: • [List applicable policies from 14-1 and applicable purposes from 14-2 that are supported by the motion to recommend along with an explanation of how designation meets those goals to a sufficient degree to outweigh the owners’ objection] and directing that the nomination be forwarded to City Council for a final decision pursuant to Municipal Code 14- 33(c). SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that the designation of the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. will promote the following policies and purposes of the City as specified in Sec. 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owner’s consent: • [List applicable policies from 14-1 and applicable purposes from 14-2 that are supported by the motion to recommend along with an explanation of how designation meets those goals to a sufficient degree to outweigh the owner’s objection] And recommending the following modifications to the original application, specifically that: Packet Pg. 24 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 • [List applicable conditions or modifications to original nomination request. This will typically be in relation to limiting the designated boundary or defining more specifically which resources on the nominated property should be considered historic/contributing and which are non-historic/non-contributing.] and directing that the nomination be forwarded to City Council for a final decision pursuant to Municipal Code 14- 33(c). SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that the designation of the A.J. Hood/Thompson Property at 323 S. Loomis Ave. will not promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Sec. 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owner’s consent, and directing that the nomination process be terminated pursuant to Municipal Code 14-33(c). • [List applicable policies from 14-1 and applicable purposes from 14-2 that are supported by the motion against recommending the property along with an explanation of why those policies are important and not met by designating the property] SAMPLE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this item due to lack of information to support an informed decision under Chapter 14, Article III of Municipal Code, until such time as the necessary information can be produced. Specific information needed to render a decision in this matter includes: • [list needed information] ATTACHMENTS 1. Landmark Designation Application and Signed Acknowledgement Form 2. 2016 Survey Form 3. HPC Adopted Resolution 2, 2022 finding property Eligible 4. HPC Resolution finding property sufficiently meets 14-1 & 14-2 - draft for possible adoption 5. HPC Resolution finding property does not sufficiently meet 14-1 & 14-2 - draft for possible adoption 6. Owner submittal (2-16-2023) – Cover Letter and Attachments 7. Written public comments received by the City to date 8. Resignation Letter – Eric Guenther 9. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 25 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION Address: 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Legal Description: ): S 20 Ft of Lot 12 & N 30 Ft of Lot 13 Block: 278 Addition: Loomis Addition Property Name (historic and/or common): A. J. HOOD PROPERTY; THOMPSON PROPERTY;CANNON PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name: Holger P. Kley and Jacqueline C. Zipser Company/Organization (if applicable): N/A Phone: unknown Email: jzipser87@gmail.com Mailing Address: 2048 Bennington Cir., Fort Collins, CO 80526 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register A. J. HOOD PROPERTY; THOMPSON PROPERTY Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY Name and Title: Terri Berger Address: 1707 Fairbrooke Court, Fort Collins, Co Phone: 970-221-2941 Email: tberger22@comcast.net Relationship to Owner: none DATE: October 15, 2022 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property (hereinafter the “Property”) consists of The boundary of the property is the legally defined parcel , which encompasses .22 acres 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. See historical information paragraph on page 4 for list of home owners and their professions. The house at 323 S Loomis Avenue is locally significant under criteria A and C of the Fort Collins Local Landmark Standards . The property satisfies Criterion A for designation as a local landmark because it represents the development of the Loomis Addition, one of the first additions to the original town plat, during the early 20th century, a period of growth for the Loomis Addition and Fort Collins due to the construction of a sugar beet factory and other industries. William Thompson, who lived at the house for almost five decades, served as the foreman for the Great Western Sugar Company . The property is not eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties under Criterion A, because the trend was highly localized to Fort Collins. The property also satisfies Criterion C at the local and state level as a unique example of an early 20 th century small, middle - class home. The design of the house is very unusual, with the two porches on the façade of the house making it look like a duplex , although it was designed to be a single - family dwelling . Although the half - timbering is reminiscent of the Tudor Revival style, the house is actually more closely aligned with the Queen Anne Cottage style, with its decorative shingles, classical elements, and simplified, one -story design. The house features unusual craftsmanship in the gable decorations, wide, flared eaves and window and door moldings. This c an likely be attributed to the original owner, carpenter A.J. Hood. 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 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 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. See historical information paragraph on page 4 for list of home owners and their professions. The house at 323 S Loomis Avenue is locally significant under criteria A and C of the Fort Collins Local Landmark Standards . The property satisfies Criterion A for designation as a local landmark because it represents the development of the Loomis Addition, one of the first additions to the original town plat, during the early 20th century, a period of growth for the Loomis Addition and Fort Collins due to the construction of a sugar beet factory and other industries. William Thompson, who lived at the house for almost five decades, served as the foreman for the Great Western Sugar Company . The property is not eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties under Criterion A, because the trend was highly localized to Fort Collins. The property also satisfies Criterion C at the local and state level as a unique example of an early 20 th century small, middle - class home. The design of the house is very unusual, with the two porches on the façade of the house making it look like a duplex , although it was designed to be a single - family dwelling . Although the half - timbering is reminiscent of the Tudor Revival style, the house is actually more closely aligned with the Queen Anne Cottage style, with its decorative shingles, classical elements, and simplified, one - story design. The house features unusual craftsmanship in the gable decorations, wide, flared eaves and window and door moldings. This can likely be attributed to the original owner, carpenter A.J. Hood. 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: 1905-present 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. Loomis Addition. The Loomis Addition is significant as one of the earliest residential subdivisions in Fort Collins, and as representative of late 19th to early 20th century residential architecture. The 15 - block addition retains good integrity overall and is a potential National Register or State Register Historic District. Approximately 75% of the 311 properties in the Loomis Addition qualify as individually eligible or contributing to a historic district. The five block s of N. and S. Loomis in the Loomis Addition retain the feeling and association of the late 19th to early 20th century period. There is a great potential for a smaller historic district and this property would be contributing to a national, state, or local landmark historic district. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 Standard 2: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. Folk Victorian/Queen Anne Cottage and the only existing example in Fort Collins. This property retains all seven aspects of integrity . The houses surrounding it are of the same time period preserving integrity of setting, and the house itself has not been moved from its original location. The house retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. The original wood windows and historic narrow clapboards have been retained. The removable wrought iron railings added to the front porch for safety purposes and the replacement front door does not significantly detract from integrity of design. The small back porch that the current owner enclosed is at the back of the house and is not visible from the street. Because the house has its original materials and its design has not been significantly altered, the property retains integrity of association and feeling. Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 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. This property retains all seven aspects of integrity . The houses surrounding it are of the same time period preserving integrity of setting, and the house itself has not been moved from its original location. The house retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. The original wood w indows and historic narrow clapboards have been retained. The removable wrought iron railings added to the front porch for safety purposes and the replacement front door does not significantly detract from integrity of design. The small back porch that the current owner enclosed is at the back of the house and is not visible from the street. Because the house has its original materials and its design has not been significantly altered, the property retains integrity of association and feeling. Standard 4: Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. This property retains all seven aspects of integrity . The houses surrounding it are of the same time period preserving integrity of setting, and the house itself has not been moved from its original location. The house retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. The original wood windows and historic narrow clapboards have been retained. The removable wrought iron railings added to the front porch for safety purposes and the replacement front door does not significantly detract from integrity of design. The small back porch that the current owner enclosed is at the back of the house and is not visible from the street. Because the house has its original materials and its design has not been significantly altered, the property retains integrity of association and feeling.. 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. . Although the half - timbering is reminiscent of the Tudor Revival style, the house is actually more closely aligned with the Queen Anne Cottage style, with its decorative shingles, classical elements, and simplified, one - story design. The house features unusual craftsmanship in the gable decorations, wide, flared eaves and window and door moldings. This can likely be attributed to the original owner, carpenter A.J. Hood. Standard 6: Feeling is a resource’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. The Loomis Addition is significant as one of the earliest residential subdivisions in Fort Collins, and as representative of late 19th to early 20th century residential architecture. The 15 - block addition retains good integrity overall and is a potential National Register or State Register Historic District. Approximately 75% of the 311 properties in the Loomis Addition qualify as individually eligible or contributing to a historic district. The five block s of N. and S. Loom is in the Loomis Addition retain the feeling and association of the late 19th to early 20th century period. There is a great potential for a smaller historic district and this property would be contributing to a national, state, or local landmark historic district. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 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. This property retains all seven aspects of integrity . The houses surrounding it are of the same time period preserving integrity of setting, and the house itself has not been moved from its original location. The house retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. The original wood w indows and historic narrow clapboards have been retained. The removable wrought iron railings added to the front porch for safety purposes and the replacement front door does not significantly detract from integrity of design. The small back porch that the current owner enclosed is at the back of the house and is not visible from the street. Because the house has its original materials and its design has not been significantly altered, the property retains integrity of association and feeling. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 HISTORICAL INFORMATION W.T. Dimick took out the permit to build this house for A. J. Hood in 1905 , and A.J. and Maggie Hood are listed at this address in the 1906 city directory. A. J. Hood , a carpenter, lived in several locations in the Loomis Addition, where he built many houses. In 1908 he is listed at 822 W. Mountain , possibly indicating that he owned the property only long enough to complete the house and start his next project, a fairly common practice among early - 20 th - century builders in the Loomis Addition. Residents after the Hoods were farmer J.N. and Fannie Harris in 1907 ; Rozetta Sarchet, mother of prominent attorney, Fancher Sarchet , in 1908 ; and T.T. Warren in 1909 - 1910 . William and Mary Thompson owned the house from 1913 to 1960, and D.W. and Jo Ann M. Cannon from 1960 to the May, 2021 when JoAnn M. Cannon died. William Thompson was the foreman for the Great Western Sugar Company and Mary was a clerk at J.M. McDonald Company . D.W. Cannon owned the Domestic Refrigeration and Appliance Service and JoAnn was an employee of the Poudre School District, retiring in 20 10 after 31 years . The Cannons purchased the home directly from the Thompsons in 1960. They paid $9,250 for the house, which included some furniture. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1905 Architect/Builder: Dimick Building Materials: Architectural Style & Type: Folk Victorian/Queen Anne Cottage Description: Located on the west side of South Loomis Avenue near the house at 323 S . Loomis is a single - story dwelling resting on a sand stone foundation consisting of rock - faced ashlar block s laid in regular courses. The east - facing house has a roughly cross - shaped footprint with a gable - on - hip roof. The roof is sheathed with composition roofing and has wide overhanging flared eaves. Gables project from the main hipped roof on the east, south, and west elevations. The gables on the south and west elevations feature cornice returns and staggered rectangular wood shingles in the gable ends, while the gable end on the east façade features a decorative motif of painted boards reminiscent of half - timbering. A brick chimney project s from the ridge of the east projecting gable , and a second brick chimney extends from the west slope of the hipped roof. Exterior walls are sheathed with horizontal wood clapboard siding with cornerboards and frieze boards. Windows and doors have architrave molding with narrow slipsills. Windows are all original wood and windows on the south, west, and north elevations have aluminum storm windows. The east façade is dominated by the c entral projecting gable, whose north and south roof slopes exte nd out to cover a pair of bilaterally symmetrical front porches. Each porch has four steps leading to a concrete deck three wood Tuscan columns . The façade has three doors , two on the south porch and one on the north porch. The primary front door faces east on the south porch, and is paneled wood with no lights . The second door on the south porch faces south and has 15 lights. The north porch has one 15 - light wood door facing east, and a horizontal window composed of a large stationary window with frosted glass flanked by smaller stained - glass casement windows. A large window consisting of a central double - hung window with a smaller upper light flanked by narrow 1 - over - 1 double - hung windows is centered in the central bay of the façade, and a small stationary window with diamond - shaped lights and scrolled trim below the sill is in the gable end. The north elevation features three 1 - over - 1 double - hung windows, two located on the north wall of the central hipped - roof portion of the house and the third located on the north wall of the gable d section that projects to the west. The south elevation projects from the central portion of the house. There is one double - hung window under the south - facing gable and a second matching window as well as a three - light basement window on the west elevation of the projection. An enclosed porch occupies the area on the south elevation where the south and west projections meet. The porch is covered by the west gable. The walls of the porch are sheathed with wider clapboards than the rest of the house. The west elevation of the porch has a wood door with 15 lights behind a metal storm door, accessed by 4 steps, and a picture window. Centered under the gable on the west (rear) elevation is a three - part window consisting of a central 6 - light stationary window flanked by 4 - light casement windows , all shelter d by a metal awning. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Cannon, JoAnn, written interview, September, 2016 ; Fort Collins City Directories ; Fort Collins History Connection Website, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/ ; Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015; Larimer County Assessor Records ; Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1925 - 1943 ;Rheba Massey , archivist and historian. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 MAPS and PHOTOGRAPHS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 36 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 37 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 38 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 39 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 43 OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.7736 Parcel number(s): 2. Temporary resource no.: N/A 9711328002 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: A. J. HOOD PROPERTY; THOMPSON PROPERTY 6. Current building name: CANNON PROPERTY 7. Building address: 323 S LOOMIS AVE 8. Owner name and address: CANNON DONALD W/JOANN M 323 S LOOMIS AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80521-2542 National Register eligibility assessment: Not individually eligible; contributing to historic district State Register eligibility assessment: Individually eligible Fort Collins Landmark eligibility assessment: Individually eligible ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 44 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. PLSS information: SW¼ S11 T7N R69W Sixth Principal Meridian 10. Location Coordinates: Lat: 40.583292837099997 Long:-105.088445028 WGS 84 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins NAD 83 WGS84 Map scale: 7.5 12. Lot(s): S 20 Ft of Lot 12 & N 30 Ft of Lot 13 Block: 278 Addition: Loomis Addition Year of Addition: 1887 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The boundary of the property is the legally defined parcel, which encompasses .22 acres. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Cross-plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Main living space: 14.5 x 15; 12.5 x 15; 37.5 x 26.5; enclosed back porch: 19.5 x 5.5; north and south front porches: 12.5 x 7 each 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s): Wood 18. Roof configuration: Gable-on-hip 19. Primary external roof material: Composition Roof 20. Special features: Cross-plan house with three projecting gables with flared eaves; custom moldings including architrave window and door hoods; decorative front gable with half- timbering motif; sandstone foundation; original windows. 21. General architectural description: Located on the west side of South Loomis Avenue near the intersection with West Magnolia Street, the house at 323 S. Loomis is a single-story dwelling resting on a sandstone foundation consisting of rock-faced ashlar blocks laid in regular courses. The east-facing house has a roughly cross-shaped footprint with a gable-on-hip roof. The roof is sheathed with composition roofing and has wide overhanging flared eaves. Gables project from the main hipped roof on the east, south, and west elevations. The gables on the south and west elevations feature cornice returns and staggered rectangular wood shingles in the gable ends, while the gable end on the east façade features a decorative motif of painted boards reminiscent of half-timbering. A brick chimney projects from the ridge of the east projecting gable, and a second brick chimney extends from the west slope of the hipped roof. Exterior walls are sheathed with horizontal wood clapboard siding with cornerboards and frieze boards . Windows and doors have architrave molding with narrow slipsills. Windows are all original wood and windows on the south, west, and north elevations have aluminum storm windows. The east façade is dominated by the central projecting gable, whose north and south roof slopes exte nd out to cover a pair of bilaterally symmetrical front porches. Each porch has four steps leading to a concrete deck with iron railings along the steps and the outside perimeter of the porch. Each porch is supported by three wood Tuscan columns. The façade has three doors, two on the south porch and one on the north porch. The primary front door faces east on the south porch, and is paneled wood with no lights. The second door on the south porch faces south and has 15 lights. The north porch has one 15-light wood door facing east, and a horizontal window composed of a large stationary window with frosted glass flanked by smaller stained- glass casement windows. A large window consisting of a central double-hung window with a smaller upper light flanked by narrow 1-over-1 double-hung windows is centered in the central bay of the façade, and a small stationary window with diamond-shaped lights and scrolled trim below the sill is in the gable end. The north elevation features three 1-over-1 double-hung windows, two located on the north wall of the central hipped-roof portion of the house and the third located on the north wall of the gabled section that ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 45 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 projects to the west. The south elevation projects from the central portion of the house. There is one double- hung window under the south-facing gable and a second matching window as well as a three-light basement window on the west elevation of the projection. An enclosed porch occupies the area on the south elevation where the south and west projections meet. The porch is covered by the extended eave of the south slope of the west gable. The walls of the porch are sheathed with wider clapboards than the rest of the house. The west elevation of the porch has a wood door with 15 lights behind a metal storm door, accessed by 4 steps, and a picture window. Centered under the gable on the west (rear) elevation is a three-part window consisting of a central 6-light stationary window flanked by 4-light casement windows, all sheltered by a metal awning. 22. Architectural style/building type: Folk Victorian/Queen Anne Cottage 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The back yard is fenced in by non-historic cedar picket fencing. A carport built c. 1990 and parking area are to the west of this fence along the alley, at the northwest corner of the property. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None. The current owner demolished a stable in the early 1960s. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: 1905 Estimated: Actual: X Source of information: Building Records, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 12/27/1905 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: N/A 27. Builder/Contractor: W.T. Dimick Source of information: Building Records, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 12/27/1905 28. Original owner: A.J. Hood Source of information: 1906 Fort Collins City Directory 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): A $2500 five-room frame cottage for A.J. Hood was constructed by W. T. Dimick in 1905 (Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 12/27/1905). Hood was a carpenter who constructed houses throughout Fort Collins during this time period, so it is possible that he constructed the house with Dimick, and Dimick was the one who took out the permit. Hood was probably responsible for the decorative wood design in the front gable end. There are no building permit records for the house from 1905 to the present, except for a 2011 permit for re-roofing. The property appears in the 1925 and 1943 Sanborn maps without a back porch, but the porch does appear on the 1948 tax assessor record. The Cannons (current owners) enclosed the 5.5’ x 19.5’ screened back porch c. 1970. JoAnn Cannon replaced the original 10-light glass door on the south front porch with a more secure 6-panel wood door in 2012, and in 2013 installed wrought iron railings on the two front porches. 30. Original Location: Yes Date of move(s): N/A ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 46 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Single Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): Single Dwelling 33. Current use(s): Single Dwelling 34. Site Type(s): Single dwelling in residential neighborhood 35. Historical background: W.T. Dimick took out the permit to build this house for A. J. Hood in 1905, and A.J. and Maggie Hood are listed at this address in the 1906 city directory. A. J. Hood, a carpenter, lived in several locations in the Loomis Addition, where he built many houses. In 1908 he is listed at 822 W. Mountain, possibly indicating that he owned the property only long enough to complete the house and start his next project, a fairly common practice among early-20th-century builders in the Loomis Addition. Residents after the Hoods were farmer J.N. and Fannie Harris in 1907; Rozetta Sarchet, mother of prominent attorney, Fancher Sarchet, in 1908; and T.T. Warren in 1909-1910. William and Mary Thompson owned the house from 1913 to 1960, and D.W. and JoAnn M. Cannon from 1960 to the present. William Thompson was the foreman for the Great Western Sugar Company and Mary was a clerk at J.M. McDonald Company. D.W. Cannon owned the Domestic Refrigeration and Appliance Service and JoAnn was an employee of the Poudre School District, retiring in 2010 after 31 years. The Cannons purchased the home directly from the Thompsons in 1960. They paid $9,250 for the house, which included some furniture. 36. Sources of information: Cannon, JoAnn, written interview, September, 2016; Fort Collins City Directories; Fort Collins History Connection Website, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/; Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015; Larimer County Assessor Records; Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1925-1943 VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: No Date of designation: N/A Designating authority: N/A 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) ✓ Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 38A. Applicable Colorado State Register of Historic Properties Criteria: A. The association of the property with events that have made a significant contribution to history; B. The connection of the property with persons significant in history; ✓ C. The apparent distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, or artisan; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 47 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 D. The geographic importance of the property; E. The possibility of important discoveries related to prehistory or history. Does not meet any of the above State Register criteria 38B. Applicable Fort Collins Landmark Standards: ✓ A. Associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation; B. 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. 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. D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Does not meet any of the above City of Fort Collins Landmark standards. 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture; Community Development (local) 40. Period of significance: 1905-1967 41. Level of significance: Local and state 42. Statement of significance: The house at 323 S Loomis Avenue is locally significant under criteria A and C of the Fort Collins Local Landmark Standards. The property satisfies Criterion A for designation as a local landmark because it represents the development of the Loomis Addition, one of the first additions to the original town plat, during the early 20th century, a period of growth for the Loomis Addition and Fort Collins due to the construction of a sugar beet factory and other industries. William Thompson, who lived at the house for almost five decades, served as the foreman for the Great Western Sugar Company. The property is not eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties under Criterion A, because the trend was highly localized to Fort Collins. The property also satisfies Criterion C at the local and state level as a unique example of an early 20th century small, middle-class home. The design of the house is very unusual, with the two porches on the façade of the house making it look like a duplex, although it was designed to be a single-family dwelling. Although the half-timbering is reminiscent of the Tudor Revival style, the house is actually more closely aligned with the Queen Anne Cottage style, with its decorative shingles, classical elements, and simplified, one -story design. The house features unusual craftsmanship in the gable decorations, wide, flared eaves and window and door moldings. This can likely be attributed to the original owner, carpenter A.J. Hood. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This property retains all seven aspects of integrity. The houses surrounding it are of the same time period preserving integrity of setting, and the house itself has not been moved from its original location. The house retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. The original wood windows and historic narrow clapboards have been retained. The removable wrought iron railings added to the front porch for safety purposes and the replacement front door does not significantly detract from integrity of design. The small back porch that the current owner enclosed is at the back of the house and is not visible from the street. Because the house has its original materials and its design has not been significantly altered, the property retains integrity of association and feeling. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 48 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 VII. ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility assessment: Not individually eligible; contributing to historic district State Register eligibility assessment: Individually eligible Local Landmark eligibility assessment: [specify individually eligible or contributing] Individually eligible 45. Is there historic district potential? Yes Discuss: The Loomis Addition is significant as one of the earliest residential subdivisions in Fort Collins, and as representative of late 19th to early 20th century residential architecture. The 15-block addition retains good integrity overall and is a potential National Register or State Register Historic District. Approximately 75% of the 311 properties in the Loomis Addition qualify as individually eligible or contributing to a historic district. The five blocks of N. and S. Loomis in the Loomis Addition retain the feeling and association of the late 19th to early 20th century period. There is a great potential for a smaller historic d istrict and this property would be contributing to a national, state, or local landmark historic district. If there is N.R. district potential, is this building contributing or noncontributing? Contributing 46. If the building is in an existing N.R. district, is it contributing or noncontributing? N/A VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: loomis323.06.rm; loomis323.01.mh; loomis323.13.rm; loomis323.25.rm; loomis323.18.rm; loomis323.01.rm; loomis323.22.rm; loomis323.24.rm; loomis323.23.rm; loomis323.26.rm; loomis323.27.rm; loomis323.33.rm; loomis323.35.rm; loomis323.36.rm; loomis323.29.rm; loomis323.16.rm; loomis323.15.rm; loomis323.19.rm; loomis323.10.rm; loomis323.04.rm; loomis323.48.ta; loomis323.67.ta. All photographs by Rheba Massey except as noted. CD filed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 48. Report title: Loomis Addition Historic Resource Survey 49. Date(s): Rheba Massey 50. Recorder(s): October 2016 51. Organization: Humstone Consulting 52. Address: 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 53. Phone number(s): 970 420-5275 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 49 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Sketch Map Ancillary buildings are small, non- historic sheds ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 50 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Location Map ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 51 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Photographs Figure 1: East façade and south elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 52 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 2: East façade and north elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 3: East façade, detail of window and gable end ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 4: South front porch ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 55 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 5: South elevation Figure 6: South elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 7: South elevation, gable end ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 8: South elevation showing enclosed porch and west elevation of projecting south gabled section ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 9: West elevation; enclosed rear porch on right ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 59 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 10: Roof, west elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 60 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 11: North end of façade, and north elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 61 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 12: West (rear) end of north elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 62 Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.7736 323 S LOOMIS AVE, Fort Collins, CO Humstone Consulting 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Figure 13: 1948 tax assessor record ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 Figure 14: 1967 tax assessor photograph ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 65 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 66 RESOLUTION #, 2023 OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE A.J. HOOD/THOMPSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 323 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BE CONSIDERED FOR DESIGNATION AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code of the City of Fort Collins (“City Code”) Section 14-31, three residents of Fort Collins initiated the Fort Collins landmark designation procedure for the property located at 323 S. Loomis Ave. (the “Property”) by submitting an application to City Historic Preservation staff (“Staff”); and WHEREAS, the owners of the Property, Jacqueline Zipser and Holger Kley (the “Owners”), do not consent to or support designating the Property as a Fort Collins landmark; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission passed a written resolution pursuant to City Code Section 14-33(b)(1) on December 14, 2022, finding that the Property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, Design/Construction, contained in City Code Section 14-22(a); and retaining sufficient historic integrity under the seven aspects, as described in City Code Section 14-22(b); and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that designation of the Property meets the Policies of City Code Section l4-1 and Purposes of Section 14-2 to a sufficient degree to justify designation without the owner’s consent; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission is adopting this written resolution as required by City Code Section 14-33(c). 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. Section 2. That the Property is more particularly described as located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: S 20 FT OF LOT 12 & N 30 FT OF LOT 13, BLK 278, LOOMIS, FTC ALSO KNOWN BY STREET AND NUMBER AS 323 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Section 3. That based upon the information and testimony provided for and at the December 14, 2022 and March 15, 2023, hearing and the Commission discussion, the Property is recommended ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 67 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. #, 2023 2 to City Council for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with City Code Chapter l4 for the following reasons: 1. That the Property was found to be eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3 at its hearing on December 14, 2022; and 2. That the designation of the Property as a Fort Collins Landmark would support the Policies of Municipal Code Section 14-1 and Purposes of 14-2 to a sufficient degree to justify Landmark designation without the owner’s consent, specifically in the following ways: a. [list specific policies of 14-1 and purposes of 14-2 that are met by designating the property] Section 4. That this resolution will be transmitted to City Council within 15 days and a hearing scheduled for a final decision, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-35. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins held this 15th day of March, A.D. 2023. ATTEST: X Kurt Knierim Chair X Secretary/Staff ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 68 RESOLUTION #, 2023 OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE A.J. HOOD/THOMPSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 323 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DESIGNATION AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCESS IS TERMINATED WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code of the City of Fort Collins (“City Code”) Section 14-31, three residents of Fort Collins initiated the Fort Collins landmark designation procedure for the property located at 323 S. Loomis Ave. (the “Property”) by submitting an application to City Historic Preservation staff (“Staff”); and WHEREAS, the owners of the Property, Jacqueline Zipser and Holger Kley (the “Owners”), do not consent to or support designating the Property as a Fort Collins landmark; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission passed a written resolution pursuant to City Code Section 14-33(b)(1) on December 14, 2022, finding that the Property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, Design/Construction, contained in City Code Section 14-22(a); and retaining sufficient historic integrity under the seven aspects, as described in City Code Section 14-22(b); and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that designation of the Property does not meet the Policies of City Code Section l4-1 and Purposes of Section 14-2 to a sufficient degree to justify designation without the owner’s consent; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission is adopting this written resolution as required by City Code Section 14-33(c). 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. Section 2. That the Property is more particularly described as located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: S 20 FT OF LOT 12 & N 30 FT OF LOT 13, BLK 278, LOOMIS, FTC ALSO KNOWN BY STREET AND NUMBER AS 323 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 69 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. #, 2023 2 Section 3. That based upon the information and testimony provided for and at the December 14, 2022 and March 15, 2023, hearings and the Commission discussion, the Property is not recommended to City Council for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with City Code Chapter l4 because the designation will not promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Sec. 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owner’s consent.: [The Commission may articulate specific reasons why the Property is NOT being recommended] Section 4. That pursuant to City Code Section 14-33(c) the landmark designation procedure is terminated and is not subject to appeal. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins held this 15th day of February, A.D. 2023. ATTEST: X Kurt Knierim Chair X Secretary/Staff ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 70 Carolynne C. White Attorney at Law 303.223.1197 direct cwhite@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 303.223.1100 main 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 March 15, 2023 Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission City Hall West 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is sent on behalf of Ms. Jacqueline Zipser and Dr. Holger Kley, the owners of the property located at 323 S. Loomis Avenue (the “Property”) in the City of Fort Collins (the “City”), who oppose the petition and application for involuntary landmark designation (the “Application”) of the Property filed by applicants Ms. Terri Berger, Mr. Thomas Steven Berger, and Mr. Jeff Berger (all members of the same household). As you are aware, Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley do not consent to the designation of the house located on the Property (the “House”) or Property as a landmark. This letter summarizes why designation of the Property and House as a landmark would not advance the relevant policies and purposes of the Fort Collins Municipal Code (the “Code”) to an extent sufficient to justify the landmark designation without the consent of Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley. I.Background On December 14, 2022, after a public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission made a finding that the Property is eligible for designation as a landmark under the Code. Public comment at the hearing was mixed, with some residents of the City supporting the designation and many others opposing it. Prior to that hearing, we provided a letter that was included in the Historic Preservation Commission packet and is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Prior Letter”), and which summarized the background of the Property. We will not repeat that background here, but instead will highlight certain facts as relevant to the issues before you at this hearing. In 2021, the estate of the prior owner, Ms. JoAnn Cannon, placed the House on the market as a tear‐ down. The listing clearly stated that the Property was a location for a “custom home.” This listing led Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley reasonably to believe that they would be able to construct their own custom home on the site and induced them to offer a price that reflected the value of the site without a landmark designation. They proceeded with their purchase of the Property even though their walkthroughs of the Property revealed an overwhelming smell of tobacco smoke pervasive throughout the House and moisture in the basement, and the Home Inspection Report attached as Exhibit B to our Prior Letter revealed significant damage to the foundation, the interior, and the exterior of the home. It was not until ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 71 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 2 the sale was completed, and the proceeds were distributed to the estate beneficiaries, that one of those beneficiaries, Ms. Terri Berger, submitted this application for designation of the Property as a landmark. Meanwhile, Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley continued to discover contamination of the House. They commissioned an Asbestos Inspection and Sampling Report from Banyan Environmental based on inspections on June 29, 2021 and December 16, 2021, attached to our Prior Letter as Exhibit C (the “Asbestos Report”). The random sampling found multiple samples of asbestos in multiple areas of the House, including a bedroom, the kitchen, and the living room. According to Section 14‐33(c) of the Code, the purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the designation of the Property as a landmark will advance the policies in Section 14‐1 of the Code and the purposes in Section 14‐2 of the Code in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation without the consent of the property owners. For reasons that will be explained in more detail below, designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance those policies and purposes in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the designation. II. Hostile Historic Designation Because fundamental property rights are at stake in a landmark designation, the impact of a nonconsensual landmark designation on any property owner is significant. The impact is particularly severe in the case when a residence is at stake. Furthermore, designating a structure as a landmark over the objection of a property owner who wishes to realize their own vision for the property necessarily assumes that whatever the property owner has to offer the City in terms of investment and legacy is less valuable than whatever exists today. It assumes that landmark designation would serve the policies and purposes of the Code, such as beautifying the City, fostering civic pride, and promoting economic vitality, more than anything the property owner could possibly aspire to do. Such a determination must be made only in extraordinary circumstances after very careful consideration. The Code acknowledges these considerations by not permitting a property to be designated as a landmark without the consent of the property owner until “due consideration to the views of owners of affected resource(s)” has been given. Code, § 14‐35(b). This section of the letter is intended to serve as a roadmap of the relevant considerations that should be taken into account when evaluating whether the Application advances—or is even compatible with—the policies and purposes set forth in the Code. A. Fundamental Property Rights The City and the State of Colorado have long recognized the right of a property owner to exercise control over his or her property as a fundamental right. Many provisions in the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution reflect the right of a private property owner to possess and hold dominion over ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 72 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 3 their own property, and the Code recognizes this long tradition. The Code protects the rights of property owners by requiring that no designation of a landmark can be made over the objection of the property owners until the rights and reasonable expectations of the property owner have been considered, and the equities have been balanced between the public interest in landmark designation and the property owner’s private interest in his or her property. See Code, § 14‐35(b). Only in cases where a compelling reason causes the public interest overwhelmingly to outweigh the interests of a private property owner should a home be designated as a landmark over the objection of the property owner. Therefore, every criterion for landmark designation should be viewed through the lens of the property owner’s rights. B. Health and Safety It is also fundamental that a property owner should have the right to ensure that a home he or she lives in is safe. In this case, the contamination and degradation of the House produce a structure that poses an imminent danger to its inhabitants. As described above and in our Prior Letter, the House has been severely contaminated by cigarette smoke, and the Asbestos Report found that multiple samples of asbestos were found in multiple living areas. Additionally, the home inspection revealed multiple issues with the exterior and interior of the home, including but not limited to the following: Cracking in the steps and foundational elements. Moisture damage/compromise on the exterior. Chimney in need of repair for mortar and loose/damaged bricks. Moisture damage/rot and missing paint on the windows. Multiple electrical concerns on the distribution panel. Leak/drip from supply line in distribution piping and from waste drain pipe. Staining in the ceiling, likely as a result of moisture penetration. Cracked windows. Flaking/bubbling paint on the exterior. Cracking and settlement in the walkways. When inspecting the House themselves, Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley discovered that previous owners had damaged the foundation of the House to install heating equipment to such an extent that the ground floor of the structure is now supported by a beam of wood held in place by a large rock, as shown in the following photograph that was shown at the prior hearing: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 73 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 4 When Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley became aware of the attempt by the estate beneficiaries to designate their Property as a landmark, they researched the implications of being required to preserve their Property in spite of its contaminated and damaged state and the risks involved in remediation. Dr. Marc J. Rumpler, PhD, Director of Environmental Chemistry for the Public Health Laboratory at the Tennessee Department of Health, reviewed information related to the Property and prepared a report entitled “Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties: 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO,” which is attached here as Exhibit B (the “Contamination Risk Report”). According to this report, the potential health risks to which Ms. Zipser, Dr. Kley, and their family and guests could be exposed in the House include, “lung cancer, mesothelioma (an almost invariably fatal form of cancer), and asbestosis (a noncancerous but debilitating and sometimes fatal disease).” These risks are compounded by the combination of asbestos and cigarette smoke: “Studies have shown that the combination of inhaling tobacco smoke and asbestos exposure is particularly harmful because of the compounding synergistic adverse effects.” The Contamination Risk Report concluded, “It’s this expert’s ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 74 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 5 opinion that the extent of asbestos contamination and the hazards associated with remodeling or abatement could present an unintentional exposure to residents of 323 S. Loomis.” Even more concerningly, the Contamination Risk Report indicated that abatement is not a solution to the health risks: “Asbestos abatement alone of the residence, even though it is performed in accordance with the State of Colorado Code of Regulations, will be insufficient to eliminate all potential risks for future residents” (emphasis added). The Contamination Risk Report ultimately concluded that the demolition of the House was warranted: “Furthermore, abatement and removal of the contaminated materials would be widespread, and in some parts, potentially be reduced to only an intact frame. Therefore, the contamination of both asbestos and third‐hand tobacco smoke is extensive enough to warrant a complete demolition of the property” (emphasis added). Dr. Rumpler was not the only expert to express concern about the state of the House and recommend demolition. According to a public comment by Lisa Hoffman submitted in advance of the prior hearing and attached to this letter as Exhibit C, Ms. Hoffman toured the House with the now‐deceased James A. Cox, a former member of the Historic Preservation Commission, who observed the “undeniable lack of stability and safety that the previous alterations had created,” and ultimately concluded that “the house was unsalvageable.” As Ms. Hoffman said, “He shook his head and said that there was no way that this house could be pulled from the brink.” Additionally, researchers are beginning to understand the full extent of the hazards of third‐hand smoke. According to a peer‐reviewed article published in 2022 in the journal Toxics called “Indoor Secondary Pollutants Cannot Be Ignored: Third‐Hand Smoke”1 attached hereto as Exhibit D (the “THS Article”), third‐hand smoke, or “THS,” is “the contamination that remains on the surface of objects after [second‐ hand smoke] has been cleared” and “refers to smoke pollutants that remain on surfaces such as clothing, walls, furniture hair, skin, carpets, and dust after smoking.” According to the THS Article, THS contains “as many potent carcinogens” as second‐hand smoke, it “causes genetic mutations in human cells, which contribute to the possibility of cancer and other diseases,” (emphasis added) and “exposure to THS caused significant damage to liver, lung, and healing skin in mice.” Of particular concern, it “reacts with chemicals in the air to generate more toxic chemicals” and “can be re‐released into the air.” The health risks also affect the neighborhood. As the next door neighbor to the Property stated in person at the prior hearing during public comment, “My wife’s a cancer survivor. We can’t go visit our neighbors with this house in its condition.” The City has repeatedly demonstrated that public health and safety within private homes are priorities to the City. For example, the City has implemented the Healthy Homes program as a free, indoor air quality programs to help community members identify and reduce chemical and biological pollutants in 1 Wu, Jia‐Xun; Lau, Andy T. Y.; Xu, Yan‐Ming. Indoor Secondary Pollutants Cannot Be Ignored: Third‐Hand Smoke. Toxics 2022, 10, 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070363. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 75 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 6 the home. According to the Fort Collins Air Quality Plan, one of the City’s priorities is to “increase opportunities for community members to identify and manage pollutant sources in their homes and businesses, while leveraging potential air quality benefits of energy efficiency improvements.” Therefore, with respect to health and safety in the home, the views of Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley and the priorities of the City are aligned. Ultimately, in Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley’s view, which is based on thorough investigation and expert assessments, this House does not meet an acceptable standard for health and safety. C. Reasonable Expectations When Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley purchased the Property, they did so with the reasonable expectation— encouraged by the listing of the House—that they would be able to create their own custom home on the site. The listing, which is attached to our Prior Letter as Exhibit A, clearly stated, “If you’ve been thinking of creating your own custom home in old town Ft Collins, this might be it!” Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley reasonably believed that they would be able to realize the full value of their Property by building their custom home instead of having to maintain the contaminated House on the Property. When the Application was submitted, Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley commissioned a report by Dr. Ron Throupe, PhD, who is an Associate Professor at the University of Denver, Burns School of Real Estate & Construction Management and an expert in real estate economic analysis, in order to fully understand the impacts of the contamination of the House on its value. The report (the “Valuation Report”) attached hereto as Exhibit E, concluded as follows: “It is our opinion that a current diminution in market value resulting from contamination in the form of asbestos and cigarette smoke render the subject property not marketable resulting in no value to the public” (emphasis added). Additionally, it stated, “Frankly, there is not much of this residence that is not in need of replacement or significant repair to make it marketable at anything other than land value minus demolition costs.” Additionally, even if full remediation of the Property were possible (which, as Dr. Rumpler’s Contamination Risk Report indicated above, is in doubt), “market resistance” would still negatively affect the value of the Property, according to Dr. Throupe’s Valuation Report. This is because the required property disclosure form would need to reveal the contamination history, and “potential buyers would be limited because some will not want to take on a property with a contamination history regardless of so‐called guarantees.” The delay in scheduling of the demolition also decreases the value of the Property, according to the Valuation Report, by causing a “loss of use,” which may be compensable and grounds for a tax appeal. The historic designation itself would even have a cost, according to Dr. Throupe’s report: “There is also a likelihood that potential buyers would factor in the cost to maintain under historic regulations as greater than typical home ownership and incorporate those perceived costs into their willingness to pay for the property.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 76 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 7 Therefore, the criteria for historic designation should be evaluated not only with consideration of Ms. Zipser’s and Dr. Kley’s rights as property owners, but also in light of their reasonable expectation that they would be able to take advantage of the value of their Property. D. Legacy The right and ability of Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to add to the story of Fort Collins through their ownership and use of their property should be considered and honored. As residents of the City since 2000, Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley are invested in Fort Collins and its values. After purchasing the Property, they investigated ways to incorporate the current façade of the House into their design. However, a combination of several site constraints such as flood plain issues, the extent of the smoke damage, and other significant structural and design issues rendered that option infeasible. Ultimately, Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley settled on a new design that takes into account the constraints of the site, the aesthetic of the neighborhood, and their individual needs. They should be permitted the chance to honor the history of Fort Collins in their individual way. This is particularly true in light of the fact that Ms. Zipser’s and Dr. Kley’s vision for their home is in alignment with the priorities of Fort Collins, as demonstrated by the Fort Collins Air Quality Plan and Fort Collins’s many residential energy programs. Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley value having a low carbon footprint and want to build a more energy‐efficient home with an emphasis on high indoor air quality. (Their vision also includes reducing their household to just one car due to the Property’s location). Additionally, they want to construct a house that will allow them to age in place and meet the accessibility needs of themselves and their disabled, elderly fathers. Because of the state and current configuration of the House, they cannot achieve all of their goals without the freedom to construct their custom home. A decision that the existing House, in its existing state of disrepair, is more important to the legacy of Fort Collins than what Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley have to offer is not justified. E. Community Community is an important component of prosperity, civic pride and general welfare. It is clear that community as a value is fundamental to this process: the nonconsensual historic designation procedure was created to allow more community voices to be heard. By contrast, a hostile historic designation that breaks down community bonds is antithetical to the policies and purposes that are intended to guide historic designation decisions. When Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley learned that an application for designation of their Property had been submitted, they sent an email invitation to coffee directly to applicant Terri Berger (see attached Exhibit F) in an effort to start a dialogue and reach a neighborly resolution. In their email, they mentioned the application, reiterated their lack of consent, and stated, “We’re reaching out today to explore the possibility that we can all sit down together over a cup of coffee and discuss the matter before embarking ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 77 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 8 on what looks to be a drawn‐out formal process. We hope that you’ll consider the idea and let us know your thoughts.” They sent this email on November 12, 2022, more than a month before the first hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission. They received no response. The implication of the non‐response is clear: An applicant can weaponize the process for historic designation by submitting an application for a hostile historic designation and ignoring any attempt by the property owners to reach a friendlier, quicker, and less costly resolution. A decision to designate the Property in this case would endorse this weaponization of the process and the pitting of neighbor against neighbor. III. Analysis of Code Criteria Pursuant to Section 14‐33 of the Code, when determining whether a resource shall be designated as a landmark, the Historic Preservation Commission must evaluate whether the following two criteria are satisfied: (A) the proposed resource is eligible for designation pursuant to Section 14‐22 of the Code, and (B) the requested designation will advance the policies stated in Section 14‐1 of the Code and the purposes stated in Section 14‐2 of the Code in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation without the consent of one (1) or more owners of the resource(s) or properties under review. As noted above, the purpose of this hearing is to address only the latter of these two criteria, namely, whether designation of the Property as a landmark will advance the relevant policies and purpose in the Code in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation without the property owner’s consent. The question at issue is not simply whether any or all of the policies and purposes of the Code would be promoted by designation of the home. A finding that a preponderance—or even all—of the policies and purposes would be advanced by designating the Property as a landmark is not sufficient for designation of the home as a landmark. This is because the Code has set forth a balancing test that requires a finding that the policies and purposes are advanced “in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation without the consent of one (1) or more owners of the resource(s) or properties under review.” Code, § 14‐33(c). Therefore, the burden the applicants carry is high. As the analysis below demonstrates, the policies and purposes in Sections 14‐1 and 14‐2 of the Code are not advanced to an extent sufficient to meet this burden and, in fact, designation of the Property given the circumstances of the application would obstruct these policies and purposes, whereas declining to designate the Property would advance them. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 78 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 9 A. The landmark designation would not advance the policies in Section 14‐1 of the Code to a degree sufficient to justify designating the Property as a landmark. The designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance the policies in Section 14‐1 of the Code to a degree sufficient to justify designating the Property as a landmark without the consent of Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley for the reasons set forth below: i. It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. This policy gets to the heart of three City values: “prosperity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people.” This policy states the designation of historically significant properties as landmarks is required— and is in fact a “public necessity”—for the purpose of furthering these three values. Any property that does not foster these values fails to advance this policy, and this House is clearly incompatible with each of these values. By contrast, permitting Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to construct a new home would further the ultimate goals of this policy. Prosperity. Preserving the House would run counter to a goal of fostering prosperity in the City. As noted above, Dr. Throupe’s Valuation Report explicitly finds that “a current diminution in market value resulting from contamination in the form of asbestos and cigarette smoke render the subject property not marketable resulting in no value to the public” (emphasis added). He elaborates: The cost to physically repair the property would be extensive because of a need to strip the property to a skeleton structure, never mind the additional unknown risks of structural inadequacies to be determined, and potential permutation of contaminants. Furthermore the property is in need of updates to utility systems, appliances, general condition issues, functional floor plan layout, code requirements, visible physical damage and a potential need of structural repair. Along with interior finishing, kitchen amenities, porches, clapboard, and gutters in need of repair or replacement. Frankly there is not much of this residence that is not in need of replacement or significant repair to make it marketable at anything other than land value minus demolition costs. [Emphasis added.] The sellers of this Property clearly understood that the House in its current state was not marketable, as evidenced by the fact that they marketed the Property as a site for a “custom home” and Terri Berger, one of the beneficiaries of the sale, did not submit an application for landmark designation until after the Property had been sold as a tear‐down. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 79 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 10 Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley intend to contribute the prosperity of their City by constructing a new, safe, attractive, energy‐efficient home in their neighborhood. Declining to designate this Property would more directly advance the prosperity of the City. Civic Pride. The state of disrepair and contamination of the House, as well as its diminution in value as described in Dr. Throupe’s Valuation Report, do not add to civic pride. Additionally, the circumstances under which this Application was submitted also fail to foster civic pride. As described in more detail in Section III.B.vii below, the designation of this Property would endorse a policy of permitting sellers to market properties as customizable in order to maximize their sale value, and then to submit an application for landmark designation once the proceeds have been pocketed and the property is in the hands of the buyer. Such a policy fosters mistrust rather than civic pride. Additionally, although the Historic Preservation Commission found the design and construction of the House historically significant, this significance is overshadowed by the contamination that would need to be reported in any future sale of the House. Civic pride would be better advanced by a new home, rather than one that had been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair by its previous owners and is burdened by a history of contamination and structural defects. General Welfare of the People. This Property is no longer in a state to advance the general welfare of the people. As Dr. Throupe’s report finds, based on a personal inspection of the House as well as a review of photos and available reports, it is “uninhabitable” and has “no value to the public.” The many health and safety risks posed by this Property as detailed above are counter to the people’s general welfare. Overall, designation of the House as a landmark does not advance prosperity, civic pride, or the general welfare of the people. By a contrast, when weight is given to the views of Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley—as the Code requires—it is clear that a decision not to landmark this home would further the prosperity, civic pride, and general welfare of the people by permitting Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to decontaminate the Property in the way they, as the property owners, have reasonably deemed most appropriate, and to construct a new home that is safe, that adds to the market values in the neighborhood, that enhances the beauty of the neighborhood, and that allows them to add to the legacy of the City in their own unique way. Therefore, designation would not advance this policy to an extent that would justify landmark designation over the objection of the property owner. ii. 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 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 80 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 11 historical, architectural, archeological and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. This policy goes to the heart of another City value: “the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing” of Fort Collins. However, according to Dr. Throupe’s Valuation Report, the House fails to contribute to the economic standing of the City by virtue of the fact that it is “not marketable.” There is also no basis for a finding that the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of the City would be “maintained or enhanced” to a greater degree by designating the Property as a landmark than by permitting Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to create a new, attractive, energy efficient home that enhances the value and beauty of the neighborhood and contributes to the City’s legacy. Therefore, designation would not advance this policy to an extent that would justify landmark designation over the objection of the property owner. B. The landmark designation would not advance the purposes in Section 14‐2 of the Code to a degree sufficient to justify designating the Property as a landmark. The designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance the purposes in Section 14‐2 of the Code to a degree sufficient to justify designating the Property as a landmark without the consent of Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley, as follows: i. Survey, identify, designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those sites, structures, objects and districts which reflect important elements of the City's cultural, artistic, social, economic, political, architectural, archeological, or other heritage; The Historic Preservation Commission made a finding on December 14, 2022 at the prior hearing that the Property meets the criteria for significance and integrity under the Code and is therefore eligible for designation as a landmark. Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley disagree with this finding for all the reasons set forth in the Prior Letter attached hereto as Exhibit A and described in their presentation at the prior hearing. For all of the same reasons, which we will not repeat here, designation of the Property does not advance this purpose, as the Property does not reflect important elements of the City’s heritage. ii. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; This policy is not advanced merely because a property is beautiful or merely if it represents one or more accomplishments of the past; this policy is only advanced if designation of the Property would foster civic pride. As described above in Section III.A.i, the Property does not advance civic pride for multiple reasons: its dilapidation and contamination are counter to civic pride, and the circumstances under ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 81 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 12 which the Application was submitted foster mistrust among buyers and sellers of private property in Fort Collins. Permitting Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to build their custom home will beautify the neighborhood and allow them to contribute in their own way to the legacy of Fort Collins. This would be a more appropriate way to foster civic pride. As the next door neighbor to the Property stated in person at the prior hearing during public comment, “My wife’s a cancer survivor. We can’t go visit our neighbors with this house in its condition. And it sounds like it can’t be fixed. Fort Collins is better without this building.” A building that poses such serious health risks that neighbors cannot visit neighbors does not foster civic pride. For these reasons, designation of the Property does not advance this purpose. iii. Stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality and values of such sites, structures, objects and districts; Dr. Throupe’s Valuation Report clearly demonstrates that designation of this Property would not only fail to advance the economic vitality and value of the Property, it would actually render the Property “of no value to the public” for the reasons described above, including the contamination history. Successful remediation of the Property is not guaranteed, as described in Dr. Rumpler’s Contamination Risk Report. While designation as a landmark may make available financial incentives for historic preservation that are not available in the absence of designation, the Application is with respect to what exists on the Property now, not what could be available with the help of financial incentives. Additionally, designation of the Property as a landmark does not constitute the approval of financial incentives or guarantee the applicability or availability of financial assistance with cleanup or repair. Therefore, designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance this purpose of the Code to an extent that would justify designation of the Property as a landmark over the objection of the property owner. iv. Protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors; There is also no basis for a finding that the City’s attraction to tourists and visitors would not be better served or enhanced by designating the Property as a landmark than by permitting Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to build a new, attractive home that enhances the value and beauty of the neighborhood and contributes to the City’s legacy. Additionally, the dilapidation and contamination of the House do not protect or enhance the City’s attraction to tourists and visitors. A new home that is free of these issues would advance this purpose to a much greater degree. Therefore, designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance this purpose of the Code to an extent that would justify designation of the Property as a landmark over the objection of the property owner. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 82 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 13 v. Promote the use of important historical, archeological, or architectural sites, structures, objects and districts for the education, stimulation and welfare of the people of the City; This purpose speaks to an important value of the City: the “education, stimulation and welfare of the people of the City.” For the reasons discussed above, declining to designate the Property as a landmark would enhance the welfare of the people of the City because it would permit Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to build a new, safe home free from contamination. Additionally, for all the reasons described in the Prior Letter attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Property does not have historical significance that would enhance the education or stimulation of the City’s inhabitants. Therefore, designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance this purpose of the Code to an extent that would justify designation of the Property as a landmark over the objection of the property owner. vi. Promote good urban design; It would not advance good urban design to designate as a landmark a property in such a significant state of disrepair and contamination. On the other hand, it would promote good urban design for Ms. Zipser and Dr. Kley to build a new home that reflects current best practices in urban design, including energy efficiency and accessibility features that support the needs of the aging community. Fort Collins City Plan lists as one of its areas of focus “Encouraging infill and redevelopment,” including policies that “support the conversion of vacant and underutilized properties to meet current and future needs and promote the efficient use of infrastructure.” As the Property is underutilized as a contaminated property in an advanced state of disrepair, declining to grant it landmark status and thereby encouraging redevelopment would comport with the good urban design principles in City Plan. Therefore, designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance this purpose of the Code to an extent that would justify designation of the Property as a landmark over the objection of the property owner. vii. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites, structures, objects or districts now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained under such a policy; and This purpose of the Code clearly acknowledges by its very language that it is a fundamental, threshold purpose. By including the words “to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained,” this purpose in the Code acknowledges that the other purposes listed in the Code cannot be attained unless this purpose has been achieved. Based on this this policy alone, the designation of the Property as a landmark not only fails to advance the policies and purposes of the Code, it frustrates these policies and purposes. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 83 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 14 A designation of this Property as a landmark would actively discourage private ownership of potential historic sites. On the contrary, it would endorse a buyer‐beware policy that would permit a seller of a dilapidated or contaminated property to sell their property as a tear‐down to maximize the sale value, pocket the proceeds of the sale, and then submit a landmark designation application that passes all of the diminution in value and burden of maintaining a historic resource to a surprised buyer. This policy would create an environment of mistrust between buyers who could not trust the intentions—or even the clear statements—of their sellers. It is clear from the public comment submitted in advance of the prior hearing that the circumstances of this designation have already raised concerns from the community, such as these: As two citizens of the City wrote in a joint letter to the Historic Preservation Commission, “As citizens of Fort Collins, we don’t understand why the claimants are pursuing a historic designation. Surely, the time for the owners to have secured such a finding was while they still owned the house, and before they advertised the property as a ‘true fixer‐upper’ where the owners could ‘creat[e] your own custom home in old town Fort Collins’ (attachment 7, exhibit A).” As Ms. Hoffman wrote to the Historic Preservation Commission, “I was shocked when the current owners of the property explained the after‐purchase grab for Historic Preservation Status by the listing owners.” As another commenter wrote in advance of the prior hearing to the Historic Preservation Commission, “Family members of the previous owners, who sold the house in 2021, are the ones applying for the designation. It is my opinion that this request should have been made before they sold the property and benefited financially from the house not having Landmark Designation at that time. . . . I think this has the potential to set a very negative and harmful precedent for homeowners should this particular application be approved.” As yet another commenter, the next‐door neighbor to the Property, stated in person at the prior hearing, “This whole situation seems really odd to me. The house is sold. The heirs take the money from the sale. After they have the money from the sale, they petition for landmark status. They had the ability to petition for landmark status before the sale, when the owners would have known what they were getting. Now, as a citizen, not just a neighbor, please don’t allow this process to be abused, to settle either family issues or personal issues, or for a seller to take advantage of a buyer.” Therefore, designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance this purpose of the Code and would in fact frustrate the other policies and purposes of the Code. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 84 Historic Preservation Commission March 15, 2023 Page 15 viii. Promote economic, social, and environmental sustainability through the ongoing survey and inventory, use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing buildings. For the same reasons that designation of the Property as a landmark would run counter to a purpose of promoting private ownership, designation of the Property as a landmark would also run counter to the purpose of promoting economic, social, and environmental sustainability. The economic sustainability of the community would not be furthered by preservation of a property that, according to Dr. Throupe’s Valuation Report, is “not marketable,” and the social sustainability of a community would not be furthered by the endorsement of a policy that permits sellers to sell their properties as tear‐downs, and then submit an application for designation as a landmark once the proceeds have been distributed. Environmental sustainability is not furthered by preserving a home that has been contaminated to an extent that it cannot be efficiently repaired. In this part of the Code, the phrase “environmental sustainability” refers to the idea that the environmental footprint of rehabilitating an existing structure may be lower than the footprint of tearing it down and replacing it. However, in this case, the structure needs to be stripped to its skeleton, its basement needs to be filled in to meet the city flood code, and every system and component needs to be replaced, only to end up with a house that will never be as energy efficient as a new build. Therefore, designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance environmental sustainability. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, as evidenced by this Letter and our presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Application does not demonstrate that the House satisfies the criteria for landmark designation in the Code. Specifically, the designation of the Property as a landmark would not advance the policies stated in Section 14‐1 of the Code or the purposes stated in Section 14‐2 of the Code in a manner and extent sufficient to justify hostile designation. In fact, due to the circumstances of this particular application, adopting a resolution recommending designation would frustrate the policies and purposes of the Code. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Historic Preservation Commission decline to adopt a resolution recommending that City Council designate the Property as a landmark. Sincerely, Carolynne C. White ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 85 Exhibit A To March 15, 2023 Cover Letter Prior Letter [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 86 24932152.8 Carolynne C. White Attorney at Law 303.223.1197 direct cwhite@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 303.223.1100 main 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 December 14, 2022 Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission City Hall West 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Ms. Jacqueline Zipser and Mr. Holger Kley, the owners of the property located at 323 S. Loomis Avenue (the “Property”) in the City of Fort Collins (the “City”)who oppose the petition and application for involuntary landmark designation (the “Application”) of the Property filed by applicants Ms. Terri Berger, Mr. Thomas Steven Berger,Mr. Jeff Berger (all members of the same household), and Mr. Jerry L. Hubka. A single-family structure (the “House”) is located on the Property. Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley do not consent to the designation of the House or Property as a landmark. This letter summarizes why the Property and House fail to meet the criteria for eligibility for landmark designation set forth in the Fort Collins Municipal Code (the “Code”). I.Background Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley purchased the Property in May 2021. The seller of the Property was the estate of the deceased prior homeowner, Ms. JoAnn Cannon,aka Jodie Cannon,the mother of applicant Ms. Terri Berger. The listing for the Property,published on May 5, 2021, and attached here as Exhibit A, advertised the Property with the statement, “If you’ve been thinking of creating your own custom home in old town Ft Collins, this might be it!” Before purchasing the House, Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley performed walkthroughs of the Property, at which time they became aware of an overwhelming smell of tobacco smoke pervasive throughout the House and of moisture in the basement. In fact, on the morning of the closing, there was an inch of wet mud in the basement. The Home Inspection Report prepared by Pillar to Post Home Inspectors prior to the closing on the sale and attached hereto at Exhibit B (the “Home Inspection Report”) also revealed several issues with the exterior, interior, and foundation of the home, including moisture damage to the exterior, loose and damaged bricks on the chimney, cracking in the foundation, electrical system issues, and gaps between the roof and the trim. Nonetheless, based on the listing and on their hopes of eliminating the issues on the Property when they built their own custom home,as well as on the fact that the House is neither a designated landmark nor located within a designated historic district,Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley purchased the Property. After purchasing the home, Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley began designing their new home. They started by investigating ways to incorporate the current façade of the House into their design. Given flood plain ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 87 24932152.8 Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2022 Page 2 issues, the extent of the smoke damage, and other significant structural and design issues,however, they ultimately settled on a new design. As part of their investigations, they commissioned an Asbestos Inspection and Sampling Report from Banyan Environmental based on inspections on June 29, 2021 and December 16, 2021, attached here as Exhibit C. The random sampling found multiple samples of asbestos in multiple areas of the home, including a bedroom, the kitchen, and the living room. They also requested an Abatement Services Proposal from Risk Removal Environmental Services on February 9, 2022,attached here as Exhibit D,which quoted a price of $17,425.00 to abate the samples identified during the random sampling. Although Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley executed the contract for the sale of the Property on May 6, 2021, no application for a landmark designation was filed for the Property or the House at any time prior to the Closing on May 28, 2021, during which time the Property was owned by the estate, the beneficial owners of which included the Applicant, Ms. Terri Berger, one of the four children of JoAnn Cannon. On October 17, 2022, nearly seventeen months after the closing, and after the estate received full payment for the Property, the Applicants filed the Application for landmark designation. In October 2016, a historic survey form for the Property was completed (the “Historic Survey”), which made findings with respect to the significance and integrity of the Property, and conclusions from such Historic Survey are included with the Application. According to Section 14-31(b)(1) of the Code, the purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the Property is eligible for landmark designation. For reasons that will be explained in more detail below, Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley disagree that the Property meets the eligibility criteria for designation as a landmark. As this Letter will demonstrate, the Property does not clearly meet the criteria for Significance or Integrity (both as defined in the Code)to be eligible for designation as a landmark. II.Analysis of Code Criteria Pursuant to Section 14-35(a) of the Code, when determining whether a resource shall be designated as a landmark,the Historic Preservation Commission must evaluate whether the following two criteria are satisfied: (A)the proposed resource is eligible for designation pursuant to Section 14-22 of the Code, and (B)the requested designation will advance the policies stated in Section 14-1 of the Code and the purposes stated in Section 14-2 of the Code in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the requested designation. As noted above, the purpose of this hearing is to address only the first of these two criteria, namely, whether the Property is eligible for designation as a landmark. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 88 24932152.8 Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2022 Page 3 For a resource to be eligible for designation as a landmark under the Code, it must possess both Significance (defined below) and Integrity (defined below). Code, § 14-22.For the reasons set forth below, the Property does not fulfill the criteria for Significance or for Integrity. A.The Property does not meet the criteria for Significance. Pursuant to Section 14-22 of the Code, “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” and is achieved by meeting any of the criteria set forth by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, as incorporated in the Code. These criteria include (1) events, (2) persons/groups, (3) design/construction, and (4) information potential.According to the Historic Survey and the Application, the Property meets the criteria for (1) events and (3) design/construction. However, for the following reasons, the Property does not meet these criteria: (1) Events. Resources. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events:(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. According to the Historic Survey and Application, this criterion is met because the Property “represents the development of the Loomis Addition,” which is characterized as “one of the first additions to the original town plat, during the early 20th century, a period of growth for the Loomis Addition and Fort Collins due to the construction of a sugar beet factory and other industries.” Additionally, the Historic Survey identifies that the foreman of the Great Western Sugar Company, a man named William Thompson, lived at the house for almost five decades. The events that the Historic Survey identifies are thus (1) the development of the Loomis Addition and (2) the construction of the sugar beet factory and other industries. However, the standard is a specific event or a “pattern of events or a historic trend” whose “recognizable contribution” creates historic significance. The Loomis Addition has not been formally recognized as a historically significant neighborhood, and in fact the House is not located within or associated with any districts or neighborhoods that the City has formally recognized as historically significant. Thus, there is no basis for formally recognizing the House as historically significant by association with any such district or neighborhood. Additionally, the fact that an employee of a Fort Collins industry lived in the house does not create historical significance.Throughout the history of Fort Collins, local houses have served as the residences of the employee base of the City, but this is not a pattern of events or a historic trend that is unique to Fort Collins or indeed any municipality. Additionally, William Thompson’s acting as foreman to the Great Western Sugar Company is not associated with his ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 89 24932152.8 Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2022 Page 4 ownership of or residence in the House, and there is no evidence that he carried out his employment duties in the House. Therefore, the House does not clearly meet this criterion for Significance. (3) Design/Construction. Resources may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of resources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A resource can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values.Code, § 14-22(a)(3). According to the Historic Survey and the Application, the House satisfies this criterion because it is “a unique example of an early 20th century small, middle-class home.” However, to be significant under this criterion, a resource should “embody” the characteristics of a type of construction, and the Historic Survey and Application state that the House is merely “reminiscent” of Tudor Revival style architecture and “aligned” with Queen Anne Cottage style architecture. Additionally, the Loomis Addition Survey Report prepared for the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program by Humstone Consulting in November 2017 addresses architectural styles in the neighborhood in Figure 5-11. Although Queen Anne/Variant is listed as one of the options, the House is listed as “Other,” which indicates that it does not “embody” or “represent” any distinguishable style, as required by this criterion. With respect to craftsmanship, the House does not clearly “represent the work of a craftsman or architect,” as it is merely “likely” attributed to the original owner, according to the Application and Historic Survey. The House’s uniqueness apparently is exhibited by its two porches and other design elements. But mere uniqueness is not an element of this criterion. The uniqueness must be related to “high artistic values or design concept,” they must be “recognizable and distinguishable,” or they must illustrate “changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time,” and the Historic Survey and Application do not demonstrate that the uniqueness is related to any of these criteria.Therefore, the House does not clearly meet this criterion for Significance. B.The Property does not meet the criteria for Integrity. According to the Code, to be eligible for designation as a landmark, a Property must possess not only Significance but also Integrity.Code, § 14-22. Pursuant to the Code, “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 the seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 90 24932152.8 Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2022 Page 5 Department of the Interior.” The Code sets forth seven criteria for Integrity, and the Code specifies that although not all seven criteria need to be present, the “overall sense of past time and place” must be “evident.”As described in detail above, there are many reasons why the Property does not clearly meet the criteria for Significance. However, even if it did meet the above criteria for Significance, it does not convey an “overall sense of past time and place”as required by the Code: (1)Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. As noted above, the incorporation in the Loomis Addition is not an adequate basis for a formal finding of Significance given that the Loomis Addition is not a recognized historic district. To the extent that the Significance of the Property is found to be its existence at the time that its resident William Thompson worked at the Great Western Sugar Company, the location of the Property does not help to convey the Integrity of the House, because its location is not related to William Thompson’s occupation or to the status of industry in Fort Collins during that period. Therefore, this criterion does not clearly weigh in favor of a finding of Integrity. (2)Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. Although the Historic Survey and Application indicate that the House retains integrity of design, many elements of the exterior have been replaced. The metal/fiberglass columns on the porches, and the concrete porches themselves are not original to the House. The metal porch railings are not original, and the asphalt shingles also are not original. The back porch has been enclosed since the House was constructed. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not clearly met. (3)Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. This criterion is closely related to the location of the Property. The surrounding houses are of a similar period, but if the Significance is not related to the House’s location or to any formally recognized Significance of the surrounding neighborhood, then the Integrity of the House is also not closely related to its setting, and this criterion does not clearly weigh in favor of a finding of Integrity. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 91 24932152.8 Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2022 Page 6 (4)Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. This is by far the most troubling criterion and the one to which the Historic Preservation Commission should afford great weight. The contamination and absolute degradation of the materials forming the House are the main reason why the House fails to retain the criterion of Integrity. Many of the House’s original materials exist, but these materials have been severely degraded by both asbestos and tobacco. After only a random sampling of the House for asbestos was performed, the House was found to be contaminated with asbestos in several rooms, including the bedroom, the kitchen, and the living room, which means that cleanup is already anticipated to be extensive before a more comprehensive test is performed that may find more contamination.Additionally,the degree to which the house is contaminated with tobacco smoke makes it uninhabitable for the current owners. The Home Inspection Report also details a number of issues with the exterior and interior of the home, including but not limited to the following: Cracking in the steps and foundational elements. Moisture damage/compromise on the exterior. Chimney in need of repair for mortar and loose/damaged bricks. Moisture damage/rot and missing paint on the windows. Multiple electrical concerns on the distribution panel. Leak/drip from supply line in distribution piping and from waste drain pipe. Staining in the ceiling, likely as a result of moisture penetration. Cracked windows. Flaking/bubbling paint on the exterior. Cracking and settlement in the walkways. There is no evidence to suggest that full and satisfactory remediation is possible (despite initial investigation by Ms. Zipser and Mr. Kley). The determination regarding Integrity must be made based on the state of the House as it exists today and not on speculation as to whether it could be remediated. The listing of the House acknowledged that the House exists today as a “True fixer-upper.” Therefore, the House’s materials weigh heavily against a finding of sufficient Integrity for purposes of eligibility for landmark designation. (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. Although the Historic Survey and Application mention the “unusual craftsmanship”of the House, merely being “unusual” does not necessarily imply evidence of labor and skill. Additionally, the original craftsman has not been identified, although the Historic Survey and Application mention that it is “likely” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 92 24932152.8 Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2022 Page 7 that the original owner, carpenter A.J. Hood, was the craftsman. Therefore, this criterion does not clearly weigh in favor of a finding of Integrity. (6)Feeling is a resource’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource’s historic or prehistoric character. The Historic Survey and Application point to specific physical features such as the porches (although the concrete and railings are not original), the work reminiscent of half-timbering, the decorative shingles, the classical elements, and the one-story design as features that convey the House’s historic character. However, these features are said only to be “reminiscent” or “aligned” with the styles with which they are associated (specifically, Tudor Revival and Queen Anne Cottage), rather than embodiments or clear representations of these styles. Further, the “feeling” of the historic home must include consideration of its uninhabitability due to long term smoke damage, structural damage, replacement of the railings and roof with non-historic materials and pervasive existence of asbestos. Therefore, this criterion does not clearly weigh in favor of a finding of Integrity. (7)Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource’s historic or prehistoric character. As noted above, the association between the House and the elements that indicate Significance is tenuous.Additionally, a key element of this criterion is that the House must be “sufficiently intact” to convey its association to historical events and persons. As described above, the contamination of the House and the various issues with the exterior and interior means that it is not “sufficiently intact” to convey its meaning.In addition to the issues noted above, the very foundation of the House was partially dismantled to make room for a furnace.The lack of Integrity is also indicated by the listing of this Property that described it as a “True fixer-upper.” Therefore, this criterion weighs heavily against a finding of Integrity. III.Conclusion In conclusion, as evidenced by this Letter and our presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Application does not demonstrate that the House satisfies the criteria for eligibility for landmark designation in the Code. Specifically, the Property is does not clearly meet the criteria for Significance or Integrity in Section 14-22 of the Code. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 93 24932152.8 Historic Preservation Commission December 14, 2022 Page 8 Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Historic Preservation Commission find that the Property is ineligible for designation as a landmark under the Code. Sincerely, Carolynne C. White ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 94 24932152.8 Exhibit A Home Listing [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 95 10/24/22, 1:30 PM Listing Detail for 323 S Loomis Ave https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=f038mc3w3dz&lid=1241382 1/5 Report created on May 5, 2021 by Jeanette Meyer 323 S Loomis Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Residential-Detached $534,000 Est. Payment: $2,659.15 IRES MLS # 939403 Sold 3 Bed 1473 Total SqFt ($363/SF) 1 Bath (1F)1 Story/Ranch Style 0.22 Acres 0 Garage Spaces Built in 1905 Larimer County Summaries 1 of 1 Welcome to 323 S Loomis! ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 96 10/24/22, 1:30 PM Listing Detail for 323 S Loomis Ave https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=f038mc3w3dz&lid=1241382 2/5 LOOMIS Subdivision Rare find in coveted old town Ft Collins. Unique & compelling exterior design. True fixer-upper. Large 190 x 50ft lot with mature trees & alley access. Fenced yard, carport. Unique floor plan with 2 covered front side porches, allowing access to each side of the house (likely home office access in the past). 3 bedrooms, 1 bath with claw foot tub. Original built-ins, windows & fir floors. Floor plan is conducive to an addition for new kitchen, bath, etc off the back. Stone foundation cellar (24x12) offers rustic and charming backdrop for your future wine cellar. If you've been thinking of creating your own custom home in old town Ft Collins, this might be it! Roof has been inspected and minor corrections completed. Home is being offered as-is. Please contact listing agent with questions and to schedule a showing. Per City of FC, floodplain status updated to 100 year floodplain. View this property on Google Maps General Features Listing Type Residential-Detached Garage Carport Lot SqFt 9,603 Acreage 0.22 Zoning SFR Legal Description S 20 FT OF LOT 12 & N 30 FT OF LOT 13, BLK 278, LOOMIS,FTC Square Feet Total 1473 SqFt ($363/SF) Finished w/o Bsmt 1185 SqFt ($451/SF) Total Finished 1185 SqFt ($451/SF) Main Level 1185 SqFt Basement 288 SqFt Taxes and Fees Taxes/Tax Year $3123.44 / 2020 Metro Dist - Schools School District Poudre Elementary Putnam Streets © OpenStreetMap contributors ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 97 10/24/22, 1:30 PM Listing Detail for 323 S Loomis Ave https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=f038mc3w3dz&lid=1241382 3/5 Middle/Jr High Lincoln High Poudre Room Dimensions Primary Bedroom 10 x 12 (Main) Bedroom 2 10 x 12 (Main) Bedroom 3 8 x 13 (Main) Kitchen 12 x 14 (Main) Living Room 12 x 13 (Main) Dining Room 14 x 15 (Main) Laundry Room 0 x 0 (Main) Note: All room dimensions, including square footage data, are approximate and must be verified by the buyer. Construction Construction Wood/Frame Cooling Ceiling Fan Heating Forced Air Documents / Floor Plans Closing Instructions COVID-19 Documents Fort Collins Disclosure Regarding Occupancy Limits Lead-Based Paint Disclosure (Sales) Seller's Property Disclosure (All Types of Property) Source of Water Addendum Square Footage Disclosure Additional Features Type Cottage/Bung, Fixer-Upper Design Features Separate Dining Room, Wood Windows, Washer/Dryer Hookups, Wood Floors, 9ft+ Ceilings Basement Foundation Partial Basement Location Description Evergreen Trees, Deciduous Trees, Level Lot Inclusions Window Coverings, Dishwasher Outdoor Features Lawn Sprinkler System, RV/Boat Parking Walkscore ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 98 10/24/22, 1:30 PM Listing Detail for 323 S Loomis Ave https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=f038mc3w3dz&lid=1241382 4/5 Jeanette Meyer 970-481-9340 Phone jmmgroup1@gmail.com Visit Agent Website RE/MAX Alliance-FTC South 4703-A Boardwalk Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-226-3990 Phone ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 99 10/24/22, 1:30 PM Listing Detail for 323 S Loomis Ave https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=f038mc3w3dz&lid=1241382 5/5 Visit Office Website Listing Agent: Sue Viney | Listing Office: Hazel Sky Homes Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. MLS content and images copyright 1995-2022, IRES LLC. All rights reserved. WARNING: This database record is provided subject to limited license rights. Duplication or reproduction is prohibited. DMCA Notice Accessibility: IRES MLS is conducting periodic site audits in order to identify potential accessibility issues and is implementing changes to improve accessibility. For more information, contact IRES. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 100 24932152.8 Exhibit B Home Inspection Report [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 101 Home Inspection Report Prepared exclusively for Holger Kley PROPERTY INSPECTED: 323 South Loomis Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Date of Inspection: 05/13/2021 Inspection No. 46897-1085 INSPECTED BY: Front Range Home Inspections dba Pillar To Post PO Box 270042 Fort Collins, CO 80527 dan.devries@pillartopost.com (970) 372-8052 INSPECTOR: Daniel Devries daniel.devries@pillartopost.com (970) 372-8052 Each o!ce is independently owned and operated ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 102 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 REPORT SUMMARY This summary is not the entire report. The complete report may include additional information of concern to the client. It is recommended that the client read the entire report. EXTERIOR3.0 Wall Surface 3.2.3 Flaking/bubbling paint noted throughout the exterior. Have checked and addressed by professional and correct de"ciencies as needed. 3.2.4 Moisture damage/compromise noted in areas of the exterior. Determine extent of concerns and correct as needed to help promote intended weathering protection. 3.2 Page 1 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 103 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Windows 3.4.1 Missing paint and some moisture damage/rot noted on windows. Given the age of the window systems recommend further evaluation to determine extensive de"ciencies and correct as needed. 3.4 Page 2 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 104 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 ROOFING SYSTEM4.0 Chimney(s) 4.6.1 Chimneys appear to be in need of repair for mortar and loose/damaged bricks. Consult with Mason regarding this concern and correct de"ciencies as needed. 4.6 Page 3 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 105 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM8.0 Distribution Panel(s) 8.4.1 Concerns of the distribution panel include: 1) Improperly splice connections 2) Penetrations in the side of the distribution panel 3) Double tapped wires noted Recommend further evaluation of electrical system and correct de"ciencies as needed to help promote safety concerns. 8.4 Branch Circuit Wiring 8.6.2 Active knob and tube noted in the attic. Further evaluation is required to determine the presence and full extent of concealed knob and tube wiring throughout house and the associated cost of removal. Knob and tube removal may be required by your insurance company. 8.6 Page 4 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 106 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 HEATING/COOLING/VENTILATION SYSTEM(S)9.0 Floor/Wall Furnace 9.4.2 Given its age recommend further evaluation of system by professional and clean and service. 9.4 Electric Heating System(s) 9.5.1 Baseboard heating in kitchen appears to not function at time of inspection. Have checked and addressed by professional. 9.5 Page 5 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 107 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 PLUMBING SYSTEM10.0 Distribution Piping 10.2.3 Leak/drip noted from supply line in crawlspace area. Have checked and addressed by professional and provide remedial maintenance as needed. 10.2 Drain, Waste, and Vent Piping 10.3.2 Loose vent noted in the stairwell to basement. Have checked by plumbing professional to help promote continuous venting system. 10.3.3 Leak/drip noted from waste drain pipe in crawlspace. Have checked and addressed by 10.3 Page 6 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 108 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 10.3.3 Leak/drip noted from waste drain pipe in crawlspace. Have checked and addressed by professional and provide remedial maintenance as needed. Water Heating Equipment 10.4.2 Concerns of the water heater include: 1. No shut o# on inlet 2. Missing discharge tube 3. Unit is leaking Given its age recommend further evaluation of water heater by professional and provide remedial maintenance as needed. 10.4 Page 7 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 109 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 INTERIOR11.0 Walls / Ceilings 11.2.3 Staining noted on the ceiling in multiple areas of the house. Typically this is indicative of moisture penetration in this area. Recommend further evaluation to determine cause and extent of concerns and provide remedial maintenance as needed. 11.2 Windows 11.3.2 Cracks/damage noted in multiple windows. Correct as needed to help promote safety concerns. 11.3 Page 8 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 110 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 11.3.2 Cracks/damage noted in multiple windows. Correct as needed to help promote safety concerns. Page 9 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 111 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 INSPECTION REPORT INTRODUCTION1.0 General Information 1.1.1 Conditions noted in this report should be further evaluated by a professional as the extent of some concerns may not be evident on a home inspection. 1.1.2 A visual inspection was conducted today. This is not an exhaustive, detailed inspection but rather a general inspection on the key maintenance items; roof, chimney, exterior, windows, landscaping, mechanical systems such as hot water tank, furnace and air conditioning. All observations are based on what was visual at the time of inspection. This inspection is not a warranty or guarantee and it should be noted that conditions can quickly change in a short period of time. 1.1.3 A PREMIUM inspection was selected for today's inspection. 1.1.4 Temperature at time of inspection is 68 1.1.5 Structure is built on/before 1978 which means the house has a possibility of containing lead based paint, asbestos, or both. Recommend further testing of structure by lead based paint and asbestos professionals to determine if this house is in need of remediation from these substances. 1.1 Scope of Inspection 1.2.1 Today's inspection has been conducted in accordance to the ASHI Standards of Practice. Please refer to the ASHI Standards included in your inspection binder for full Scope and code of ethics. 1.2 PROPERTY AND SITE2.0 Landscape / Grading 2.1.1 Some neutral to negative drainage noted. Improve to promote intended water sheading. 2.1 Walkway(s) Concrete 2.2.1 Cracking and settlement noted to walkways. Consult with concrete professional regarding remedial measures available to you. 2.2 Driveway(s) Gravel 2.3 Page 10 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 112 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 EXTERIOR3.0 Foundation Surface Concrete block 3.1.1 Some step cracking noted and foundational elements. Have checked by professional and de"ciencies addressed. 3.1 Wall Surface Wood 3.2.1 The wall surfaces were inspected and no signi"cant de"ciencies were observed. 3.2.2 . 3.2 Page 11 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 113 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 3.2.2 . 3.2.3 Flaking/bubbling paint noted throughout the exterior. Have checked and addressed by professional and correct de!ciencies as needed. 3.2.4 Moisture damage/compromise noted in areas of the exterior. Determine extent of concernsPage 12 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 114 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 3.2.4 Moisture damage/compromise noted in areas of the exterior. Determine extent of concerns and correct as needed to help promote intended weathering protection. 3.2.5 Knee wall on the exterior appears to be leaning and poorly secured. Correct as needed to restore intended integrity. Eaves / Fascia / So"t Wood 3.3.1 The eaves / fascia / so!ts were inspected and no signi"cant de"ciencies were observed. 3.3 Page 13 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 115 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Windows Wood 3.4.1 Missing paint and some moisture damage/rot noted on windows. Given the age of the window systems recommend further evaluation to determine extensive de!ciencies and correct as needed. 3.4 Exterior Doors Deadbolt Metal 3.5.1 The doors were inspected and no signi"cant de"ciencies were observed. 3.5 ROOFING SYSTEM4.0 Limitations4.1 Slope to steep to safely access Page 14 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 116 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Roo!ng Inspection Method Walked on roof surface. 4.2.1 . 4.2 Sloped Surface(s) Asphalt shingles 4.3.1 Some granule loss and thermal cracking noted on the shingle surface. Typical as a roof system ages but does indicate wear of materials. Monitor seasonally for changing correct de"ciencies is needed. 4.3.2 Trim and maintain vegetation away from roof covering to help prevent premature wear. 4.3 Page 15 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 117 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 4.3.2 Trim and maintain vegetation away from roof covering to help prevent premature wear. 4.3.3 Gaps noted were sloped surface meets trim. This can allow pest and moisture activity. Provide remedial maintenance as needed. Flashings Chimney Plumbing stack 4.4 Roof Drainage Galvanized 4.5.1 Gutters are full of leaves and debris. Clean and remove debris from gutters for proper drainage o# roof. This is an ongoing maintenance requirement that should be completed twice a year or as required. 4.5 Page 16 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 118 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Chimney(s) Masonry 4.6.1 Chimneys appear to be in need of repair for mortar and loose/damaged bricks. Consult with Mason regarding this concern and correct de!ciencies as needed. 4.6 ATTIC5.0 Attic General Comments Attic inspected from the hatch area. 5.1 Attic Access Ceiling Hatch 5.2 Insulation Fiberglass Batt 5.3.1 The insulation levels in the attic are insu!cient. Provide additional insulation to prevent excessive heat loss / gain and improve energy e!ciency. 5.3.2 Possible vermiculite insulation noted in attic space. Correct as needed as typically this installation contains some asbestos. 5.3 Ventilation Gable vents 5.4 Page 17 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 119 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Sheathing Plywood / Oriented Strand Board 5.5.1 The sheathing was inspected and no signiciant de"ciencies were observed. 5.5 GARAGE / CARPORT6.0 Structure 6.1.1 Metal pole carport noted in backyard area. 6.1.2 Carport has sagging/damaged/moisture absorption noted on the overhead ceiling boards and frame. Fix or replace necessary components on carport to help promote stability and functionality. 6.1 STRUCTURE7.0 Foundation Stone 7.1.1 Stone foundations are typically susceptible to deteriorating water and moisture intrusion. Periodic maintenance will be necessary, monitor system and provide collective maintenance as needed. 7.1 Support - Post / Beam / Column Wood beam support Wood support post 7.2 Page 18 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 120 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Floor Structure Wood - dimensional lumber. 7.3 Roof Structure Rafters 7.4 Crawlspace Crawlspace was inspected by entering the crawlspace. 7.5.1 . 7.5 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM8.0 Service Entrance Electrical service to the home is by underground cables. 8.1 Service Size 8.2.1 Riverside is undetermined. No data plates noted to indicate service size to the structure. Consult with electrician regarding the service side to the property. 8.2 Main Disconnect(s) 8.3.1 Two breakers located on the exterior appear to be the main disconnect. Neither have an amperage rating on them. 8.3 Page 19 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 121 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Distribution Panel(s) Breakers 8.4.1 Concerns of the distribution panel include: 1) Improperly splice connections 2) Penetrations in the side of the distribution panel 3) Double tapped wires noted Recommend further evaluation of electrical system and correct de!ciencies as needed to help promote safety concerns. 8.4.2 Panels scanned with IR camera during operation. No overheating components noted at time of 8.4 Page 20 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 122 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 8.4.2 Panels scanned with IR camera during operation. No overheating components noted at time of inspection. Grounding Grounded at grounding rod. 8.5.1 Ground rod located on exterior. 8.5 Page 21 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 123 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Branch Circuit Wiring Copper wire branch circuits. 8.6.1 Some cloth wrapped wiring is noted. Often times this indicates knob and tube wiring system. Knob and tube is ungrounded service by de"nition and typically considered obsolete. Recommend further evaluation to determine extent of older wiring in the house and correct as needed to help promote safety concerns. 8.6.2 Active knob and tube noted in the attic. Further evaluation is required to determine the presence and full extent of concealed knob and tube wiring throughout house and the associated cost of removal. Knob and tube removal may be required by your insurance company. 8.6.3 The branch circuit wiring has exposed splices. A quali"ed electrician should correct as required for electrical safety. 8.6 Page 22 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 124 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Receptacles Three pronged receptacles Two pronged receptacles Ungrounded 8.7.1 There are ungrounded two-prong receptacles. A quali"ed electrician should further assess and correct as required for electrical safety. 8.7.2 There are ungrounded three-prong receptacles. A quali"ed electrician should further assess and correct as required for electrical safety. 8.7 Lighting / Ceiling Fan(s) 8.8.1 The lighting / ceiling fan(s) were inspected and no signi"cant de"ciencies were observed. 8.8 GFCI Devices 8.9.1 Recommend upgrading to GFCI devices in potentially wet places such as kitchen, bathrooms, garage, and exterior. This is standard in today’s construction. 8.9 Smoke Alarms 8.10.1 Present 8.10.2 Recommend replacing smoke alarms when taking possession to ensure that new, properly functioning and properly-located "re protection is in place. 8.10 Page 23 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 125 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Carbon Monoxide Alarms 8.11.1 Present 8.11 HEATING/COOLING/VENTILATION SYSTEM(S)9.0 Thermostat(s) Standard 9.1 Energy Source(s) Natural Gas 9.2 Meter Natural Gas 9.3 Floor/Wall Furnace 9.4.1 Louisville tin and stove co. 25 yrs old 9.4.2 Given its age recommend further evaluation of system by professional and clean and service. 9.4 Page 24 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 126 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Electric Heating System(s) Baseboard 9.5.1 Baseboard heating in kitchen appears to not function at time of inspection. Have checked and addressed by professional. 9.5 Distribution System(s) Floor grate 9.6 Natural Gas Piping Black pipe Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing 9.7.1 No gas cap on inlets. Correct to promote safety concerns. 9.7 PLUMBING SYSTEM10.0 Water Main Water main is plastic pipe. 10.1 Distribution Piping Interior water supply pipes are plastic. 10.2.1 The water $ow was observed with multiple "xtures operating. Water $ow / pressure drop was typical. 10.2.2 Galvanized plumbing components noted. Determine if galvanized plumbing is still active. 10.2 Page 25 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 127 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 10.2.2 Galvanized plumbing components noted. Determine if galvanized plumbing is still active. 10.2.3 Leak/drip noted from supply line in crawlspace area. Have checked and addressed by professional and provide remedial maintenance as needed. Page 26 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 128 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Drain, Waste, and Vent Piping Cast iron 10.3.1 Main cleanout located on the exterior, real aspect. Permanent cap is not installed at this time. Recommend capping. 10.3.2 Loose vent noted in the stairwell to basement. Have checked by plumbing professional to help promote continuous venting system. 10.3.3 Leak/drip noted from waste drain pipe in crawlspace. Have checked and addressed by 10.3 Page 27 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 129 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 10.3.3 Leak/drip noted from waste drain pipe in crawlspace. Have checked and addressed by professional and provide remedial maintenance as needed. Water Heating Equipment Water heater is located in the basement 10.4.1 Richmond 40 gal Approximately 16 yrs old 10.4.2 Concerns of the water heater include: 10.4 Page 28 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 130 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 10.4.2 Concerns of the water heater include: 1. No shut o# on inlet 2. Missing discharge tube 3. Unit is leaking Given its age recommend further evaluation of water heater by professional and provide remedial maintenance as needed. 10.4.3 Gas shut o# to unit, unable to function at time of inspection. Have functioned when gas supply is reestablished. Hose Bib(s) 10.5.1 The hose bibb(s) were operated and functioned as intended. 10.5 Fixtures / Faucets 10.6.1 Faucets operated. 10.6 Sink(s) 10.7.1 The sinks were operated and functioned as intended. 10.7 Toilet(s) 10.8.1 Water supply to toilet was shut o#. Could not evaluate at this time. Have checked when possible. 10.8 Page 29 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 131 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Tub(s) / Shower(s) 10.9.1 The tub(s) / shower(s) were operated and functioned as intended. 10.9 Floor drain 10.10.1 No $oor drain noted 10.10 INTERIOR11.0 Floors Carpet Hardwood 11.1.1 Hardwood is worn, loose, and missing stain in some spots. Provide remedial maintenance as needed the $ooring systems. 11.1.2 Flooring is not level in spots. Typical given the age of property and construction methods. However it does indicate wearing of support materials. Consult with professional regarding this installation and remedial measures available to you. 11.1.3 Carpet has stains and is lifting up in some areas. Correct as needed. 11.1 Page 30 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 132 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Walls / Ceilings Lath and Plaster 11.2.1 Some walls have glass squares on them. Some of these are loose and not properly secured. Provide remedial maintenance as needed to help promote safety concerns. 11.2.2 Some cracking noted in the walls. Correct as needed as this is a cosmetic concern. 11.2 Page 31 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 133 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 11.2.2 Some cracking noted in the walls. Correct as needed as this is a cosmetic concern. 11.2.3 Staining noted on the ceiling in multiple areas of the house. Typically this is indicative of moisture penetration in this area. Recommend further evaluation to determine cause and extent of concerns and provide remedial maintenance as needed. Page 32 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 134 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Windows Wood 11.3.1 Windows are stuck/painted shut. Correct as needed to help restore intended functionality. 11.3.2 Cracks/damage noted in multiple windows. Correct as needed to help promote safety concerns. 11.3 Page 33 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 135 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Doors Wood 11.4.1 Some doors do not latch or close properly. Correct as needed as this is a cosmetic issue. 11.4 Stairs / Railings / Guardrails Wood 11.5.1 No handrail noted down to basement area. Install to help promote safety concerns. 11.5.2 Stairs are uneven. Tread depth and height inconsistent. Have checked and addressed and 11.5 Page 34 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 136 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 11.5.2 Stairs are uneven. Tread depth and height inconsistent. Have checked and addressed and provide remedial maintenance as needed. Countertops / Cabinets Laminate 11.6.1 Multiple chips noted on kitchen sink counter. Correct as needed. 11.6 Page 35 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 137 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 APPLIANCES12.0 Refrigerator 12.1.1 No refrigerator noted at time of inspection 12.1 Ranges / Ovens / Cooktops 12.2.1 No stove/oven at time of inspection 12.2 Range Hood 12.3.1 No range hood at time of inspection 12.3 Dishwasher Built-in 12.4.1 The dishwasher(s) were operated for primary function and worked as intended. 12.4.2 Kenmore unit 12.4 Page 36 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 138 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 12.4.2 Kenmore unit Microwave Oven 12.5.1 No microwave at time of inspection 12.5 Food Waste Disposer 12.6.1 The food waste disposer(s) were operated for primary function and worked as intended. 12.6 Clothes Washer 12.7.1 No washer at time of inspection 12.7 Page 37 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 139 46897-1085 323 South Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 05/13/2021 Clothes Dryer 12.8.1 No dryer at time of inspection 12.8 Door Bell and Chimes 12.9.1 The doorbell(s) and chimes were operated for primary function and worked as intended. 12.9 Page 38 of 38Daniel Devries ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 140 24932152.8 Exhibit C Asbestos Inspection and Sampling Report [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 141 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Suite 218 Windsor, CO 80550 970.222.6849 banyanenv@gmail.com Asbestos Inspection and Sampling Report 323 S Loomis Ave Ft. Collins, CO Presented To: Forge & Bow Performed & Prepared By: Andy Dunnell Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Suite 218 Windsor, CO 80550 970.222.6849 Project Details: Project Number: BD3942 Conducted: June 29, 2021 & December 16, 2021 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 142 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Scope of Work 3.0 Site Description 4.0 Certifications 5.0 Inspection, Sampling & Analytical Procedures 5.1 Inspection Procedures 5.2 Sampling Procedures 5.3 Analytical Procedures 6.0 Homogeneous Areas 6.1 Material Friability 6.2 Material Classifications 6.3 Material Conditions 6.4 Sample Quantities 7.0 Overview of Findings 8.0 Findings & Recommendations 9.0 Asbestos Abatement & Demolition Requirements 10.0 Disclaimer & Limitations ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 143 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 Introduction On June 29 & December 16, 2021, Andy Dunnell with Banyan Environmental conducted a full asbestos inspection and collected asbestos bulk-samples of suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) within the single-family residence located at 323 S Loomis Ave Ft. Collins, Colorado. The purpose of the full inspection was to identify and sample potentially hazardous friable and non-friable ACM that may be impacted by subsequent demolition activities. 2.0 Scope of Work The scope of the full inspection and bulk-sampling was not limited to specific areas of the residence defined by the construction company. These areas included the bedrooms, living, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, basement (all accessible areas). The full asbestos inspection did constitute a full building inspection and does fulfill the asbestos inspection requirements for structures that are to be demolished. 3.0 Site Description The residence is a wood-framed, single-family residence with an unfinished basement. 4.0 Certifications The full asbestos inspection and bulk-sampling was conducted by Andy Dunnell with Banyan Environmental is a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) certified Asbestos Consulting Firm, Registration No. 16780. Mr. Dunnell is a CDPHE certified Building Inspector; having certification number 15895. 5.0 Inspection, Sampling & Analytical Procedures 5.1 Inspection Procedures The full asbestos inspection was conducted by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CDPHE certified Building Inspector. The inspection procedures included identifying and sampling suspect ACM within the pre-defined areas, submitting samples to an accredited laboratory for analysis, classifying the materials and assessing their condition, and compiling a final report detailing the inspection and the analytical results of the bulk-samples. 5.2 Sampling Procedures Statistically random bulk-samples representative of the suspect ACM of each homogeneous area were collected according to the guidelines published as EPA Final Rule: Title II of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 USC, Sections 2641 through 2654 and in compliance with 40 CFR, Part 763 and CDPHE Regulation Number 8, Part B- Asbestos (Reg. 8). Banyan Environmental has collected the appropriate number of bulk-samples to meet all regulatory requirements for the classification and quantity of each homogeneous area. Some minor destructive sampling was conducted; however, walls, columns and perimeter pipe chases were not broken into in order to locate and quantify suspect ACM. Banyan is not responsible for repairing the damage from ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 144 collecting bulk samples. It should be noted that additional ACM might be located in these and other inaccessible areas. Materials containing less than 1% asbestos are not regulated by CDPHE Regulation 8, Part B – Asbestos. However, all demolition/abatement activities should be performed following the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. This would include, but not limited to, the appropriate asbestos training for the type of material being removed/disturbed as well as having a properly trained supervisor onsite, using wet removal methods, wearing adequate personal protective equipment (HEPA-filtered particulate respirators), medical surveillance of workers, personal-exposure air monitoring, area air monitoring in occupied buildings, etc. There may also be landfill disposal requirements for these materials, depending on the facility. Banyan recommends that all demolition/renovation areas involving any amount of asbestos be subjected to visual inspections and a final clearance air testing by a CDPHE-certified Air Monitoring Specialist (AMS) after the work has been completed, but before any containments are dismantled and the area is reoccupied. 5.3 Analytical Procedures All asbestos bulk-samples were analyzed by a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredited laboratory via Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) for asbestos content (see Appendix B for laboratory report). 6.0 Homogeneous Areas A Homogeneous Area (HA) includes materials that are uniform in appearance, color, texture and date of application. The asbestos content of the bulk-samples collected within a homogeneous area can be applied to the entire homogenous area if they conform to the above characteristics and the regulated minimum sample quantities of each type of material are collected and analyzed. 6.1 Material Friability A material can either be friable or non-friable. A friable material is one that, when dry, can be pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure, a non-friable material cannot. A non-friable material may become friable if its condition had deteriorated or has been impacted by forces that have rendered it friable. 6.2 Material Classifications Sampled materials are divided into one of the following three categories: • Surfacing Material: sprayed or troweled onto structural building members • Thermal System Insulation (TSI): any type of pipe, boiler, tank, or duct insulation • Miscellaneous Material: all other materials not classified in the above two categories 6.3 Material Conditions Sampled materials are placed into one of the three following categories of conditions: • Good: none to very little visible damage or deterioration • Damaged: the surface is crumbling, blistered, water-stained, gouged, marred or otherwise abraded over less than one-tenth of the surface if the damage is evenly distributed, or one-quarter if the damage is localized • Significantly Damaged: the surface is crumbling, blistered, water-stained, gouged, marred or otherwise abraded over greater than one-tenth of the surface if the damage is evenly distributed, or one-quarter if the damage is localized ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 145 6.4 Sample Quantities Banyan Environmental collected at least the minimum number of samples from each homogeneous area necessary to meet all regulatory requirements for the quantity of material to be disturbed. The quantities listed in this report are approximate and on-site verification of the exact quantity of each material is required. The following outlines the minimum sample quantities required per homogeneous area: • Surfacing Materials: up to 1,000 ft2 of material requires a minimum of three (3) samples; between 1,000 ft2 and 5,000 ft2 of material requires a minimum of five (5) samples; over 5,000 ft2 of material requires a minimum of seven (7) samples; one (1) sample of each patch • Thermal System Insulation (TSI): each homogeneous area requires a minimum of three (3) samples; at least one (1) sample must be collected from each patch; and collect enough samples sufficient to adequately assess the material and determine the asbestos content for TSI fittings such as pipe elbows or T’s. • Miscellaneous Materials: collect enough samples sufficient to determine the asbestos content 7.0 Overview of Findings Asbestos was reported within some of the materials collected. Banyan Environmental collected a total of sixteen (16) asbestos bulk-samples of six (6) homogeneous areas. These areas included a trawled surfacing texture found in the south bedroom, living room ceiling, east parlor ceiling, duct wrap around vent boot and duct under floor in kitchen, vertical transite pipe at basement stairwell and above water heater, kitchen VCT flooring under carpet and linoleum, exterior window glazing. Table 1 below describes the materials composing each homogeneous area as well as the locations of each bulk-sample collected. Also listed is the classification, condition, friability and estimated quantity of material to be removed and/or disturbed, as well as the asbestos content within each bulk-sample. Please see Appendix B: Analytical Data for the layer break-down of each bulk-sample. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 146 Table 1 HA # Sample Number Material Class Material and Location Material Condition Estimated Quantity Material Friability Asbestos Content 1 PL-6 SM South bedroom plaster south wall. Trawled txt G ~550 sqft Friable 2% mud PC 1.8% PL-2 South bedroom plaster north wall in patch. Trawled txt G Friable 2% mud PC 1.5% PL-2.1 South bedroom plaster north wall ~4' up. Trawled txt G Friable 2% texture PL-2.2 South bedroom plaster north wall ~4' up. Trawled txt G Friable 2% texture PL-2.3 South bedroom plaster south wall. Trawled txt G Friable 2% texture 2 PL-3 SM Hallway to kitchen plaster south wall. Trawled txt G ~700 sqft Friable ND PL-4 Kitchen plaster east wall. Trawled txt G Friable ND PL-5 Hallway to kitchen ceiling plaster. Trawled txt G Friable ND 3 PL-1 SM Northwest bedroom plaster south wall. Orange peel txt G ~550 sqft Friable ND PL-6.1 Northwest bedroom plaster east wall. Orange peel txt G Friable ND PL-6.2 Northwest bedroom plaster west wall. Orange peel txt G Friable ND PL-6.3 Northwest bedroom plaster north wall. Orange peel txt G Friable ND PL-7 Northwest bedroom plaster west wall. Orange peel txt G Friable ND PL-8 Northwest bedroom plaster east wall. Orange peel txt G Friable ND 4 LOP-9 SM Kitchen bathroom ceiling drywall. Light orange peel txt G ~70 sqft Friable ND LOP-10 Kitchen bathroom ceiling drywall. Light orange peel txt G Friable ND LOP-11 Kitchen bathroom ceiling drywall. Light orange peel txt G Friable ND 5 MM-12 MM Kitchen duct wrap around foot. More material directly under in crawl space G ~10 sqft Friable 85% wrap MM-13 Kitchen duct wrap around foot. More material directly under in crawl space G Friable 85% wrap ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 147 6 MM-14 MM Basement stairwell vertical 3" pipe G ~20 lf Non Friable 10% crocidolite 65% chrysotile MM-15 Basement stairwell vertical 3" pipe G Non Friable 10% crocidolite 65% chrysotile 7 VIN-16 MM Kitchen linoleum/tile under carpet G ~190 sqft Non Friable 3% floor tile VIN-17 Kitchen linoleum/tile under carpet G Non Friable 3% floor tile 8 RF-18 MM Exterior roof shingles G ~1185 sqft Non Friable ND RF-19 Exterior roof shingles G Non Friable ND Sampled 12/16/2021 9 PL-20 SM Living room plaster west wall w/ wallpaper behind wood paneling G ~70 sqft Friable ND PL-21 Living room plaster north wall w/ wallpaper behind wood paneling G Friable ND PL-22 East parlor room plaster south wall w/ wallpaper behind wood paneling G Friable ND 10 PL-23 SM Living room ceiling plaster. Skip Trawled-like G ~70 sqft Friable 2% texture PC 2.8% PL-24 Living room ceiling plaster. Skip Trawled-like G Friable 2% texture PL-25 East parlor room ceiling plaster. Skip Trawled-like G Friable 2% texture 11 PL-26 SM Northeast bedroom ceiling plaster. Trawled txt G ~70 sqft Friable ND PL-27 Northeast bedroom ceiling plaster. Trawled txt G Friable ND PL-28 Northeast bedroom ceiling plaster. Trawled txt G Friable ND 2 PL-29 SM Northeast bedroom plaster north wall. Trawled txt same as kitchen G ~70 sqft Friable ND PL-30 Northeast bedroom plaster east wall. Trawled txt same as kitchen G Friable ND PL-31 Northeast bedroom plaster west wall. Trawled txt same as kitchen G Friable ND ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 148 12 MM-32 MM Exterior window glazing east window G ~70 sqft Friable 3% glazing MM-33 Exterior window glazing west window G Friable ND HA- Homogenous Area G- Good SM- Surfacing Material ND- Non-detect D- Damaged MM Miscellaneous Material TR- Trace, <1% SD- Significantly Damaged TSI- Thermal System Insulation It is the responsibility of the asbestos abatement company to give a scope of work for all abatement. 8.0 Findings & Recommendations ACM was identified within the areas of the residence that were within the scope of the full inspection and bulk-sampling performed on June 29 & December 16, 2021; therefore, professional abatement activities are required to remove or disturb the above-referenced sampled materials. 9.0 Asbestos Abatement & Demolition Requirements If ACM is to be removed or disturbed in a single-family residence, and the total quantity exceeds any of the regulatory trigger levels of 50 linear ft. on pipes, 32 ft2 on other surfaces, or the volume equivalent of a 55- gallon drum, a CDPHE-certified General Abatement Contractor (GAC) is required to perform the work. The regulatory trigger levels within a commercial building are 260 linear ft. on pipes, 160 ft2 on other surfaces, or the volume equivalent of a 55-gallon drum. In addition, formal notification to CDPHE prior to the abatement of ACM as well as air monitoring, visual inspections, and final air clearances by a CDPHE- certified Asbestos AMS is required. CDPHE regulations allow for the demolition of a building that contains non-friable asbestos-containing materials, such as caulking, mastic or resilient floor tiles. However, demolition must be completed without causing the non-friable ACM to be rendered friable. Burning a building with any ACM is prohibited. Operations such as sanding, cutting, crushing, grinding, pneumatic jacking, etc. of ACM are not permitted. Recycling of building materials such as concrete, metal, or wood that are bonded or contaminated with ACM, e.g. glue, caulking, or mastic is also prohibited. If any of the non-friable asbestos containing materials are to be recycled and rendered friable after demolition (i.e. crushing mastic-coated concrete), these materials must be abated of all ACM prior to shipping offsite for recycling. OSHA regulations regarding occupational exposure during demolition activities is still mandatory. OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1101 requires that workers performing construction-related activities be protected from asbestos fibers in excess of the permissible exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc of air. Contractors are must comply with applicable provisions of OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1101 during demolition and renovation activities. These OSHA provisions include, but are not limited to, PPE and respirators, personnel training, personal-exposure air monitoring, employee medical surveillance, wet removal methods, signage for regulated areas, etc. 10.0 Disclaimer & Limitations The activities outlined in this report were conducted in a manner consistent with a level of care and expertise exercised by members of the environmental consulting and industrial hygiene profession. All ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 149 activities were performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations as well as generally accepted standards and professional practice. No warranty is either expressed or implied. Banyan Environmental assumes no responsibility or liability for error in public information utilized, statements from sources other than Banyan, or developments resulting from situations outside the scope of this project. The details provided within this report outline the inspection activities on the date(s) indicated and should not be relied upon to represent conditions at a later date, the limited number of bulk-samples collected, and the laboratory results of those bulk-samples. The laboratory results contained in this report apply specifically to the materials in which bulk-samples were collected. The results do not include or apply to any other materials within the structure that were not sampled, but may contain asbestos; including materials that may be hidden or inaccessible. All work must stop and additional inspection and bulk- sampling activities would be required to determine if any other materials contain asbestos. This report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for use by the Client, with specific application to their project as discussed in the scope of work. The results of any surfacing material indicated in this report also includes any associated overspray of that material, e.g., under carpet, above suspended ceilings, etc. The information contained in this report is intended as supplementary material for abatement design and is not to be used as the scope of work for abatement activities, bidding or billing purposes. Contractors or consultants reviewing this report must draw their own conclusions regarding further investigation or remediation deemed necessary. Thank you for your business. Sincerely, State of Colorado Building Inspector Accreditation No: 15895 exp. 10/17/2021 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 150 Kitchen Floor tile only 16, 16 Bathroom Northwest Bedroom South Bedroom ACM Walls & Ceiling Northeast Bedroom Living Room ACM Ceiling ONLY 23 24 East parlor Room ACM Ceiling ONLY 25 6 2.3 2 2.1 2.2 12 13 14 15 3 5 4 1 6.1 6.2 6.3 7 8 9 10 11 19,20 20 22 21 26,27,28 29 31 30 Basement Transite pipe above water heater (Same HA14) 32 33 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 151 July 8, 2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 CLIENT PROJECT:323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 CEI LAB CODE:B215290 Dear Customer: Enclosed are asbestos analysis results for PLM Bulk samples received at our laboratory on June 30, 2021. The samples were analyzed for asbestos using polarizing light microscopy (PLM) per the EPA 600 Method. Sample results containing >1% asbestos are considered asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) per EPA regulatory requirements. The detection limit for the EPA 600 Method is <1% asbestos by weight as determined by visual estimation. Thank you for your business and we look forward to continuing good relations. 730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Kind Regards, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 152 ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL REPORT By: Polarized Light Microscopy Prepared for Banyan Environmental CLIENT PROJECT: LAB CODE: TEST METHOD: EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 REPORT DATE: TOTAL SAMPLES ANALYZED: # SAMPLES >1% ASBESTOS: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 11 2 07/08/21 B215290 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 153 Asbestos Report Summary By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY PROJECT: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 LAB CODE: B215290 Client ID Lab ID Color Sample Description ASBESTOS %Layer METHOD: EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 B87783 White Plaster None DetectedPL-1 Layer 1 B87784 White Mud ChrysotilePL-2 2% Layer 2 B87784 White Plaster None Detected B87785 White Plaster None DetectedPL-3 B87786 White Plaster None DetectedPL-4 Layer 1 B87787 Off-white Mud None DetectedPL-5 Layer 2 B87787 White Plaster None Detected Layer 1 B87788 White Mud ChrysotilePL-6 2% Layer 2 B87788 White Plaster None Detected Layer 1 B87789 Off-white Mud None DetectedPL-7 Layer 2 B87789 White Plaster None Detected Layer 1 B87790 Off-white Mud None DetectedPL-8 Layer 2 B87790 White Plaster None Detected B87791 White Sheetrock None DetectedLOP-9 B87792 White Sheetrock None DetectedLOP-10 B87793 White Sheetrock None DetectedLOP-11 Page 1 of 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 154 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B215290 Date Received:06-30-21 Date Analyzed:07-08-21 Date Reported:07-08-21 Client ID Lab ID Lab Attributes Lab Description ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS BULK PLM, EPA 600 METHOD NON-ASBESTOS COMPONENTS Non-Fibrous Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 Fibrous White PlasterPL-1 B87783 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None Detected White PL-2 B87784 Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 93% 5% Hair Calc Carb Paint 2%Chrysotile Layer 1 Mud White Plaster B87784 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None DetectedLayer 2 White PlasterPL-3 B87785 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None Detected White PlasterPL-4 B87786 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None Detected Off-white PL-5 B87787 Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 95% 5% Calc Carb Paint None Detected Layer 1 Mud White Plaster B87787 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None DetectedLayer 2 Page 1 of 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 155 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B215290 Date Received:06-30-21 Date Analyzed:07-08-21 Date Reported:07-08-21 Client ID Lab ID Lab Attributes Lab Description ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS BULK PLM, EPA 600 METHOD NON-ASBESTOS COMPONENTS Non-Fibrous Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 Fibrous White PL-6 B87788 Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 93% 5% Hair Calc Carb Paint 2%Chrysotile Layer 1 Mud White Plaster B87788 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None DetectedLayer 2 Off-white PL-7 B87789 Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 95% 5% Calc Carb Paint None Detected Layer 1 Mud White Plaster B87789 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None DetectedLayer 2 Off-white PL-8 B87790 Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 95% 5% Calc Carb Paint None Detected Layer 1 Mud White Plaster B87790 <1%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 65% 30% 5% Hair Binder Silicates Paint None DetectedLayer 2 White SheetrockLOP-9 B87791 20%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 80%Cellulose Gypsum None Detected Page 2 of 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 156 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B215290 Date Received:06-30-21 Date Analyzed:07-08-21 Date Reported:07-08-21 Client ID Lab ID Lab Attributes Lab Description ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS BULK PLM, EPA 600 METHOD NON-ASBESTOS COMPONENTS Non-Fibrous Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 Fibrous White SheetrockLOP-10 B87792 20%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 80%Cellulose Gypsum None Detected White SheetrockLOP-11 B87793 20%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 80%Cellulose Gypsum None Detected Page 3 of 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 157 LEGEND:Non-Anth = Non-Asbestiform Anthophyllite Non-Trem = Non-Asbestiform Tremolite Calc Carb = Calcium Carbonate METHOD: EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 REPORTING LIMIT: <1% by visual estimation REPORTING LIMIT FOR POINT COUNTS: 0.25% by 400 Points or 0.1% by 1,000 Points REGULATORY LIMIT: >1% by weight Due to the limitations of the EPA 600 method, nonfriable organically bound materials (NOBs) such as vinyl floor tiles can be difficult to analyze via polarized light microscopy (PLM).EPA recommends that all NOBs analyzed by PLM, and found not to contain asbestos, be further analyzed by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). Please note that PLM analysis of dust and soil samples for asbestos is not covered under NVLAP accreditation.Estimated measurement of uncertainty is available on request. This report relates only to the samples tested or analyzed and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by Eurofins CEI. Eurofins CEI makes no warranty representation regarding the accuracy of client submitted information in preparing and presenting analytical results. Interpretation of the analytical results is the sole responsibility of the client. Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted. This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. Government. Information provided by customer includes customer sample ID and sample description. Page 4 of 4 ANALYST:APPROVED BY: Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Cassidy Ploch ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 158 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 159 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 160 July 16, 2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 CLIENT PROJECT:323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 (Point Count) CEI LAB CODE:B215290A Dear Customer: Enclosed are asbestos analysis results for PLM bulk samples received at our laboratory on July 15, 2021. The samples were analyzed for asbestos using polarized light microscopy (PLM) point count per the EPA 600 Method. Sample results containing > 1% asbestos are considered asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) per the EPA regulatory requirements. The detection limit for the EPA 600 method is 0.25% for 400 point counts, or 0.1% for 1,000 point counts. Thank you for your business and we look forward to continuing good relations. 730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Kind Regards, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 161 ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL REPORT By: Polarized Light Microscopy Prepared for Banyan Environmental CLIENT PROJECT: LAB CODE: TEST METHOD: PLM Point Count EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 REPORT DATE: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 (Point Count) 07/16/21 B215290A ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 162 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B215290A Date Received:07-15-21 Date Analyzed:07-16-21 Date Reported:07-16-21 Client ID Material DescriptionLab ID ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS POINT COUNT PLM, EPA 600 METHOD Total Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 (Point Count) Asbestos POINTS B87784PL-2 400Mud Chrysotile61.5% B87788PL-6 400Mud Chrysotile71.8% Page 1 of 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 163 LEGEND: None METHOD: EPA 600 / M4 / 82 / 020 (40 CFR Part 763, Sub. E, App. E) REPORTING LIMIT: 0.25% by 400 points or 0.1% by 1,000 points REGULATORY LIMIT: >1% by weight This report relates only to the samples tested or analyzed and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by Eurofins CEI. Eurofins CEI makes no warranty representation regarding the accuracy of client submitted information in preparing and presenting analytical results. Interpretation of the analytical results is the sole responsibility of the client. Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted.Estimated measurement of uncertainty is available on request.This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. Government. Information provided by customer includes customer sample ID, location, volume and area as well as date and time of sampling. Page 2 of 2 ANALYST:APPROVED BY: Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Cassidy Ploch ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 164 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Windsor, CO 80550 Re: Analysis of Bulk Asbestos Samples Order #: Project #: Project Location or Name: C2195 B6915 ‐ F&B 323 S Loomis Ave Dear Client: Attached are the results of the analyses for asbestos materials that were submitted to this facility on Please note that: Technology Laboratory, Inc. (TLI) analyzes bulk asbestos samples following procedures developed by the McCrone Research Institute and in compliance with guidelines established by the Environmental Protection Agency (App. E to Sub. E of 40 CFR Part 763 and 600/R‐93/116). TLI is accredited for bulk asbestos analysis by the NaƟonal Voluntary Laboratory AccreditaƟon Program (NVLAP) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Our NVLAP Laboratory Code is 600232‐0. Our State of Colorado certification number is AL‐25683. TLI complies with NVLAP requirements unless otherwise noted. This report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or any agency of the Federal Government. The analyƟcal results provided in this report apply only to the samples submiƩed to the laboratory. This report is confidential. Details of this report will not be discussed with any person or agency not associated with you or your organization. This report must be reproduced in its entirety (including this cover document) and shall not be copied in part or used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the U.S. Government. Samples will be held for a minimum of sixty days unless longer storage is requested. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please call TLI at 970‐490‐1414. 7/21/2021. Phone: 970‐490‐1414 ◊ Fax: 970‐472‐5488 • • • ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 165 Sample ID #Sample Description Asbestos Constituents Non‐Asbestos Constituents Order #:C2195 Date Reported:7/23/2021 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) EPA (App. E to Sub. E of 40 CFR Part 763 and 600/R‐93/116) Project #:B6915 ‐ F&B Date Received:7/21/2021 Date Analyzed:7/23/2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Windsor, CO 80550 TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. 1012 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (970) 490-1414 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS None DetectedPL‐2‐1 OtherLayer 1 Paint, Light Blue, HomogenousC2195‐01 100% 5% of Total Sample None Detected Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Compound with Green Paint, GreenC2195‐01A 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample Chrysotile 2% Calcium CarbonateLayer 3 Texture, Off WhiteC2195‐01B 98% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Cellulose Hair Other Granular Material Layer 4 Granular Plaster with Blue Paint, GrayC2195‐01C TR% TR% 15% 85% 75% of Total Sample None DetectedPL‐2‐2 OtherLayer 1 Paint, Light Blue/Multicolor, Homogenous C2195‐02 100% 5% of Total Sample None Detected Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Compound with Green Paint, GreenC2195‐02A 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample Chrysotile 2% Calcium CarbonateLayer 3 Texture, Off WhiteC2195‐02B 98% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Cellulose Hair Other Granular Material Layer 4 Granular Plaster with Blue Paint, GrayC2195‐02C TR% TR% 15% 85% 75% of Total Sample None DetectedPL‐2‐3 OtherLayer 1 Paint, Light Blue, HomogenousC2195‐03 100% 5% of Total Sample Page 1 of 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 166 Sample ID #Sample Description Asbestos Constituents Non‐Asbestos Constituents Order #:C2195 Date Reported:7/23/2021 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) EPA (App. E to Sub. E of 40 CFR Part 763 and 600/R‐93/116) Project #:B6915 ‐ F&B Date Received:7/21/2021 Date Analyzed:7/23/2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Windsor, CO 80550 TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. 1012 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (970) 490-1414 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS None DetectedPL‐2‐3 Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Compound with Green Paint, GreenC2195‐03A 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample Chrysotile 2% Calcium CarbonateLayer 3 Texture, Off WhiteC2195‐03B 98% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Cellulose Hair Other Granular Material Layer 4 Granular Plaster with Blue Paint, GrayC2195‐03C TR% TR% 15% 85% 75% of Total Sample None DetectedPL‐6‐1 Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 1 Texture with Pink Paint, WhiteC2195‐04 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Compound with Green Paint, GreenC2195‐04A 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Cellulose Hair Other Granular Material Layer 3 Granular Plaster with Blue Paint, GrayC2195‐04B TR% TR% 15% 85% 80% of Total Sample None DetectedPL‐6‐2 Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 1 Texture with Purple Paint, WhiteC2195‐05 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Compound with Green Paint, GreenC2195‐05A 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample Page 2 of 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 167 Sample ID #Sample Description Asbestos Constituents Non‐Asbestos Constituents Order #:C2195 Date Reported:7/23/2021 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) EPA (App. E to Sub. E of 40 CFR Part 763 and 600/R‐93/116) Project #:B6915 ‐ F&B Date Received:7/21/2021 Date Analyzed:7/23/2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Windsor, CO 80550 TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. 1012 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (970) 490-1414 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS None DetectedPL‐6‐2 Cellulose Hair Other Granular Material Layer 3 Granular Plaster with Blue Paint, GrayC2195‐05B TR% TR% 15% 85% 80% of Total Sample None DetectedPL‐6‐3 Other Gypsum Layer 1 Compound with White Paint, WhiteC2195‐06 10% 90% 5% of Total Sample None Detected Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Compound with Green Paint, GreenC2195‐06A 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 3 Texture with Pink Paint, WhiteC2195‐06B 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 4 Compound with Green/MC Paint, White C2195‐06C 20% 80% 15% of Total Sample None Detected Cellulose Hair Other Granular Material Layer 5 Granular Plaster with Blue Paint, GrayC2195‐06D TR% TR% 15% 85% 60% of Total Sample ChrysotileMM‐12 85% Cellulose Other Wrap, Tan C2195‐07 5% 10% 100% of Total Sample ChrysotileMM‐13 85% Cellulose Other Wrap, Tan C2195‐08 5% 10% 100% of Total Sample Crocidolite Chrysotile MM‐14 10% 65% Other Gypsum Fibrous Material, Gray C2195‐09 10% 15% 100% of Total Sample Page 3 of 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 168 Sample ID #Sample Description Asbestos Constituents Non‐Asbestos Constituents Order #:C2195 Date Reported:7/23/2021 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) EPA (App. E to Sub. E of 40 CFR Part 763 and 600/R‐93/116) Project #:B6915 ‐ F&B Date Received:7/21/2021 Date Analyzed:7/23/2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Windsor, CO 80550 TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. 1012 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (970) 490-1414 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Crocidolite Chrysotile MM‐15 10% 65% Other Gypsum Fibrous Material, Gray C2195‐10 10% 15% 100% of Total Sample None DetectedVIN‐16 OtherLayer 1 Mastic, Yellow, HomogenousC2195‐11 100% 2% of Total Sample None Detected OtherLayer 2 Mastic, Yellow, HomogenousC2195‐11A 100% 5% of Total Sample None Detected OtherLayer 3 Mastic, Off White, HomogenousC2195‐11B 100% 10% of Total Sample None Detected OtherLayer 4 Mastic, Brown, HomogenousC2195‐11C 100% 10% of Total Sample None Detected CelluloseLayer 5 Fibrous Backing Material, Brown, Homogenous C2195‐11D 100% 20% of Total Sample Chrysotile 3% Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 6 Floor Tile, Gray/BlueC2195‐11E 10% 87% 20% of Total Sample None Detected Cellulose Other Layer 7 Fibrous Backing Material, BlackC2195‐11F 85% 15% 33% of Total Sample None DetectedVIN‐17 OtherLayer 1 Mastic, Yellow, HomogenousC2195‐12 100% 2% of Total Sample None Detected OtherLayer 2 Mastic, Yellow, HomogenousC2195‐12A 100% 5% of Total Sample Page 4 of 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 169 Sample ID #Sample Description Asbestos Constituents Non‐Asbestos Constituents Order #:C2195 Date Reported:7/23/2021 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) EPA (App. E to Sub. E of 40 CFR Part 763 and 600/R‐93/116) Project #:B6915 ‐ F&B Date Received:7/21/2021 Date Analyzed:7/23/2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main St. Windsor, CO 80550 TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. 1012 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (970) 490-1414 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS None DetectedVIN‐17 OtherLayer 3 Mastic, Off White, HomogenousC2195‐12B 100% 10% of Total Sample None Detected OtherLayer 4 Mastic, Brown, HomogenousC2195‐12C 100% 10% of Total Sample None Detected CelluloseLayer 5 Fibrous Backing Material, Brown, Homogenous C2195‐12D 100% 20% of Total Sample Chrysotile 3% Other Calcium Carbonate Layer 6 Floor Tile, Gray/BlueC2195‐12E 10% 87% 20% of Total Sample None Detected Cellulose Other Layer 7 Fibrous Backing Material, BlackC2195‐12F 85% 15% 33% of Total Sample None DetectedRF‐18 Calcium Carbonate Other Layer 1 Tar, BlackC2195‐13 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Fiberglass Other Granular Material Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Roofing Shingle, BlackC2195‐13A 55% 10% 10% 25% 90% of Total Sample None DetectedRF‐19 Calcium Carbonate Other Layer 1 Tar, BlackC2195‐14 10% 90% 10% of Total Sample None Detected Fiberglass Other Granular Material Calcium Carbonate Layer 2 Roofing Shingle, BlackC2195‐14A 55% 10% 10% 25% 90% of Total Sample Page 5 of 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 170 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 171 December 28, 2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 CLIENT PROJECT:323 S. Coomis Ave Ft. C, B7029 - Coomis CEI LAB CODE:B2113822 Dear Customer: Enclosed are asbestos analysis results for PLM Bulk samples received at our laboratory on December 17, 2021. The samples were analyzed for asbestos using polarizing light microscopy (PLM) per the EPA 600 Method. Sample results containing >1% asbestos are considered asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) per EPA regulatory requirements. The detection limit for the EPA 600 Method is <1% asbestos by weight as determined by visual estimation. Thank you for your business and we look forward to continuing good relations. 730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Kind Regards, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 172 ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL REPORT By: Polarized Light Microscopy Prepared for Banyan Environmental CLIENT PROJECT: LAB CODE: TEST METHOD: EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 REPORT DATE: TOTAL SAMPLES ANALYZED: # SAMPLES >1% ASBESTOS: 323 S. Coomis Ave Ft. C, B7029 - Coomis 14 4 12/28/21 B2113822 730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 173 Asbestos Report Summary By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY PROJECT: 323 S. Coomis Ave Ft. C, B7029 - Coomis LAB CODE: B2113822 Client ID Lab ID Color Sample Description ASBESTOS %Layer METHOD: EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 Layer 1 B221891 White,Brown Wallpaper None DetectedPL-20 Layer 2 B221891 White Plaster None Detected B221892 Brown Plaster None DetectedPL-21 Layer 1 B221893 White,Brown Wallpaper None DetectedPL-22 Layer 2 B221893 White Plaster None Detected Layer 1 B221894 White Ceiling Texture ChrysotilePL-23 2% Layer 2 B221894 White Plaster None Detected Layer 1 B221895 White Ceiling Texture ChrysotilePL-24 2% Layer 2 B221895 White Plaster None Detected Layer 1 B221896 White Ceiling Texture ChrysotilePL-25 2% Layer 2 B221896 White Plaster None Detected Layer 1 B221897A Off-white Ceiling Texture None DetectedPL-26 Layer 2 B221897A Gray Plaster None Detected B221897B White Sheetrock/Mud None Detected Layer 1 B221898A Off-white Ceiling Texture None DetectedPL-27 Layer 2 B221898A Gray Plaster None Detected B221898B White Sheetrock/Mud None Detected Layer 1 B221899A Off-white Ceiling Texture None DetectedPL-28 Layer 2 B221899A Gray Plaster None Detected B221899B White Sheetrock/Mud None Detected B221900 Yellow,Gray Plaster None DetectedPL-29 B221901 Yellow,Gray Plaster None DetectedPL-30 B221902 Yellow,Gray Plaster None DetectedPL-31 B221903 White Window Glazing ChrysotileMM-32 3% B221904 White Window Glazing None DetectedMM-33 Page 1 of 1730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 174 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B2113822 Date Received:12-17-21 Date Analyzed:12-28-21 Date Reported:12-28-21 Client ID Lab ID Lab Attributes Lab Description ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS BULK PLM, EPA 600 METHOD NON-ASBESTOS COMPONENTS Non-Fibrous Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Coomis Ave Ft. C, B7029 - Coomis Fibrous White,Brown PL-20 B221891 80%Heterogeneous Fibrous Loosely Bound 10% 10% Cellulose Paint Binder None Detected Layer 1 Wallpaper White Plaster B221891 <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 Brown PlasterPL-21 B221892 <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound No wallpaper present 60% 40% Hair Binder Silicates None Detected White,Brown PL-22 B221893 80%Heterogeneous Fibrous Loosely Bound 10% 10% Cellulose Paint Binder None Detected Layer 1 Wallpaper White Plaster B221893 <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 White PL-23 B221894 Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 10% 40% 48% Paint Binder Calc Carb 2%Chrysotile Layer 1 Ceiling Texture White Plaster B221894 <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 Page 1 of 5730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 175 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B2113822 Date Received:12-17-21 Date Analyzed:12-28-21 Date Reported:12-28-21 Client ID Lab ID Lab Attributes Lab Description ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS BULK PLM, EPA 600 METHOD NON-ASBESTOS COMPONENTS Non-Fibrous Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Coomis Ave Ft. C, B7029 - Coomis Fibrous White PL-24 B221895 Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 10% 40% 48% Paint Binder Calc Carb 2%Chrysotile Layer 1 Ceiling Texture White Plaster B221895 <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 White PL-25 B221896 Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 10% 40% 48% Paint Binder Calc Carb 2%Chrysotile Layer 1 Ceiling Texture White Plaster B221896 <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 Off-white PL-26 B221897A Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 10% 40% 50% Paint Binder Calc Carb None Detected Layer 1 Ceiling Texture . ray Plaster B221897A <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 White SheeWroFNMXdB221897B 10%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 5% 5% 80% Cellulose Paint Calc Carb *ySsXP None Detected Page 2 of 5730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 176 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B2113822 Date Received:12-17-21 Date Analyzed:12-28-21 Date Reported:12-28-21 Client ID Lab ID Lab Attributes Lab Description ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS BULK PLM, EPA 600 METHOD NON-ASBESTOS COMPONENTS Non-Fibrous Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Coomis Ave Ft. C, B7029 - Coomis Fibrous Off-white PL-27 B221898A Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 10% 40% 50% Paint Binder Calc Carb None Detected Layer 1 Ceiling Texture *ray Plaster B221898A <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 White SheeWroFNMXdB221898B 10%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 5% 5% 80% Cellulose Paint Calc Carb *ySsXP None Detected Off-white PL-28 B221899A Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 10% 40% 50% Paint Binder Calc Carb None Detected Layer 1 Ceiling Texture *ray Plaster B221899A <1%Homogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 40% 60% Hair Binder Silicates None DetectedLayer 2 White SheeWroFNMXdB221899B 10%Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 5% 5% 80% Cellulose Paint Calc Carb *ySsXP None Detected <eOOoZ,*ray PlasterPL-29 B221900 <1%Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 5% 40% 55% Hair Paint Binder Silicates None Detected Page 3 of 5730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 177 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B2113822 Date Received:12-17-21 Date Analyzed:12-28-21 Date Reported:12-28-21 Client ID Lab ID Lab Attributes Lab Description ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS BULK PLM, EPA 600 METHOD NON-ASBESTOS COMPONENTS Non-Fibrous Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Coomis Ave Ft. C, B7029 - Coomis Fibrous <eOOoZ,*ray PlasterPL-30 B221901 <1%Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 5% 40% 55% Hair Paint Binder Silicates None Detected <eOOoZ,*ray PlasterPL-31 B221902 <1%Heterogeneous Non-fibrous Bound 5% 40% 55% Hair Paint Binder Silicates None Detected White :indoZ *Oa]ingMM-32 B221903 Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 5% 57% 35% Paint Binder Calc Carb 3%Chrysotile :hiWe :indoZ *Oa]ingMM-33 B221904 Heterogeneous Fibrous Bound 5% 60% 35% Paint Binder Calc Carb None Detected Page 4 of 5730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 178 LEGEND:Non-Anth = Non-Asbestiform Anthophyllite Non-Trem = Non-Asbestiform Tremolite Calc Carb = Calcium Carbonate METHOD: EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 REPORTING LIMIT: <1% by visual estimation REPORTING LIMIT FOR POINT COUNTS: 0.25% by 400 Points or 0.1% by 1,000 Points REGULATORY LIMIT: >1% by weight Due to the limitations of the EPA 600 method, nonfriable organically bound materials (NOBs) such as vinyl floor tiles can be difficult to analyze via polarized light microscopy (PLM).EPA recommends that all NOBs analyzed by PLM, and found not to contain asbestos, be further analyzed by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). Please note that PLM analysis of dust and soil samples for asbestos is not covered under NVLAP accreditation.Estimated measurement of uncertainty is available on request. This report relates only to the samples tested or analyzed and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by Eurofins CEI. Eurofins CEI makes no warranty representation regarding the accuracy of client submitted information in preparing and presenting analytical results. Interpretation of the analytical results is the sole responsibility of the client. Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted. This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. Government. Information provided by customer includes customer sample ID and sample description. Page 5 of 5 ANALYST:APPROVED BY: Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Greg Ruff 730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 179 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 180 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 181 July 16, 2021 Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 CLIENT PROJECT:323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 (Point Count) CEI LAB CODE:B215290A Dear Customer: Enclosed are asbestos analysis results for PLM bulk samples received at our laboratory on July 15, 2021. The samples were analyzed for asbestos using polarized light microscopy (PLM) point count per the EPA 600 Method. Sample results containing > 1% asbestos are considered asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) per the EPA regulatory requirements. The detection limit for the EPA 600 method is 0.25% for 400 point counts, or 0.1% for 1,000 point counts. Thank you for your business and we look forward to continuing good relations. 730 SE Maynard Road • Cary, NC 27511 • 919.481.1413 Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Kind Regards, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 182 ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL REPORT By: Polarized Light Microscopy Prepared for Banyan Environmental CLIENT PROJECT: LAB CODE: TEST METHOD: PLM Point Count EPA 600 / R93 / 116 and EPA 600 / M4-82 / 020 REPORT DATE: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 (Point Count) 07/16/21 B215290A ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 183 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS By: POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPY Lab Code:B215290A Date Received:07-15-21 Date Analyzed:07-16-21 Date Reported:07-16-21 Client ID Material DescriptionLab ID ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS POINT COUNT PLM, EPA 600 METHOD Total Client:Banyan Environmental 1540 Main Street, Suite 218 #111 Windsor, CO 80550 Project: 323 S. Loomis Ave. Ft. Collins, BD3942 (Point Count) Asbestos POINTS B87784PL-2 400Mud Chrysotile61.5% B87788PL-6 400Mud Chrysotile71.8% Page 1 of 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 184 LEGEND: None METHOD: EPA 600 / M4 / 82 / 020 (40 CFR Part 763, Sub. E, App. E) REPORTING LIMIT: 0.25% by 400 points or 0.1% by 1,000 points REGULATORY LIMIT: >1% by weight This report relates only to the samples tested or analyzed and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by Eurofins CEI. Eurofins CEI makes no warranty representation regarding the accuracy of client submitted information in preparing and presenting analytical results. Interpretation of the analytical results is the sole responsibility of the client. Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted.Estimated measurement of uncertainty is available on request.This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. Government. Information provided by customer includes customer sample ID, location, volume and area as well as date and time of sampling. Page 2 of 2 ANALYST:APPROVED BY: Tianbao Bai, Ph.D., CIH Laboratory Director Cassidy Ploch ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 185 24932152.8 Exhibit D Abatement Services Proposal [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 186 6250 Iron Forge Road • Timnath, CO 80547 Page 1 of 3 (970) 221-9121 • Fax: (970) 493-7446 www.riskremoval.com Abatement Services Proposal To: Barry Schram From: David Schulz Company: Lamar Valley Craftsman Date: 2/9//2022 E-Mail: barry@lamarvalleycraftsman.com Pages: 3 Phone: (970) 690-8526 Re: 323 S Loomis Ave Asbestos Abatement Risk Removal, LLC is pleased to present this proposal for the above referenced project. Our understanding of the scope of work is based upon a site visit on February 9th, 2022. The scope of work is as follows. Project Scope and Removal Methods The base scope of work for is the setup, removal and proper disposal of asbestos containing Plaster walls and ceiling in the south bedroom the ceiling in the living room only and the flooring in the kitchen and a transite pipe in the basement. Risk Removal will perform the abatement and clean up in accordance with federal and state regulations. All waste material will be disposed of at an EPA-approved facility. Project Cost The price below to perform he base scope of work includes all planning and abatement design, labor, materials, equipment, tools, $2,000,000.00/two million general liability/pollution insurance, permitting through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), OSHA testing for worker protection, and waste disposal at an EPA-approved site. The price to perform the scope of work is: $ 17,425.00. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 187 6250 Iron Forge Road • Timnath, CO 80547 Page 2 of 3 (970) 221-9121 • Fax: (970) 493-7446 www.riskremoval.com Project Timing The amount of ACM to be removed requires a permit with CDPH&E. The permitting process requires 11 working days (15 calendar days) from the time of permit application to the start of work on the project. Risk Removal is prepared to promptly submit the permit application and set a mobilization date upon receipt of a notice to proceed. Clarifications The owner will be responsible for providing adequate power and water needed to perform the abatement. The owner will also provide and maintain adequate heat to prevent pipes from freezing. Replacement materials are not within Risk Removal’s project scope. Risk Removal’s work scope only pertains to the removal of asbestos containing materials as described above. Other locations, types of hazardous materials, or other kinds of asbestos-containing material are not in Risk Removal’s base scope of work and will require a revised proposal or change order to handle any unknown materials. During Risk Removal’s mobilization, only certified personnel are authorized to enter the designated work area during active abatement and cleaning. Risk Removal will need to attach poly sheeting on walls to build an effective containment. While every effort will be made to minimize paint damage when taking down the containment, it is not unusual for small patches of paint damage to occur. Risk Removal has not made provisions for spot, touch-up painting, if necessary, in its Base Scope proposal. Risk Removal employs only experienced, certified employees. Risk Removal completes all abatement work using state-of-the art practices and in full compliance with EPA, OSHA, and State requirements. Thank you for considering Risk Removal for this project. Approved and accepted by*: RISK REMOVAL Company Signature David Schulz David Schulz Name Date Estimator & Project Manager * Acceptance of Proposal: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. Risk Removal, LLC is authorized to do the work as specified. It is agreed that all payments will be made as of the due date and terms indicated on the Risk Removal, LLC invoice. Signature above accepts and agrees to the proposal / quotation amount and stipulations; the terms; acknowledgement you are authorized to approve this work / payment of project related invoicing; payment will be made as stipulated above by you, regardless of the reimbursement of ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 188 6250 Iron Forge Road • Timnath, CO 80547 Page 3 of 3 (970) 221-9121 • Fax: (970) 493-7446 www.riskremoval.com costs of services and fees from insurance companies, responsible parties or other related individuals or organizations. Payment: Buyer shall pay Risk Removal, LLC for all products and services within 30 days from the invoice date, without set- off. Risk Removal, LLC is entitled to a late payment charge of 1.5% per month for any late payments. Confidentiality: Buyer and Risk Removal, LLC may provide each other with confidential information in connection with this contract. Prices for products and services shall be considered Risk Removal, LL’s confidential information. Such information may be used in connection with this contract and may not be disclosed to a competitor of Risk removal, LLC. Indemnity: Each buyer and Risk Removal, LLC shall indemnify each other against 3rd party claims because of damage to 3rd party’s personal property and/or personal injury. Force Majeure: Buyer and Risk Removal, LLC shall be excused from performance and shall not be held liable in the case of a Force Majeure event, including but not limited to an act of God (such as fire, explosion, earthquake, drought, floods), armed conflicts, labor disputes, acts of terrorism or other cause beyond reasonable control. If such an event takes place Risk removal shall be entitled to an equivalent extension of time to complete the work and in the case where the event is due the Buyer or Buyer’s suppliers Risk Removal, LLC shall be entitled to an equitable price adjustment. Termination and Suspension: Buyer may terminate this contract in the event Risk Removal commits a material breach of the contract which does not otherwise have a contractual remedy by providing in writing to Risk Removal conditions of the contractual breach and intention to terminate. If the buyer terminates the contract under a material breach by Risk Removal, LLC the buyer shall reimburse Risk Removal, LLC an amount equivalent to the amount of work completed before notification of termination and any reasonable fees associated with preparing to complete the scope of work that have already been incurred. If the contract is terminated for any other reason than Risk Removal committing a material breach of the contract, they Buyer shall pay Risk Removal the full price of the contract, unless other accommodations have been agreed to between the two parties. Changes: Changes to the schedule and or scope of work may be proposed by either party at any time. Risk Removal is not obligated to proceed until both parties have agreed in writing to the change. Limitations of Liability The total liability of Risk removal, LLC for all claims arising from this contract is limited to the contract price. Risk Removal shall not be liable for any business downtime, loss of use, cost of capital, or other operating costs. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 189 Exhibit B To March 15, 2023 Cover Letter Contamination Risk Report by Dr. Marc Rumpler, PhD [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 190 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 1 of 9 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 Asbestos Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Individual State Regulations ................................................................................................................ 4 Abatement Process ............................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Environmental Collection and Testing ................................................................................................ 5 4.0 Other Hazards ..................................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 8 References ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Notes ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 191 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 2 of 9 About the Expert Dr. Rumpler is a toxicologist with twenty-one years of experience in toxicology, chemistry, risk assessment and laboratory analysis. He is independently board certified each in toxicology, clinical chemistry, and molecular diagnostics. Currently, Dr. Rumpler is the Director of Environmental Chemistry for the Public Health Laboratory at the Tennessee Department of Health. He is also an independent consultant and an expert in clinical and forensic toxicology, drug pharmacokinetics and environmental contaminants. Presently, he serves on advisory committees for the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation, Association of Public Health Laboratories, and the Tennessee Childhood Lead Prevention Program. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Clinical Chemistry. Dr. Rumpler holds a Bachelor of Science degree in toxicology from Northeastern University. He obtained a Master of Science (Forensic Toxicology) and Doctoral (Interdisciplinary Toxicology) degree from the University of Florida. His post-doctoral fellowship was conducted at the University of Florida College of Medicine in clinical toxicology. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 192 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 3 of 9 Executive Summary The single-family residence at 323 S. Loomis Avenue in Fort Colins, Colorado, originally constructed in 1905, has been determined to be contaminated with asbestos containing building materials. Sample collection and testing confirming the presence of asbestos, was performed by a certified Colorado inspector and accredited national laboratory using an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed laboratory method, respectively. Many asbestos containing materials are present in homes that were built prior to 1980 and fibers may be released during home renovations or repairs putting the renovator and/or homeowner at risk. Non- occupational exposure to asbestos fibers in air presents a risk to human health. The extent of this risk is highly uncertain, depending on the nature and amount of exposure and other factors. The most serious adverse health effects documented and associated with exposure to asbestos are lung cancer, mesothelioma (an almost invariably fatal form of cancer), and asbestosis (a noncancerous but debilitating and sometimes fatal disease). Studies have shown that the combination of inhaling tobacco smoke and asbestos exposure is particularly harmful because of the compounding synergistic adverse effects. It’s this expert’s opinion that the extent of asbestos contamination and the hazards associated with remodeling or abatement could present an unintentional exposure to residents of 323 S. Loomis. Further, other hazards, such as third-hand tobacco smoke may cause exacerbated health risks. Asbestos abatement alone of the residence, even though it is performed in accordance with the State of Colorado Code of Regulations, will be insufficient to eliminate all potential risks for future residents. Furthermore, abatement and removal of the contaminated materials would be widespread, and in some parts, potentially be reduced to only an intact frame. Therefore, the contamination of both asbestos and third- hand tobacco smoke is extensive enough to warrant a complete demolition of the property. 1.0 Asbestos Introduction Asbestos is the term given to a family of naturally occurring fibrous silicates that have been used in a wide variety of building materials, commonly referred to as asbestos containing materials (ACMs), throughout the 20th century. The consumption of asbestos in the United States has sharply increased until it had peaked at about 800,000 metric tons annually in 1974, or about 6% of world production [1]. In the U.S., asbestos mining was banned in 2002 with the closing of the last asbestos mine. Asbestos is banned in many countries around the world, including Japan, Australia, and all countries in the European Union. Asbestos was used in many building materials because of its high tensile strength, flexibility, and resistance to heat and corrosion. Building materials used that contain asbestos include cement pipes, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 193 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 4 of 9 insulation, window caulking, joint compound, furnace ductwork, ceiling spray, patchwork, and flooring and roofing tiles to name a few. Houses built between 1890 and 1970, that have not undergone updating or remodeling, will likely have the highest amounts of ACMs. Consequently, because of its widespread use in such materials, there is potential for asbestos exposure from many different sources in homes built prior to 1980. ACMs present a health risk when they are in poor condition due to damage, deterioration, or weathering, or when they are disturbed. For instance, a significant number of asbestos fibers can be released into the air when they are removed improperly, repaired, cut, torn, sanded, sawed, drilled, or scraped [2,3]. This can be a problem for DIY home renovators if they do not take appropriate precautions when dealing with potential ACMs. Removal may be required when remodeling, demolishing, or making major changes to the home will disturb asbestos-containing material, or if asbestos-containing material is damaged extensively and cannot be otherwise repaired. Removal is complex and must be done only by a trained and accredited asbestos abatement professional. Improper removal may actually increase the inhabitant’s exposure to asbestos fibers. Asbestos can cause health problems when inhaled into the lungs. Continued exposure increases the amount of fibers that remain in the lung. Fibers embedded in lung tissue over time may result in lung diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma. In indoor air, the concentration of asbestos depends on whether asbestos was used for insulation, ceiling or floor tiles, or other purposes, and whether these asbestos-containing materials are in good condition or are deteriorated and friable. Concentrations measured in homes, schools, and other buildings that contain asbestos range from about 30 to 6,000 fibers/m3 (0.00003–0.006 fibers/mL). 2.0 Individual State Regulations The Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation 8, Part B governs asbestos contamination in Colorado. Under Colorado law, which is consistent with EPA regulations, a building material is contaminated if it contains greater than 1% asbestos. Like many other states, Colorado has extensive requirements that provide guidance and regulatory structure for testing and inspecting suspected asbestos contaminated homes and for abatement, renovation, and demolition when necessary. Abatement removal contractors must be certified in Colorado and are required when the contamination exceeds the regulatory trigger levels. The trigger levels for a single-family residence are total quantities of greater than 50 linear feet on pipes, 32 square feet on other surfaces, or the volume equivalent of a 55-gallon drum. Abatement and removal must be conducted in the event renovation or demolition activities begin. Following proper abatement, Regulation 8, Part B does not limit the homeowner’s discretion to demolish the building. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 194 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 5 of 9 Abatement Process Pre-abatement Prior to the asbestos abatement process, an on-site evaluation should be completed by a prospective asbestos abatement contractor. The contractor should describe how they plan to set up containment and decontamination areas, the path that waste bags containing asbestos material will be removed throughout the building, and how long the process should take. Active Abatement During abatement the area is sealed off typically with plastic sheeting to keep fibers from getting into other areas. Taped seals are double checked to make sure that fibers cannot escape. High Efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters are placed in the work area and clean air exhaust ducts are installed outside of the area. The HEPA filters clean the air within the work area, while the exhaust ducts clean the air just outside while trapping any stray fibers that may have escaped. In-progress inspections should be performed to ensure that all asbestos materials are completely removed. Asbestos materials are placed in sealed containers and disposed of according to state and federal regulations. After removal is complete, the work area is cleaned with HEPA vacuums and wiped down. Post Abatement Following the removal of all asbestos-containing material, it is required to test the area by a third-party certified air sampler. This ensures that the abatement contractor followed proper procedures during the abatement process and any airborne asbestos is below permissible levels. Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA), with an excursion limit (EL) of 1.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter over a 30-minute period. 3.0 Environmental Collection and Testing Sample collection of suspected ACMs within the residence appeared random, yet for the most part (see below), sampling was undertaken in accordance with Colorado specifications. It’s noted in the Banyan Environmental report that “the full asbestos inspection did constitute a full building inspection and does fulfill the asbestos inspection requirements for structures that are to be demolished”. Importantly, this remark indicates that the inspection may not be sufficient for a residence that would undergo abatement and remodeling instead of demolition. It’s speculated that a more comprehensive inspection and sampling regimen would be needed, were the structure not to be demolished, to determine the full extent of contamination. Further, the Banyan report goes on mention that “additional ACM might be located in these [sic] and other inaccessible areas” referring to locations in the dwelling for which samples were not obtained. Although a wide variety of exterior ACMs have been produced in the past and used on residential buildings, Banyan Environmental only collected two samples from the exterior roof shingles. According to Colorado Regulation 8, Part B: III.A.3.c.(i)(B): ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 195 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 6 of 9 “At least five bulk samples must be collected from each homogenous area that is greater than 1,000 square feet but less than or equal to 5,000 square feet.” The report produced by Banyan Environmental indicated that only 2 samples (RF-18 and RF-19) were taken from the exterior roof shingles of an estimated square footage of 1185 sq. ft. No further exterior samples were collected, including from the home’s cladding. Thus, we could be unaware of the full extent of the exterior contamination. Exterior contamination would most certainly be a factor for the homeowner in determining the extent of abatement needed. All testing performed on samples collected from the dwelling at 323 S. Loomis was carried out by a nationally accredited laboratory (Eurofins) using a polarized microscopic (PLM) analysis and EPA (600) established method. It consists of a preliminary visual examination using a stereomicroscope to determine homogeneity and fiber identification of the asbestos fibers followed by an iterative but separate technique of polarized microscopic analysis to determine optical properties of constituents and provide a confirmed positive identification of asbestos fibers. The method further separates the sample material into various layers based on their morphology and then detects for the presence of the different asbestos fibers in each of these layers. The report will express the percentage of the different asbestos fibers detected in each of the layers based upon the visual estimation. The detection limit for the EPA 600 Method is <1% asbestos by weight. This analytical method is the most widely used method for estimating asbestos in ACMs and works well for most sample types. The home at 323 S Loomis has a total square footage of approximately 1,473 sq.ft.. ACM was identified in five out of eight rooms in the home, including the basement. Contaminated areas include the kitchen, living room, parlor, south bedroom, and basement for an approximate total area of 900 square feet. ACM was found on the ceiling in three of the five rooms tested (Northwest bedroom ceiling was not tested) as well as all four walls of the South bedroom. Asbestos was found on the floor tile in the kitchen, presumably where much of the food consumption occurs for occupants. Approximately 77% (700 sq. ft.) of the contaminated area is friable (see below) material. Approximately 68% (620 sq. ft.) of the ACM is considered to be surface material. The friability refers to a material which, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. This characteristic indicates that the material is much more capable of becoming airborne and thus susceptible to the inhalation route of exposure. Conversely, non-friability refers to material which, when dry, may not be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Damaged or dilapidated nonfriable material may become friable. Samples taken from the wall mud (likely the joint compound used on the drywall) are determined to contain approximately 2% of asbestos by weight. Ceiling textures and window glazing contained between 2-3% asbestos. The pipe insulation and wrap contained much higher proportions of asbestos due to the nature of the insulating material. Chrysotile asbestos is the most commonly used variety of ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 196 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 7 of 9 asbestos, comprising 90 to 95 percent of asbestos used in buildings in the United States. It was used in a variety of asbestos insulation and fireproofing products. Crocidolite asbestos is considered the most hazardous type of asbestos. Crocidolite is made up of extremely fine sharp fibers that are particularly easy to inhale. This type is responsible for more illnesses and deaths than any other type of asbestos. The aggregate testing results that were generated from the sample collection occurring at 323 S. Loomis indicate that, at minimum under Colorado regulations, professional abatement is required for the dwelling. Importantly, removal of confirmed asbestos would include the entire excision of related building materials even though only a portion of the area may be contaminated. Colorado Regulation 8, Part B: IV.E.3.b. states that: “A homogeneous area shall be determined to contain ACM based on a finding that the results of at least one sample collected from that area shows that asbestos is present in an amount greater than one percent”, indicating entire homogenous sections would require removal. This is done to avoid disruption to the asbestos containing material for release into the environment. The degree to which asbestos has been identified in the building materials at 323 S. Loomis indicates that abatement would be extensive, costly, and go on to eviscerate the interior of the dwelling. Moreover, a certified inspection and testing would be required following professional abatement to determine the success and extent of remaining contamination. Notably, exterior materials have not been tested in accordance with Colorado regulations and may also require professional abatement. 4.0 Other Hazards There are reports of a strong odor of third hand tobacco smoke present at 323 S. Loomis, though it should be noted, that no laboratory testing for tobacco presence or smoke byproducts has been performed. Unlike the asbestos, which may be sporadic in the home due to its presence in some materials but absence in others, third hand smoke resulting from a tobacco user is ubiquitous inside the home and remains on surfaces long after the cessation of active smoking. It permeates nearly every porous surface and even settles in the heating, ventilation, and cooling ductwork. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence that indicates third hand smoke may be remitted back into a gas phase where it can be susceptible to inhalation or react with other compounds in the environment to form secondary pollutants [4]. Although the direct human health impact of third-hand smoke is not well delineated, there is an increasing body of evidence that supports numerous adverse health risks that could result from third- hand smoke exposure. The main chemical components of third hand smoke include nicotine, cotinine, 3- vinyl pyridine, cresol, naphthalene, PAHs, formaldehyde, TSNAs, and respirable volatile organic compounds including acetonitrile, benzene, acetone, and toluene [5]. Many of these constituents are ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 197 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 8 of 9 classified as carcinogenic (cancer-causing) substances. It’s likely that third hand tobacco smoke presents a health risk at any exposure dose. Perhaps the most critical risk to occupants living in residences that are contaminated with both asbestos and tobacco smoke is the perilous synergism (i.e., the combined effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects) between the two toxicants and the near certainty of deleterious effects when one is exposed to both. Tobacco smoke and asbestos fibers combine at a biological level to produce the well- known supra-additive interaction in causing lung cancer. This has been widely recognized since 1968 [6]. In the very large 1979 cohort mortality study of U.S. insulation workers (276 lung cancer deaths) by Hammond et al. [7], smoking increased the risk of lung cancer by 10-fold, asbestos increased the risk by 5-fold, and exposure to both together increased the risk by nearly 50-fold, compared with that of the nonsmokers who were unexposed to asbestos. This resulted in an almost pure multiplicative effect. Furthermore, pre-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, long COVID) or other upper respiratory ailments that have the potential to be exacerbated by tobacco smoke or asbestos may complicate the health effects even further. Of course, infants and children are more prone to the risks related to third hand (as well as asbestos) exposure than adults because they typically spend more time indoors and have age-specific behaviors that may expose them to potential health hazards from substances. 5.0 Risk Analysis Residential exposure to asbestos fibers in ACMs presents a clear risk to human health. There is no minimum concentration of asbestos fibers in the air that is considered safe for humans. The risk of developing adverse health effects is dependent upon the exposure (the amount of asbestos, inhaled and the duration of time it was inhaled) a person has had, co-factors (disease states, other toxicants present), age, and type of asbestos fiber. A high probability of lung cancer, mesothelioma, pulmonary fibrosis, and other pleural abnormalities have been found among workers occupationally exposed to asbestos. Presumably, non-occupational residential exposures would result in qualitatively similar effects because asbestos fibers are distributed extensively in residential building materials, specifically prior to 1980, and the major pathological effects associated with human exposure to airborne asbestos have been duplicated experimentally in animals. Estimating the extent of health risks from residential exposure to asbestos fibers is fraught with uncertainty. Factors contributing to that uncertainty include the following: (1) a great variety of asbestos fibers has been found in residential ACMs. These fibers occur in a range of sizes and vary in physicochemical characteristics, such as flexibility and durability, (2) it is difficult to standardize methods for measuring amounts and characteristics of asbestos fibers, (3) a long time is required for health effects in humans to become detectable after exposure begins (often 20 to 40 years), (4) there is inadequate knowledge of the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers lead to cancer and other health effects, (5) there are uncertainties in determining dose-response relationships from the occupational ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 198 24980830.1 Associated Risk with Asbestos and Tobacco Contaminated Properties 323 S. Loomis Ave, Fort Collins, CO Prepared by Allied Analytical Associates, P.C. Marc J Rumpler, MS, PhD, DABCC, FAACC, NRCC, DLM(ASCP)™SC Page 9 of 9 environment and then extrapolating them to the non-occupational environment, where both exposure and population characteristics are usually very different, and doses are typically much lower. References 1. U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1983. Asbestos. Preprint from the 1982 Minerals Yearbook. Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 2. Keyes DL, Ewing WM, Hays SM, Longo WE, Millette JR. Baseline studies of asbestos exposure during operations and maintenance activities. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 1994;9(11):853–860. doi: 10.1080/1047322x.1994.10388420. 3. Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency . Measurement of asbestos fibre release during removal works in a variety of DIY scenarios. Sydney, Australia: Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency; 2016. [2017-07-06]. https://www.asbestossafety.gov.au/sites/asbestos/files/2016/07 4. Ferrante G, Simoni M, Cibella F, et al. Third-hand smoke exposure and health hazards in children. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2013;79(1):38-43. 5. Sleiman M., Logue J.M., Luo W., Pankow J.F., Gundel L.A., Destaillats H. Inhalable constituents of thirdhand tobacco smoke: Chemical characterization and health impact considerations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014;48:13093–13101. 6. Selikoff I.J., Hammond E.C., Churg J. Asbestos exposure, smoking, and neoplasia. JAMA. 1968;204:106–112. 7. Hammond E.C., Selikoff I.J., Seidman H. Asbestos exposure, cigarette smoking and death rates. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 1979;330:473–490. Notes Banyan Environmental inspector Andy Dunnell performed inspection on 6/29/21 and 12/16/21, yet his building inspector accreditation had expired on 10/17/2021 (his report was presumably prepared after 12/16/21). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 199 Exhibit C To March 15, 2023 Cover Letter Public Comment by Lisa Hoffman [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 200 12-10-22 To The Historic Preservation Commission Re: The Zipser/Kley Property Agenda Item #7 323 South Loomis Fort Collins, CO I’m writing in regards to the above property that I came to be familiar with, shortly after it was listed in the spring of 2021. A friend was interested in purchasing it and asked me if my partner, James A. Cox, A.I.A. and I would walk through to give her some professional input and guidance before making an offer. In addition to being an architect, Jim was a former member of the Historic Commission in Fort Collins and Loveland. He passed away in February of this year. We happily complied. Please understand that Jim was deeply invested in preserving any home of historical significance. He would always encourage and lean towards preservation, gently guiding his clients (sometimes insisting) that the original design and integrity be preserved. Being a local architect since the 70’s, and working within and later, with the Historical Commission, he was no stranger to the rules, nuances and details regarding that journey. That said, I will tell you his observations re: this property. I’ll add that I shared his vision and listened carefully as he walked through for a length of time, this was not a quick fly-by. Once inside, the deep stench of cigarette smoke was noted. We walked slowly and carefully, visually mapping every room. What struck us immediately was the complete lack of respect for ANY original detail. Indeed, there was virtually nothing left, not a hint of the original plan or the materials of origin. Gone. It was just a series of rooms that had been altered in a haphazard and careless way. The cheapest materials totally replaced every surface. The floors were varying heights and also replaced the original flooring. There was nothing left of the homes original flow, leaving the occupant in a confused rabbit warren that spoke NOTHING of the original plan. Every surface appeared scuffed, broken and damaged. One of Jim’s most concerning finds was the undeniable lack of stability and safety that the previous alterations had created. The electric was out of date, no trace of a followed code, and obviously dangerous. The supporting beams had been altered and jerry rigged by someone who had no training or knowledge, again leaving the occupants in a dangerous situation. The basement foundation had water and severe structural damage, again needing extreme measures to secure. Addressing my friend, he said that the house was unsalvageable. He shook his head and said that there was no way that this house could be pulled from the brink. He suggested that if my friend and her husband were to move forward with an offer, they should be ready to completely scrape the house and start over. In his many, many ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 198 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 201 years of practice as an architect (also holding a degree in structural engineering), he had only said that twice, and this was his conclusion. That particular friend opted to cross this house off their list. I was shocked when the current owners of the property explained the after-purchase grab for Historic Preservation Status by the listing owners. I’m also shocked that this needs to be stated or reviewed. As a fan of old homes (mine was built in 1906 on Oak Street) I assure you that I would emphatically stand up for ANY chance of preservation or restoration. In this case, there’s no way. Anyone in doubt need only put their head in the front door. The current owners of the property have enlisted a renown local architect and would bring beauty and a perfect Old Town “voice” back to this location with a single family home and one car garage. Please allow them to proceed. Lisa Hoffman Former Old Town Business Owner and Old Town Resident and Neighbor since 1994 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 199 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 202 Exhibit D To March 15, 2023 Cover Letter Third‐Hand Smoke Article [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 203 Citation:Wu, J.-X.; Lau, A.T.Y.; Xu, Y.-M. Indoor Secondary Pollutants Cannot Be Ignored: Third-Hand Smoke.Toxics 2022,10, 363. https:// doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070363 Academic Editors: Besis Athanasios and João Fernando Pereira Gomes Received: 25 April 2022 Accepted: 24 June 2022 Published: 30 June 2022 Publisher’s Note:MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright:© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). toxics Review Indoor Secondary Pollutants Cannot Be Ignored: Third-Hand Smoke Jia-Xun Wu †, Andy T. Y. Lau †and Yan-Ming Xu * Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Epigenetics, Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 515041, China; 20jxwu2@stu.edu.cn (J.-X.W.); andytylau@stu.edu.cn (A.T.Y.L.) *Correspondence: amyymxu@stu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-754-8890-0437 † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract:Smoking has been recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the fifth highest threat to humanity. Smoking, a leading disease promoter, is a major risk factor for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic respiratory diseases. NCDs account for 63% of all deaths worldwide. Passive smoking is also a health risk. Globally, more than a third of all people are regularly exposed to harmful smoke. Air pollution is a common global problem in which pollutants emitted into the atmosphere undergo a series of physical or chemical reactions to produce various oxidation products, which are often referred to as secondary pollutants. Secondary pollutants include ozone (O3 ), sulfur trioxide (SO3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ), and respirable particulate matter (PM). It is worth mentioning that third-hand smoke (THS), formed by the reaction of nicotine with second-hand smoke (SHS) caused by indoor O3 or nitrous acid (HONO), is a major indoor secondary pollutant that cannot be ignored. As a form of indoor air pollution that is relatively difficult to avoid, THS exists in any corner of the environment where smokers live. In this paper, we summarize the important research progress on the main components, detection, and toxicity of THS and look forward to future research directions. Scientific understanding of THS and its hazards will facilitate smoking bans in indoor and public places and raise public concern for how to prevent and remove THS. Keywords:indoor secondary pollutants; third-hand smoke; TSNAs; NNA; NNN; NNK; PAHs 1. Introduction Tobacco use causes 20% of cancer deaths worldwide, and it is estimated that tobacco- related deaths will result in 10 million deaths annually. Tobacco is one of the leading preventable causes of illness and death around the world [1,2]. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a significant source of particles and gases in the indoor environment. Exposure of tobacco smoke to O3 may contribute to the formation of ultrafine particles (UFP) in the indoor environment [3]. In addition to the common SHS, THS is also an important part of non-smokers’ exposure to tobacco smoke components. THS is a secondary pollutant formed by the reaction of adsorbed nicotine with indoor O3 . The concept of THS was first introduced in 2009 by doctors at Massachusetts Children’s General Hospital in Boston [4]. THS refers to the contamination that remains on the surface of objects after the SHS has been cleared. In other words, first-hand smoke is smoke that the smoker inhales into his or her lungs. SHS is the mixture of mainstream smoke exhaled by the smoker with other substances produced by sidestream smoke from burning cigarettes that enter the air and maybe inhaled or ingested into the lungs and stomach to be absorbed or digested. THS refers to smoke pollutants that remain on surfaces such as clothing, walls, furniture, hair, skin, carpets, and dust after smoking. These adhering pollutants can be re-emitted into the gas phase or react with oxidants and other pollutants commonly found in the indoor environment to form secondary pollutants, including carcinogenic compounds [4]. Toxics 2022,10, 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070363 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/toxics ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 204 Toxics 2022,10, 363 2 of 17 THS is a secondary toxicant, a type of secondary aerosol. THS has characteristics that can be described by “the four Rs” because it (1) remains as a residue on the smoker’s body and in the places where they have been smoking; (2) reacts with chemicals in the air to generate more toxic chemicals; (3) re-emits, that is, the generation of these toxic chemicals can be re-released into the air; (4) and can be resuspended long after smoking has ended to enter the body through inhalation, from hand to mouth, and skin absorption, resulting in a lasting, serious impact on human health. Therefore, it poses a potential health hazard to both smokers and non-smokers. Many studies have proven that SHS is absolutely no less harmful than direct smoking. CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention(CDC)datashowedthatSHSexposureincreases the risk of heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke in non-smokers [5] and the number of deaths caused by SHS exposure in China exceeds 100,000 [6]. However, when SHS dissipates, it contains harmful chemicals that can be deposited on surfaces over time, and this accumulated chemical residue constitutes THS. THS as indoor pollution is long-term and cumulative, and its toxicity will gradually increase with the passage of time. Moreover, the main route of exposure to SHS is inhalation, and its exposure time is short. In contrast, THS is not only inhaled, but can also be absorbed through skin contact with contaminated surfaces, possibly including the smoker’s clothing, and their body parts. This illustrates that THS is one of the major indoor secondary pollutants with the same dangers and potential to harm human health as SHS. Thus, THS is a unique entity that constitutes a risk to the health of children and adults, and study of the concept is necessary. Cigarette smoke itself is a complex aerosol consisting of gases and volatile chemicals with suspended PM. SHS contains the same harmful chemicals, including some carcino- gens, which are found in the smoke inhaled by smokers. The gas-phase includes neuro- toxic nicotine, carbonyl compounds (such as acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein), hydrocarbons (such as benzene, toluene, and some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]), nitrogen oxides (NO), pyridine, ammonia, nitrosamines, hydrogen cyanide, and 1,3-butadiene, among other harmful gases. The particulate phase is often referred to as the “tar” component, which contains benzene, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), benzo[]pyrene (BaP), cadmium (a toxic metal), formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, etc. These components are irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract, as well as hazardous to the cardiovascular and reproductive systems [7]. Compared to directly inhaled tobacco, SHS contains 5 times more carbon monoxide (CO), 3 times more nicotine, 4 times more BaP, and 50 times more nitrosamines than mainstream smoke. THS is created at the same time that SHS is created, and after the gas-phase component of SHS is removed with time and air movement, THS smoke becomes the primary exposure, and studies have shown that the toxicity of THS increases over time. Nicotine in THS can react with HONO in the air to produce carcinogenic nitrosamines, which results in a much higher nitrosamine content in THS than in SHS. Some studies have pointed out that the ratio of 4-(methyl nitrosamine)- 1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK): nicotine on cotton exposed to smoke is 10 times higher than that in aerosol samples, which means that the carcinogenic NNK content in THS is higher compared to SHS [8]. 2. Components in THS Cigarette smoke contains a complex mixture of particles and gases, including nicotine, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, different functional and volatile organic compounds, and metals, all of which are major sources of pollution in the indoor environment. Nico- tine is released and deposited almost completely on indoor surfaces, where it can react with O3 , HONO, and other atmospheric oxidants to produce carcinogenic TSNAs [9]. To date, many harmful components have been detected in THS, including those specific to tobacco combustion, such as nicotine and TSNAs, as well as tobacco-related toxicants, N-nitrosamines, aromatic amines, PAHs, and volatile carbonyls [8,10–13]. Among the components that are most harmful after long-term exposure through inhalation are PM2.5, acrolein, furans, acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, isoprene, toluene, and benzene, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 205 Toxics 2022,10, 363 3 of 17 and these persist long after smoking has ended [8]. SHS emissions can be divided into the following categories according to vapor pressure range (Table 1): gaseous inorganic compounds (>13 kPa), very volatile organic compounds (VVOCs) (>7 to 13 kPa), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (0.01 to 10 kPa), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (10 2 to 10 8 kPa), and particulate organic compounds (<10 8 kPa) [14]. Components released from SHS lead to the formation of THS through dynamic processes, such as de- position, adsorption and desorption, and chemical reactions, which changes the chemical composition and concentration of components of environmental tobacco smoke in the indoor environment. Extremely VOCs are unlikely to remain on surfaces and, in general, they are not very well adsorbed on indoor surfaces and can be removed by ventilation. Therefore, the gaseous inorganic compounds in THS are very small. In contrast, VOCs are more likely to be adsorbed to the surface of objects, but it is not possible to determine whether the identified VOCs are secondary pollutants because it is not clear whether they are the result of direct combustion during smoking or a chemical reaction between products during combustion. SVOCs are present in the indoor environment as gases, liquids, and solids and form partitions between indoor air and surfaces. SVOCs include alkanes (C16 –C22 ), PAHs, quinolines, isoquinolines, carbazoles, and nicotine (such as N-nitrosonicotine (NNN) and NNK). Smoking-induced combustion forces SVOCs into the gas phase. As they cool, they condense into liquid droplets and adsorb to particles and chamber surfaces. Once adsorbed, they can also be re-emitted into the gas phase. The tendency of SVOCs to attach to dust and surfaces reduces the likelihood of their removal by ventilation and increases the likelihood that they will remain indoors long after active smoking has stopped, which may be the main form of THS. The exposure of cigarette smoke to O3 may lead to the formation of ultrafine particles in the indoor environment. The growth of primary particles and the formation of ultrafine particles are caused by the rapid reaction between the gas phase substances in cigarette smoke and O3 [3]. Emission and ventilation rates typically have the greatest impact on indoor concentrations of PM, with small amounts of PM also deposited on indoor surfaces. Over time, as gas-phase SVOCs are removed from the air and deposited onto surfaces, there may also be a loss of SVOCs from PM. As gas- phase SVOCs are deposited onto surfaces, particle-phase SVOCs are volatilized from the particles to restore the equilibrium between the two phases [15]. Therefore, PM such as BaP, benzo[]fluoranthene, benzo[]fluoranthene, and solanesol are also present in THS. The formation of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) and carcinogens is an important aspect of the conversion of SHS into THS. This process includes the secondary reaction of SHS with O3 , the reaction of nicotine with OH, the multiphase oxidation of nicotine and cigarette smoke on indoor surfaces to form SOA, and the reaction of HONO with surface-adsorbed nicotine to form carcinogenic TSNAs. The following section will describe the toxicity of tobacco-specific nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the major carcinogenic components of THS. Table 1.The main components of SHS emissions and their representative substances. Major Components Vapor Pressure Range Representative Compounds in the Components Gas-phase inorganic compounds >13 kPa CO2 , CO, NH3 Very volatile organic compounds(VVOCs)>7 to 13 kPa Formaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, acetylaldehyde Volatile organic compounds(VOCs)0.01 to 10 kPa Benzene, styrene, toluene, 2-butanone, N, N-nitrosodimethylamine, N-nitrosopyrrolidine Semi-volatile organic compounds(SVOCs)10 2 to 10 8 kPa Nicotine, N-nitrosonomicotine, 4-(methylnitrosamino), 1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone Particulate organic compounds <10 8 kPa Benzo[]pyrene, benzo[]fluoranthene, benzo[]fluoranthene, solanesol ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 206 Toxics 2022,10, 363 4 of 17 3. Generation of THS Studies have shown that THS can be generated by several physical and chemical transformation mechanisms, as follows: Selective adsorption and accumulation of certain compounds, such as SVOCs, from the gas phase of SHS onto the surface of objects before they are slowly released into the air; PM from SHS stains furniture, walls, carpets, clothing, etc., which can then again be suspended into the air; Certain compounds in SHS, such as nicotine, attach to the surface of objects and react with O3, HONO, and other substances in the atmosphere to form second-generation toxicants. 4. Places Where THS Exists As described before, THS is one of the main indoor secondary pollutants and is commonly found in smokers’ homes. However, in countries where smoking bans are not strictly enforced in public places, exposure to SHS is higher in public places than in homes, which leads to a high presence of THS in these places as well. THS is also common in car indoor environments. Due to the small space inside a car, and an enclosed environment with a higher surface-to-space ratio, they are more likely to absorb the toxicants in smoke. High concentrations of nicotine and TSNAs are found wherever a smoker has been, and as a result of human activity and air circulation, THS is everywhere, and traces can even be found in non-smokers’ homes and non-smoking areas. 5. The Main Carcinogenic Components of THS The main chemical components of THS include nicotine, cotinine, 3-vinyl pyridine, cresol, naphthalene, PAHs, formaldehyde, TSNAs, and respirable volatile organic com- pounds including acetonitrile, benzene, acetone, and toluene [8–10,16]. The focus of THS generation is on nicotine-related chemical transformations, which fall into two main cat- egories: First, the chemical transformation of nicotine and O3 to form an SOA and some oxidation products. In many places, O3 is used to remove the smell of smoke, which can potentially cause the production of THS and increase secondary pollution; therefore, it plays an important part in the production of THS. Second, TSNAs can be formed by the reaction of nicotine with HONO (Figure 1). To better understand the potential health haz- ards of THS, we will examine its main constituents, PAHs and TSNAs, and their respective molecular effects that induce cancer. 5.1. PAHs: The Killer in Cigarette Smoke Tobacco smoke is one of the major sources of PAHs in settled house dust (SHD), and PAHs from tobacco smoke is a component of THS [11]. Studies have shown that SHD in smokers’ homes contains higher levels of PAHs than SHD from non-smokers’ homes. BaP, one of many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon carcinogens in tobacco smoke, includes BaP, methyl isobutenate, dibenzo[a, h]anthracene, etc. [17]. In recent years, many types of research have investigated the toxicity genomics of PAHs, which can be divided into the following four groups: (1) PAHs can cause DNA damage by producing DNA adducts. PAHs mediating DNA adduct formation is an indicator of DNA damage and a biomarker of potential cancer risk. Upon entry into the body, PAHs firstly mediate the activation of cytochrome P450 (CYP), which induces glutathione S-transferase, UDP glucuronosyltransferase, etc., via aromatic hydrocarbon receptor-dependent or independent pathways. PAHs are metab- olized by the CYP1A1/1B1/EH pathway, CYPase pathway, and AKR pathway to form free radical cations and quinones, which are carcinogenic substances and produce DNA adducts causing DNA mutations, thus leading to cancer development. BaP is a potent lung carcinogen that is slowly absorbed by tracheal epithelial cells and induces mainly squamous cell carcinoma [18–20]. BaP-DNA adducts may cause mutations in the p53 gene [21,22]. BaP acts as a ligand for AhR and activation of AhR has a variety of downstream effects, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 207 Toxics 2022,10, 363 5 of 17 including the formation of DNA adducts (via CYP1A/1B1-dependent metabolic activa- tion), tumorigenesis, inflammation, cell proliferation, and loss of cell adhesion. BaP is capable of causing p53 mutant overexpression with DNA damage, resulting in cervical tissue damage. The expression levels of Bcl-2, Bax, Caspase-3, Ki-67, and C-myc are also significantly altered in mouse cervical tissue cells treated with BaP, or in mouse cerebral cortex and hippocampus regions, so BaP affects the expression of genes associated with apoptosis and triggers cervical cancer or chronic neurotoxicity [23–25]. In the lung tissue of smokers, CYP1-mediated oxidation and bioactivation of BaP leads to the formation of benzo[]pyrene-7,8-diol-9,10-epoxide, which results in the formation of DNA adducts, an established risk factor for lung tumors [26]. Toxics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 Figure 1. The focus of THS generation is on chemical transformations related to nicotine. There are two main categories: one is the chemical transformation of nicotine and O3, forming SOAs and some oxidation products. The other category comprises TSNAs that can be formed by the reaction of nic- otine with HONO. 5.1. PAHs: The Killer in Cigarette Smoke Tobacco smoke is one of the major sources of PAHs in settled house dust (SHD), and PAHs from tobacco smoke is a component of THS [11]. Studies have shown that SHD in smokers’ homes contains higher levels of PAHs than SHD from non-smokers’ homes. BaP, one of many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon carcinogens in tobacco smoke, includes BaP, methyl isobutenate, dibenzo[a, h]anthracene, etc. [17]. In recent years, many types of research have investigated the toxicity genomics of PAHs, which can be divided into the following four groups: (1) PAHs can cause DNA damage by producing DNA adducts. PAHs mediating DNA adduct formation is an indicator of DNA damage and a biomarker of potential can- cer risk. Upon entry into the body, PAHs firstly mediate the activation of cytochrome P450 (CYP), which induces glutathione S-transferase, UDP glucuronosyltransferase, etc., via aromatic hydrocarbon receptor-dependent or independent pathways. PAHs are metabo- lized by the CYP1A1/1B1/EH pathway, CYPase pathway, and AKR pathway to form free radical cations and quinones, which are carcinogenic substances and produce DNA ad- ducts causing DNA mutations, thus leading to cancer development. BaP is a potent lung carcinogen that is slowly absorbed by tracheal epithelial cells and induces mainly squa- mous cell carcinoma [18–20]. BaP-DNA adducts may cause mutations in the p53 gene [21,22]. BaP acts as a ligand for AhR and activation of AhR has a variety of downstream effects, including the formation of DNA adducts (via CYP1A/1B1 -dependent metabolic activation), tumorigenesis, inflammation, cell proliferation, and loss of cell adhesion. BaP is capable of causing p53 mutant overexpression with DNA damage, resulting in cervical tissue damage. The expression levels of Bcl-2, Bax, Caspase-3, Ki-67, and C-myc are also significantly altered in mouse cervical tissue cells treated with BaP, or in mouse cerebral cortex and hippocampus regions, so BaP affects the expression of genes associated with apoptosis and triggers cervical cancer or chronic neurotoxicity [23–25]. In the lung tissue Figure 1.The focus of THS generation is on chemical transformations related to nicotine. There are two main categories: one is the chemical transformation of nicotine and O3 , forming SOAs and some oxidation products. The other category comprises TSNAs that can be formed by the reaction of nicotine with HONO. (2) PAHs can regulate gene polymorphisms and alter epigenetic patterns, such as CYP1A1, CYP2E1, GSTM1, GSTTQ, GSTT2, AhRA and other gene polymorphisms [27–29]. It has been reported that PAHs may produce insulin resistance through methylation- mediatedinhibitionofnormalIRS2geneexpressionandcauselipidmetabolicsyndrome[30]. (3) Inhalation of PAHs causes oxidative stress and inflammation in the body by inducing reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in cells [31]. Mitochondria are the main site of ROS production, and BaP induces excess free radical production in mitochondria [32]. It was also found that BaP treatment increased malondialdehyde and glutathione levels and significantly increased the activities of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and catalase (CAT) in mice, suggesting that the addition of BaP may cause oxidative stress and oxidative DNA damage [33]. (4) Alteration of self-physicochemical properties and disruption of internal environ- mental homeostasis leads to the production of procarcinogens. Prolonged exposure to PAHs, the precursor compounds of PAHs, or their metabolites, in the body can perturb the intracellular environment and be toxic or even carcinogenic to tissues [34]. Exposure to PAHs in cigarette smoke allows substantial replication of the HIV virus in macrophages ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 208 Toxics 2022,10, 363 6 of 17 from HIV-positive smokers, possibly because the expression of CYPs is regulated by aro- matic hydrocarbon receptors that allow PAHs to mediate the production of procarcinogens or toxic metabolites [35]. 5.2. TSNAs: Products of the Reaction between Nicotine and HONO Residual nicotine from tobacco smoke is adsorbed to indoor surfaces and reacts with environmental HONO to form carcinogenic TSNAs, which are among the most widespread and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke [36,37]. Indoor HONO and its precursors NO and NO2 come not only from smoking but mostly from indoor combustion sources, such as improperly ventilated gas stoves and heaters, as well as from outdoor air pollution infiltration generated by vehicle exhaust or biomass combus- tion [38]. Common TSNAs include NNK, NNN, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-4-(3-pyridyl)-1- butanol (iso-NNAL), N-nitrosoanabasine (NAB), and N’-nitrosoanatabine (NAT). Three major nitrosamines are formed in the reaction of adsorbed nicotine and gaseous HONO: (i) NNK, nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone, specifically 4-(methylnitrosamido)-1-(3- pyridyl)-1-butanone; (ii) NNA, nicotine-derived nitrosaminoaldehyde, mainly 1-(N-methyl- N-nitrosamines)-1-(3-pyridyl)-4-butanal; and (iii) NNN, N’-nitrosonornicotine. NNN, NNA, and NNK are the most carcinogenic components of TSNAs [39–43]. Nitrosamines require metabolic activation to bind to DNA and other cellular macromolecules to exert their effects. NNK is a highly carcinogenic TSNA that can be formed when cigarette sidestream smoke is released into the ambient air. NNK and its metabolic breakdown product, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), are the most potent carcinogens among TSNAs [39]. Naturally occurring NNK in tobacco smoke is inert and requires acti- vation of multiple CYPs as DNA-reactive metabolites. Activated NNK induces metabolic activation of -hydroxylated -methyl or methyl carbons to form DNA adducts to produce its toxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects. What determines NNK genotoxicity is the relationship between the metabolic activation of cytochrome P450 enzymes and constitu- tive DNA repair mechanisms [44]. Methane diazohydroxides and/or methyl diazo ions produced by the -methylene hydroxylation of NNK react with DNA to produce mainly 7-N-methyl guanine (7-mGua) and O 6 -methyl guanine (O 6 -mGua) and a small amount of O 4 -methyl thymine. In contrast,-methyl hydroxylation of NNK produces -hydroxy methyl NNK, which is stable enough to undergo glucuronidation. It loses formaldehyde spontaneously to produce pyridoxabutazole hydroxide, which reacts with DNA to produce bulky pyridoxabutyration (POB) adducts [41]. It has been shown that NNK forms mainly indoors, especially at high nitric acid concentrations, but is reactive with O3 and NO, which can lead to its destruction, produc- ing the major metabolite NNAL. NNK acts on the lung at relatively high concentrations, inducing mainly adenomas and adenocarcinomas [45] and is the only known pancre- atic carcinogen in cigarette smoke and a biomarker of cardiovascular disease caused by tobacco smoke [36,42,46]. NNAL is the major carcinogenic metabolite of NNK and a dual-use biomarker of exposure to e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. Five pathways are known for the conversion of NNK to NNAL: carbonyl reduction, pyridine oxidation, -hydroxylation (hydroxylation of the carbon adjacent to the N-nitroso group), denitroso reaction, and formation of ADP adducts. Carbonyl reduction of NNK is the major metabolic pathway and the carbonyl reductases involved in this process include 11--hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.146). This is a microsomal enzyme responsible for the interconver- sion of active 11-hydroxyglucocorticoid with the inactive 11-oxo form [44]. The metabolic transformation mode and oncogenic activity of NNAL are similar to those of NNK [39]. It has also been shown that in the absence of metabolic activation, NNK can be re-released from THS [39] trapped on the surface of an object to be activated by UV light and produce secondary contamination again [47]. Similar to NNK, NNN is classified as a class I carcinogen by the WHO and is found at the highest levels in tobacco and tobacco smoke. The concentration of NNN in cigarette ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 209 Toxics 2022,10, 363 7 of 17 smoke is higher than any other esophageal cancer carcinogen, so it can be used as a specific predictor of esophageal cancer risk in smokers [9]. Compared with NNK, NNN is more cor- related with HONO, so the concentration of NNN increases as the concentration of HONO increases. That is, when NO2 , a primary pollutant, increases in the indoor environment, HONO, a secondary pollutant produced by the reaction of NO2 , also increases, and NNN is more susceptible to the relevant reactions. There are three main types of metabolism known for NNN: pyridine N-oxidation, hydroxylation of the pyrrolidine ring (including -hydroxylation at the 2 0 - and 5 0 -positions and -hydroxylation at the 3 0 - and 4 0 -positions), and norcotinine formation. Cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYP450s) mediate the 2 0 - and 50 --hydroxylation pathways, the major pathways of NNN metabolism, leading to the formation of DNA adducts [42,48]. Subsequently, the intermediate product of hydroxyla- tion undergoes spontaneous decomposition to generate diazohydrides that can be further converted to alkyl diazo ions, which subsequently attack DNA and form various DNA damages such as POB-DNA adducts and pyridine-N-pyrrolidinyl (py-py)-DNA adducts. These damages can lead to tumorigenesis [48]. Detoxification pathways for NNN include the production of norcotinine,-hydroxy NNNs, and NNN-N-oxide. Unlike NNK and NNN, which have been widely described, NNA is a new and important chemical found in THS that is not present in fresh SHS and is the primary TSNA formed in THS when nicotine reacts with HONO (common indoor air pollution produced by direct emissions from indoor combustion devices and smoking, as well as the surface conversion of NO2 and NO) long after smoking has occurred [9]. The NNA content in THS exposed to HONO is at least three times greater than that of untreated HONO [9,48]. NNA can disrupt and break DNA strands and induce oxidative damage to the hypoxanthine phosphoribosyl transferase 1 (HPRT1) gene and the DNA polymerase beta (DNA pol ) gene [49]. Several experiments have shown that hepatocellular carcinoma cells exposed to NNA display high levels of DNA damage, and when damage levels are too high, the DNA pol genes involved in DNA repair are over-regulated and induce major genetic changes associated with the malignant phenotype [50]. HPRT1 plays a key role in nucleotide metabolism [51], and its absence leads to dopamine deficiency and a decrease in 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors, which in turn triggers symptoms of uric acid overload in individuals, leading to lithiasis and arthrolithiasis, and even Lesch–Nyhan syndrome [51]. Iso-NNAL is another form of NNA, but it does not have tumorigenic activity. NNA is also as genotoxic as the carcinogen NNK at nanomolar levels of exposure [48]. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) polymorphisms are associated with lung carcinogenesis, and genotoxicity and a tumor-promoting environment are two necessary conditions for TSNAs to induce cancer. In addition to genotoxic effects, TSNAs linked to nAChRs expressed on the plasma membrane can affect lung cells. Acetylcholine (ACh) and its receptors play an extremely important role in both physiological functions and pathological processes of the body, mediating a variety of physiological processes, including muscle contraction, neurotransmission, and sensory transmission, by acting on nAChRs. These receptors are also crucial for tobacco addiction [52]since the addictive effects of nicotine are closely related to the rewarding effects mediated by nAChRs [53]. Cigarette smoking elevates nAChRs levels in the brain, and nicotine promotes nAChRs function and elevates post-transcriptional levels of nAChRs, promoting the formation of nAChRs pentamers and surface expression of receptors. There are various structures of nAChRs, though a pentameric structure consisting of five subunits is the most common, and each subunit contains an N-terminal extracellular structural domain for ligand binding, followed by four transmembrane (TM) regions. Between TM3 and TM4 is a large cytoplasmic region consisting of two structured helices, MX and MA, that regulate the interaction with cytoskeleton-anchored proteins. The common nAChRs subunit types are 7,4 2,6 2 3, 3 2,6 4, and 9 10. Nicotinebindsto 7nAChRspresentinneuronsand 4 2nAChRsindopamineneurons by mimicking acetylcholine. However, nicotine has a higher affinity for 4 2nAChRs [54]. The function of 7nAChRs, a regulator that stimulates cancer cells, was upregulated in ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 210 Toxics 2022,10, 363 8 of 17 smokers, whereas the function of 4 2nAChRs, which mainly regulates an inhibitory effect in tumors, was impaired [55]. Thus, the biological function of 7nAChRs is increased in smokers, whereas the function of 4 2nAChRs is impaired. nACHO is a neuron-specific endoplasmic reticulum-resident protein. As a specific molecular chaperone for neuronal nAChRs, nACHO is involved in 7 subunit folding, assembly, and cytosolic transport of 7nAChRs mainly through synergistic N-oligosaccharide transferase (OST), calmodulin, RIC3, and anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 protein [56]. nACHO is also involved in the biogenesis and function of 4 2 nAChRs. SAT1, the rate-limiting enzyme for polyamine catabolism metabolism, enhances 42 surface transport. NNN and NNK are structurally similar to nicotine, though the affinity of NNN for the isomer nAChRs and NNK for 7nAChRs are 5000 and 1300 times higher than that of nicotine, respectively [57]. Through the action of 7nAchRs, NNA inhibits the activation of ERK1/2, which reduces the level of p-MAPK and affects cellular function. NNA, in turn, is affected by 3 2nAChRs in addition to 7nAChRs. The 3 2nAChRs act mainly in the sympathetic terminals around the cerebral vasculature, and nicotine is able to induce neurogenic vasodilation in the porcine basilar artery via 3 2nAChRs [58]. However, there is no direct evidence for the mechanism of action for NNA and 7nAchRs and 32-nAChRs. The binding of NNK, a site-selective high-affinity agonist of 7nAChRs, to 7nAChRs activatedvoltage-gatedCa2+channels, causingCa 2+influxandmembranedepolarizationin lung cells. Subsequently, NNK activated the Raf-1/MAP kinase pathway by stimulating the release of the autocrine growth factor 5-hydroxytryptamine, leading to phosphorylation of c-myc, thereby regulating the growth of an important subset of small cell lung cancer(SCLC) and pulmonary neuroendocrine cells (PNECs) [59]. Stimulation of nAChRs with NNK leads to activation of three signal transduction effectors (GATA-3, nuclear factor-kappaB, and STAT-1), whereas NNN activates mainly GATA-3 and STAT-1. NNK- and NNN-induced GATA-3 protein binding activity was associated with elevated gene expression [60]. NNK, a -adrenergic (-ARs) agonist, is capable of stimulating DNA synthesis and proliferation of human pancreatic duct epithelial cells lung adenocarcinoma cells via the -ARs release of arachidonic acid or trans-activation of epidermal growth factor re- ceptor (EGFR) by initiating cAMP signaling [61,62]. The inhibitory neurotransmitter -aminobutyric acid (GABA) inhibits the -ADR-initiated cAMP signaling cascade at the adenylyl cyclase level, blocking DNA synthesis and cell migration. The release of GABA requires the control of 4 2nAChRs, which is impaired in tobacco-exposed in- dividuals [63,64]. In other words, NNK not only initiates the cAMP signaling pathway, it perpetuates its continuous activity, and eventually, cell migration and invasion occur. Adenocarcinoma has the highest correlation with smoking of all types of lung cancer [65], and smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are more likely to develop SCLC [66]. COPD is an inflammatory lung disease characterized by reduced exhalation of carbon dioxide and upregulated 7nAChRs levels [67]. In high CO2 and low O2 environments, NNK binds to 7nAChRs rather than -ARs in healthy lungs [62,68,69]. Therefore, the risk of developing SCLC in patients with COPD will not be reduced in the absence of smoking if they are exposed to THS in an environment where smokers have lived for a long time. A related study noted that an increase in the level of 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) adducts, a marker of oxidative DNA damage, was detected in lung tissue after NNK injection, suggesting the ability of NNK to induce oxidative stress [70–72]. NNK mediates the onset of ROS, which not only allows DNA lesioning, but ROS act as signaling intermediates for many normal as well as pathological cellular processes to alter the microenvironment for tumorigenesis in vivo. NNA, which is unique to THS, can also induce DNA damage. NNA exposure reduces ribosomal protein S3 (RPS3), so less RPS3 translocates to the nucleus to bind to the 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanosine (8-oxoGuo) site of DNA lesions, and repair of 8-oxoGuo lesions is not activated; therefore, 8-OHdG will accumulate and DNA damage will increase. It was shown that the expression of the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 211 Toxics 2022,10, 363 9 of 17 anti-apoptotic gene Bcl-2 was downregulated in cells under prolonged NNA exposure, and NNA was able to induce the expression of apoptosis-related genes [73]. At the same time, NNA was also able to disrupt the DNA repair system by decreasing the expression of RPS3, causing oocytes in the germinal vesicle stage to stop developing [74,75]. Furthermore, NNA exposure leads to an increase in mitochondrial Ca 2+([Ca2+]m), resulting in abnormal mitochondrial distribution, dysfunction, accelerated ROS accumulation, and induced apoptosis [73]. More interestingly and specifically, NNA exposure altered epigenetic modifications in a way that other TSNAs did not. A decrease in 5-mC levels and a marked change in the level of DNA methyltransferase DNMT31 after NNA exposure suggested that NNA altered DNA methylation in oocytes; in addition, H3K4me2 levels were decreased and the methylation status of histones was altered (NNA was able to modify 2 0 -deoxyguanosine (dGuo), generating adducts including 8-Oxo-7,8-dihydro-2 0 -deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dGuo), O6 -methyl-dGuo, and N 2 -methyl-dGuo. Of these, O 6 - and N 2 -methyl-dGuo, are the first two methylated dGuo adducts to be identified. From the reaction between NNA and dGuo, a novel DNA glycan damage, 5 0 and 3 0 -Methyl-dGuo, was also identified, which could lead to DNA backbone breakage if formed in the cell [76] (Figure 2). Toxics 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 Figure 2. The mechanism of carcinogenesis of TSNAs (NNK, NNN, NNA) from THS. TSNAs can cause mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, which affect cell proliferation, survival, migration, and invasion, and ultimately lead to cancer development. Metabolically activated TSNAs induce DNA adducts that can be eliminated by a functional DNA repair network, but unresolved DNA adducts further lead to mutations in oncogenes and suppressor genes, the first step in TSNAs- induced carcinogenesis. After NNK exposure, the level of the 8-OHdG adduct in lung tissue in- creased, which is a marker of DNA oxidative damage. NNA exposure decreased RPS3, so less RPS3 is transferred to the nucleus to bind 8-oxoGuo DNA lesions, and the repair of 8-oxoGuo lesions is not activated. Therefore, 8-OHdG accumulates, as does DNA damage. More interestingly, the de- crease in the level of 5-mC level after NNA exposure alters DNA methylation levels and affects epigenetic modification. In addition, the binding of NNK, NNN, and NNA to nAChRs promotes tumor growth by regulating cell proliferation, cell survival, cell migration, and cell invasion, which is the second step in inducing cancer. The binding of NNK to α7nAChRs and NNN to αβnAChRs activates the Ca2+ channel of the voltage gate, causing Ca2+ to flood into lung cells, leading to mem- brane depolarization. In turn, protein kinase C, serine/threonine kinases , RAF1, mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK) 1 and ERK2, and transcription factors FOS, JUN, and MYC are activated, leading to cell proliferation. NNK acts as an agonist of β-ARs and binds directly to them with high affinity to activate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) via cAMP signal s initiated by β-ARs, thus initiating the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK-MAPK pathway and affecting cell prolif- eration. NNA may increase the level of mitochondrial Ca2+ and intracellular ROS by binding to α3β2nAChRs and α7nAChRs, thus affecting the cellular microenvironment. 6. Health Effects of THS In summary, we know that THS, a secondary indoor pollutant, contains many car- cinogenic substances. The accumulation of these carcinogenic components can have an impact on our health. We are already familiar with the health effects of active smoking and SHS. The first victim of passive smoking is the active smoker himself [77]. After smok- ing, nicotine remains on the smoker’s fingers and clothing and spreads as the smoker moves around. Many carcinogenic and toxic chemicals may be present at higher concen- trations in SHS than the smoke inhaled by smokers. SHS can cause lung cancer, heart dis- ease, and acute respiratory effects [78] and children exposed to SHS have an increased risk Figure 2.The mechanism of carcinogenesis of TSNAs (NNK, NNN, NNA) from THS. TSNAs can cause mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, which affect cell proliferation, survival, migration, and invasion, and ultimately lead to cancer development. Metabolically activated TSNAs induce DNA adducts that can be eliminated by a functional DNA repair network, but unresolved DNA adducts further lead to mutations in oncogenes and suppressor genes, the first step in TSNAs-induced ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 212 Toxics 2022,10, 363 10 of 17 carcinogenesis. After NNK exposure, the level of the 8-OHdG adduct in lung tissue increased, which is a marker of DNA oxidative damage. NNA exposure decreased RPS3, so less RPS3 is transferred to the nucleus to bind 8-oxoGuo DNA lesions, and the repair of 8-oxoGuo lesions is not activated. Therefore, 8-OHdG accumulates, as does DNA damage. More interestingly, the decrease in the level of 5-mC level after NNA exposure alters DNA methylation levels and affects epigenetic modification. In addition, the binding of NNK, NNN, and NNA to nAChRs promotes tumor growth by regulating cell proliferation, cell survival, cell migration, and cell invasion, which is the second step in inducing cancer. The binding of NNK to 7nAChRs and NNN to nAChRs activates the Ca 2+channel of the voltage gate, causing Ca2+to flood into lung cells, leading to membrane depolarization. In turn, protein kinase C, serine/threonine kinases, RAF1, mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK) 1 and ERK2, and transcription factors FOS, JUN, and MYC are activated, leading to cell proliferation. NNK acts as an agonist of -ARs and binds directly to them with high affinity to activate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) via cAMP signals initiated by -ARs, thus initiating the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK-MAPK pathway and affecting cell proliferation. NNA may increase the level of mitochondrial Ca 2+and intracellular ROS by binding to 3 2nAChRs and 7nAChRs, thus affecting the cellular microenvironment. 6. Health Effects of THS In summary, we know that THS, a secondary indoor pollutant, contains many carcino- genic substances. The accumulation of these carcinogenic components can have an impact on our health. We are already familiar with the health effects of active smoking and SHS. The first victim of passive smoking is the active smoker himself [77]. After smoking, nico- tine remains on the smoker’s fingers and clothing and spreads as the smoker moves around. Many carcinogenic and toxic chemicals may be present at higher concentrations in SHS than the smoke inhaled by smokers. SHS can cause lung cancer, heart disease, and acute respiratory effects [78] and children exposed to SHS have an increased risk for acute respira- tory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. In the fetal brain, nicotine activates nicotinic receptors, which play an important role in brain development [51]. Nicotine may be toxic to the developing brain by activating fetal nicotinic receptors that prematurely stimulate neuronal differentiation and exert cholinergic effects on cellular communication as well as mitosis [79]. In the previous section, we were able to show that THS contains as many potent carcinogens as SHS, and Ramírez et al. demonstrated that carcinogenic N-nitrosamines and TSNAs are widely present in smoking and smoke-free environments after measuring indoor dust samples from the homes of smokers and non-smokers [13]. Since THS resides on surfaces and in dust, chemical reactions with this residue can produce additional toxins. In other words, THS is a ubiquitous toxic substance, and its health effects cannot be ignored. The initiation and progression of tumorigenesis are complex, involving the inacti- vation of tumor suppressor genes, activation of oncogenes and inflammatory processes, and alterations in the tissue microenvironment. Mistakenly repaired or unrepaired DNA adducts constitute another necessary step for the induction of cancer. THS causes genetic mutations in human cells, which contribute to the possibility of cancer and other diseases. THS extracts and NNA itself are genotoxic to human cell lines. Some studies have found that THS causes DNA gene strand breaks, which can produce unforeseeable serious con- sequences. A key event in the early stages of tobacco carcinogenesis is mutagenic DNA damage caused by genotoxic compounds, and NNK and NNN cause DNA damage and mutations through receptor-mediated actions and promote tumor growth, thereby induc- ing cancer [37]. In addition to the nitrosamines such as NNN, NNK and NNA described above, nicotine is oxidized in the presence of O3 and HONO to produce formaldehyde, N-dimethylformamide, and nicotinaldehyde, all of which are potential pulmonary toxins. THS exposure is also associated with increased oxidative stress. The binding of NNK and NNN to nAChRs enhances or deregulates cell proliferation, survival, migration, and invasion through the persistence of DNA adducts, such as those formed by the tobacco ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 213 Toxics 2022,10, 363 11 of 17 carcinogens PAHs and N-nitrosamines, which play a central role in tobacco-induced car- cinogenesis. Furthermore, NNA is maternally toxic and impairs spermatogenesis, oocyte maturation, follicular development, and early development in F1 mice [73]. Martins-Green et al. found that exposure to THS caused significant damage to liver, lung, and healing skin in mice [80]. THS exposure stimulates the accumulation of adipocytes in the liver, leading to a significant increase in triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, a decrease in high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and defects in in- sulin metabolism. These metabolic changes predispose “metabolic syndrome” [80], which not only decreases the efficiency of oxygen diffusion, but also increases the risk of pul- monary fibrosis, which may lead to COPD and asthma. As with the consequences of active smoking, THS may also lead to poor wound healing in the skin due to a decrease in protofibrillar collagen in the tissues. Experiments have shown that rats exposed to THS are very active and develop hyperactivity [80]; there is also evidence that women exposed to tobacco prenatally increase the risk of their children developing attention deficit and hyper- activity disorder (ADHD) and behavioral disorders [81]. This suggests that the components of THS have a neurological effect in addition to direct effects on the body and maternal toxicity. In particular, infants and young children spend more time in closed environments and therefore may inhale dust particles contaminated with THS compounds [82]. Thus, THS may be more harmful to infants and children, and long-term exposure to tobacco may seriously affect their development. Children in environments where smoking is or has been permitted are at high risk of suffering multiple short- and long-term health problems, many of which may not fully manifest until later in life. Placental cadmium levels were higher in women who smoked compared to those who did not smoke [83] and blood cadmium levels were 3–4 times higher in smokers than non-smokers. Matt et al. examined the composition of settled house dust and found that the cadmium and lead components of THS persisted long after smoking ended [84]. Cadmium in cigarette smoke is known to be a possible cause of lung cancer in smokers, and exposure to lead and cadmium in THS may lead to cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and osteoporosis [85]. THS is a major threat not only to human health but also to household pets. Pet cats are inevitably exposed to THS on floors, furniture, and household items, which not only increases the risk of lymphoma in pet cats but may also induce squamous epithelial cell carcinoma in the mouth and even tumors in the nasal cavity. Gastrointestinal disorders and skin allergies in cats are also often associated with smoking environments [86]. 7. THS Detection The most common method currently used to detect THS contamination is surface wipe sampling to analyze environmental concentrations of nicotine and cotinine. Other commonly used markers include cotinine TSNAs such as NNK and PAHs. Cotinine is both an alkaloid in tobacco and a major metabolite of nicotine, with a longer half-life than nicotine (10–40 h). This method is fast, simple, and accurately reflects the concentration of nicotine in indoor air. Environmental detection of THS often uses a combination of two or more markers, such as nicotine and 3-vinylpyridine, nicotine and TSNAs, or one of the main tobacco-specific pyridine-containing compounds can also be used. By using multiple markers and measuring their ratios, the growth and decline of different contaminants over time can be better assessed. 8. Biomarkers of THS Identifying biomarkers of tobacco chemicals is the key to assessing the health effects associated with THS exposure. A common way to assess the type, extent, and frequency of tobacco smoke exposure is biomonitoring the major nicotine biomarker cotinine in urine, blood, and saliva. Biomarkers are subdivided into exposure markers and effect mark- ers, and the priority factor is their specificity. Tobacco-specific biomarkers—nicotine and TSNAs—are chemicals extracted from tobacco smoke. Compared to SHS, THS exposure has several different characteristics. First, because TSNA concentrations accumulate over ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 214 Toxics 2022,10, 363 12 of 17 time, non-smokers exposed to THS typically have much higher TSNAs/cotinine ratios than non-exposed individuals, and there is no gender, racial/ethnic, or age differences [87,88]. This ratio can therefore be used as a biomarker to distinguish between SHS and THS exposure. Furthermore, NNA, as a major product in THS and not present in fresh SHS, or NNA-dG covalently bound adducts could serve as such a biomarker to identify indi- viduals exposed to THS, thus providing important information for early detection and prevention [76]. An assessment of the possible major metabolites of NNA, iso-NNAL, and 4-(methylnitrosamine)-4-(3-pyridyl)butanoic acid (iso-NNAC) is also available to distin- guish between second-hand and THS exposure. Pratt showed that the levels of biomarkers such as NNK and cotinine increased significantly with THS exposure, confirming the reliability of using these biomarkers for screening for THS exposure [89]. In addition, Jacob et al. detected nicotelline in aged house dust smoke particles and were able to detect metabolites of nicotelline in the eyes of smokers and birds, so it may be a new biomarker for THS [90]. However, biomonitoring studies of these specific NNA biomarkers have been lacking to date. In addition, the main routes of exposure to THS, compared to SHS, are non-dietary intake and dermal absorption. Non-smokers are exposed to smoke toxins attached to fabrics, clothing, dust, and surfaces in an environment where THS is present. During this process, the skin functions as an effective barrier, but nicotine can be absorbed by the skin and transported to the cutaneous blood supply [91]. Different studies have shown that the skin penetration factor of nicotine is large and that absorption of nicotine by the skin can occur directly from the air, which is comparable to the estimated absorption of inhaled nicotine [91,92]. Therefore, biomonitoring of toxicants accumulated in the skin is one of the priorities in the selection of biometrics for marker detection and the detection of biomarkers of THS exposure. As THS exposure is similar to SHS exposure, it can lead to the absorption of complex mixtures of toxic substances. Concentrations of biomarkers of tobacco exposure will vary depending on the predominance of the source of exposure (SHS or THS), so a more comprehensive assessment using multiple biomarkers will help us to better understand its impact on human health [93]. 9. Conclusions The presence of THS as an indoor secondary pollutant is a newly identified health risk. Residual indoor nicotine reacts with a common indoor pollutant, HONO, to form mutagenic TSNAs. Although NNK and NNN are present in both SHS and THS, NNA is only present in THS. NNK and NNN have been extensively studied as human carcinogens. However, relatively little information is available on the genotoxicity and DNA reactivity of NNA, the main product of THS. NNN, NNK, and NNA all affect cell activity by producing DNA adducts and affecting DNA and mitochondrial DNA strand break and oxidative damage, or by promoting the tumor growth microenvironment by binding to nAChRs and regulating the regulation of cell proliferation, survival, migration, and invasion. It is worth mentioning that NNA can also affect gene expression through epigenetic modalities. Most of the findings suggest potential health effects from THS exposure (i.e., alterations in cytotoxicity, metabolism, blood glucose, or cell structure; alterations in liver, lung, skin, and behavior in mice) and a lack of awareness of the risks of THS in the general population. The primary focus of current research trends in THS is to obtain more evidence on the biological and human health risks of THS, which is fundamental to scientific research, public perception, and policy development. Furthermore, research and development of THS markers are urgently needed to facilitate pollution monitoring, health risk assessment, and early prevention of diseases related to THS environments. Many factors in the indoor environment can affect the concentration and distribution of THS and the nature of its components, and the components of THS may also react with other pollutants in the environment to produce other secondary pollutants. Although we do not currently know exactly what the health risks of THS can be, as a reaction product of SHS, THS is theoretically harmful at any exposure dose. To date, there is also no way to eliminate THS. Different time applications and activity patterns place ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 215 Toxics 2022,10, 363 13 of 17 people in different environments throughout the day. Both indoors and outdoors, primary pollutants are released directly into the environment and the secondary pollutants that are generated through reactions are inevitably present in life and pose a continuous health hazard to living organisms. THS, as an indoor secondary pollutants, is ubiquitous as a long-term potential health threat. THS is difficult to isolate, even in non-smoking areas, and it is difficult to completely remove THS from indoors using ventilation. It is difficult to determine how long it is safe to enter a room where THS is present after ventilation, and measures such as cleaning the room and painting the walls may not completely solve the problem of THS. Although smokers should smoke outdoors, nicotine residue still adheres to the smoker’s skin or clothes, and it is unavoidable that it will still spread everywhere when the smoker returns indoors. Therefore, effective prevention of THS is very important. THS is ultimately man-made pollution caused by human smoking, so enhancing public awareness of THS is a priority that can help the public avoid or reduce their exposure to THS. The development and strict enforcement of public policies are key to preventing THS pollution. Author Contributions:Writing—originaldraftpreparation,J.-X.W.,A.T.Y.L.andY.-M.X.;writing—review and editing, J.-X.W., A.T.Y.L. and Y.-M.X.; supervision, A.T.Y.L. and Y.-M.X.; funding acquisition, A.T.Y.L. and Y.-M.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding:This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 31771582 and 31271445), the Guangdong Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2017A030313131), the “Thousand, Hundred, and Ten” Project of the Department of Education of Guangdong Province of China, the Basic and Applied Research Major Projects of Guangdong Province of China (2017KZDXM035 and 2018KZDXM036), the “Yang Fan” Project of Guangdong Province of China (Andy T. Y. Lau-2016; Yan-Ming Xu-2015), and the Shantou Medical Health Science and Technology Plan (200624165260857). Institutional Review Board Statement:Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement:Not applicable. Data Availability Statement:Not applicable. Acknowledgments:We would like to thank members of the Lau and Xu laboratory for their critical reading of this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest:The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this article. References 1. National Environmental Health Association. Available online:https://www.neha.org/(accessed on 15 May 2022). 2. World Health Organization. Available online:https://www.who.int/(accessed on 15 May 2022). 3.Wang, C.; Collins, D.B. Exploring Conditions for Ultrafine Particle Formation from Oxidation of Cigarette Smoke in Indoor Environments.Environ. Sci. Technol.2018,52, 4623–4631. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4.Winickoff, J.P.; Friebely, J.; Tanski, S.E.; Sherrod, C.; Matt, G.E.; Hovell, M.F.; McMillen, R.C. Beliefs about the health effects of “thirdhand” smoke and home smoking bans.Pediatrics 2009,123, e74–e79. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco. Available online:http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco (accessed on 15 May 2022). 6. China CDC. Available online:https://www.chinacdc.cn/(accessed on 15 May 2022). 7.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online:https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/smoking-and- tobacco-use-cessation-counseling-services-common-working-file-cwf-inquiry (accessed on 28 June 2022). 8.Schick, S.F.; Farraro, K.F.; Perrino, C.; Sleiman, M.; van de Vossenberg, G.; Trinh, M.P.; Hammond, S.K.; Jenkins, B.M.; Balmes, J. Thirdhand cigarette smoke in an experimental chamber: Evidence of surface deposition of nicotine, nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and de novo formation of NNK.Tob. Control 2014,23, 152–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9.Sleiman, M.; Gundel, L.A.; Pankow, J.F.; Jacob, P., 3rd; Singer, B.C.; Destaillats, H. Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface- mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 6576–6581. [CrossRef] 10.Sleiman, M.; Logue, J.M.; Luo, W.; Pankow, J.F.; Gundel, L.A.; Destaillats, H. Inhalable constituents of thirdhand tobacco smoke: Chemical characterization and health impact considerations.Environ. Sci. Technol.2014,48, 13093–13101. [CrossRef] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 216 Toxics 2022,10, 363 14 of 17 11.Hoh, E.; Hunt, R.N.; Quintana, P.J.; Zakarian, J.M.; Chatfield, D.A.; Wittry, B.C.; Rodriguez, E.; Matt, G.E. Environmental tobacco smoke as a source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in settled household dust.Environ. Sci. Technol.2012,46, 4174–4183. [CrossRef] 12.Ramírez, N.; Vallecillos, L.; Lewis, A.C.; Borrull, F.; Marcé, R.M.; Hamilton, J.F. Comparative study of comprehensive gas chromatography-nitrogen chemiluminescence detection and gas chromatography-ion trap-tandem mass spectrometry for determining nicotine and carcinogen organic nitrogen compounds in thirdhand tobacco smoke.J. Chromatogr. A 2015,1426, 191–200. [CrossRef] 13.Ramírez, N.; Özel, M.Z.; Lewis, A.C.; Marcé, R.M.; Borrull, F.; Hamilton, J.F. Exposure to nitrosamines in thirdhand tobacco smoke increases cancer risk in non-smokers.Environ. Int.2014,71, 139–147. [CrossRef] 14.Daisey, J.M. Tracers for assessing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: What are they tracing?Environ. Health Perspect. 1999,107 (Suppl. S2), 319–327. [CrossRef] 15.Xu, M.; Nematollahi, M.; Sextro, R.G.; Gadgil, A.J.; Nazaroff, W.W. Deposition of Tobacco Smoke Particles in a Low Ventilation Room.Aerosol. Sci. Technol.1994,20, 194–206. [CrossRef] 16.Destaillats, H.; Singer, B.C.; Lee, S.K.; Gundel, L.A. Effect of ozone on nicotine desorption from model surfaces: Evidence for heterogeneous chemistry.Environ. Sci. Technol.2006,40, 1799–1805. [CrossRef] 17.IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Hum.2004,83, 1–1438. 18.Gerde, P.; Muggenburg, B.A.; Thornton-Manning, J.R.; Lewis, J.L.; Pyon, K.H.; Dahl, A.R. Benzo[a]pyrene at an environmentally relevant dose is slowly absorbed by, and extensively metabolized in, tracheal epithelium.Carcinogenesis 1997,18, 1825–1832. [CrossRef] 19.Deutsch-Wenzel, R.P.; Brune, H.; Grimmer, G.; Dettbarn, G.; Misfeld, J. Experimental studies in rat lungs on the carcinogenicity and dose-response relationships of eight frequently occurring environmental polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1983,71, 539–544. 20.Wolterbeek, A.P.; Schoevers, E.J.; Rutten, A.A.; Feron, V.J. A critical appraisal of intratracheal instillation of benzo[a]pyrene to Syrian golden hamsters as a model in respiratory tract carcinogenesis.Cancer Lett.1995,89, 107–116. [CrossRef] 21.Greenblatt, M.S.; Bennett, W.P.; Hollstein, M.; Harris, C.C. Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: Clues to cancer etiology and molecular pathogenesis.Cancer Res.1994,54, 4855–4878. 22.Alexandrov, K.; Rojas, M.; Geneste, O.; Castegnaro, M.; Camus, A.M.; Petruzzelli, S.; Giuntini, C.; Bartsch, H. An improved fluorometric assay for dosimetry of benzo(a)pyrene diol-epoxide-DNA adducts in smokers’ lung: Comparisons with total bulky adducts and aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase activity.Cancer Res.1992,52, 6248–6253. 23.Gao, M.; Li, Y.; Sun, Y.; Long, J.; Kong, Y.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y. A common carcinogen benzo[a]pyrene causes p53 overexpression in mouse cervix via DNA damage.Mutat. Res.2011,724, 69–75. [CrossRef] 24.Gao, M.; Li, Y.; Ji, X.; Xue, X.; Chen, L.; Feng, G.; Zhang, H.; Wang, H.; Shah, W.; Hou, Z.; et al. Disturbance of Bcl-2, Bax, Caspase-3, Ki-67 and C-myc expression in acute and subchronic exposure to benzo(a)pyrene in cervix.Acta Histochem.2016,118, 63–73. [CrossRef] 25.He, J.; Ji, X.; Li, Y.; Xue, X.; Feng, G.; Zhang, H.; Wang, H.; Gao, M. Subchronic exposure of benzo(a)pyrene interferes with the expression of Bcl-2, Ki-67, C-myc and p53, Bax, Caspase-3 in sub-regions of cerebral cortex and hippocampus.Exp. Toxicol. Pathol. 2016,68, 149–156. [CrossRef] 26.Alexandrov, K.; Rojas, M.; Satarug, S. The critical DNA damage by benzo(a)pyrene in lung tissues of smokers and approaches to preventing its formation.Toxicol. Lett.2010,198, 63–68. [CrossRef] 27.Wang, S.; Chanock, S.; Tang, D.; Li, Z.; Jedrychowski, W.; Perera, F.P. Assessment of interactions between PAH exposure and genetic polymorphisms on PAH-DNA adducts in African American, Dominican, and Caucasian mothers and newborns.Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev.2008,17, 405–413. [CrossRef] 28.Liu, N.; Li, Z.W. Research progress of the gene polymorphisms of metabolic enzyme related to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons risk of preterm birth.Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2016,50, 463–467. [CrossRef] 29.Gao, M.; Li, Y.; Xue, X.; Long, J.; Chen, L.; Shah, W.; Kong, Y. Impact of AhR, CYP1A1 and GSTM1 genetic polymorphisms on TP53 R273G mutations in individuals exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev.2014,15, 2699–2705. [CrossRef] 30.Kim, Y.H.; Lee, Y.S.; Lee, D.H.; Kim, D.S. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are associated with insulin receptor substrate 2 methylation in adipose tissues of Korean women.Environ. Res.2016,150, 47–51. [CrossRef] 31.Peng, Q.; Chen, H.; Huo, J.R. Alcohol consumption and corresponding factors: A novel perspective on the risk factors of esophageal cancer.Oncol. Lett.2016,11, 3231–3239. [CrossRef] 32.Gao, M.; Long, J.; Li, Y.; Shah, W.; Fu, L.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y. Mitochondrial decay is involved in BaP-induced cervical damage. Free Radic. Biol. Med.2010,49, 1735–1745. [CrossRef] 33.Gao, M.; Li, Y.; Long, J.; Shah, W.; Fu, L.; Lai, B.; Wang, Y. Induction of oxidative stress and DNA damage in cervix in acute treatment with benzo[a]pyrene.Mutat. Res.2011,719, 52–59. [CrossRef] 34.Harris, K.L.; Banks, L.D.; Mantey, J.A.; Huderson, A.C.; Ramesh, A. Bioaccessibility of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Relevance to toxicity and carcinogenesis.Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol.2013,9, 1465–1480. [CrossRef] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 217 Toxics 2022,10, 363 15 of 17 35.Rao, P.S.; Kumar, S. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and cytochrome P450 in HIV pathogenesis.Front. Microbiol.2015,6, 550. [CrossRef] 36.Pankow, J.F.; Watanabe, K.H.; Toccalino, P.L.; Luo, W.; Austin, D.F. Calculated cancer risks for conventional and “potentially reduced exposure product” cigarettes.Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.2007,16, 584–592. [CrossRef] 37. Hecht, S.S. Tobacco carcinogens, their biomarkers and tobacco-induced cancer.Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003,3, 733–744. [CrossRef] 38.Prignot, J.J. Recent contributions of air- and biomarkers to the control of secondhand smoke (SHS): A review.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011,8, 648–682. [CrossRef] 39.Hecht, S.S. Biochemistry, biology, and carcinogenicity of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines.Chem. Res. Toxicol.1998,11, 559–603. [CrossRef] 40.Hoffmann, D.; Hecht, S.S. Nicotine-derived N-nitrosamines and tobacco-related cancer: Current status and future directions. Cancer Res.1985,45, 935–944. 41. Hecht, S.S. DNA adduct formation from tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines.Mutat. Res.1999,424, 127–142. [CrossRef] 42.Hecht, S.S.; Hoffmann, D. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, an important group of carcinogens in tobacco and tobacco smoke. Carcinogenesis 1988,9, 875–884. [CrossRef] 43.Hoffmann, D.; Brunnemann, K.D.; Prokopczyk, B.; Djordjevic, M.V. Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines and Areca-derived N- nitrosamines: Chemistry, biochemistry, carcinogenicity, and relevance to humans.J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 1994,41, 1–52. [CrossRef] 44.Maser, E.; Richter, E.; Friebertshäuser, J. The identification of 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase as carbonyl reductase of the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone.Eur. J. Biochem.1996,238, 484–489. [CrossRef] 45.Laag, E.; Majidi, M.; Cekanova, M.; Masi, T.; Takahashi, T.; Schuller, H.M. NNK activates ERK1/2 and CREB/ATF-1 via beta-1-AR and EGFR signaling in human lung adenocarcinoma and small airway epithelial cells.Int. J. Cancer 2006,119, 1547–1552. [CrossRef] 46.Hoffmann, D.; Hoffmann, I.; El-Bayoumy, K. The less harmful cigarette: A controversial issue. a tribute to Ernst L. Wynder. Chem. Res. Toxicol.2001,14, 767–790. [CrossRef] 47.Arimoto-Kobayashi, S.; Sakata, H.; Mitsu, K.; Tanoue, H. A possible photosensitizer: Tobacco-specific nitrosamine, 4-(N- methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), induced mutations, DNA strand breaks and oxidative and methylative damage with UVA.Mutat. Res.2007,632, 111–120. [CrossRef] 48.Hang, B.; Sarker, A.H.; Havel, C.; Saha, S.; Hazra, T.K.; Schick, S.; Jacob, P., 3rd; Rehan, V.K.; Chenna, A.; Sharan, D.; et al. Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells.Mutagenesis 2013,28, 381–391. [CrossRef] 49. Sarker, A.H.; Hang, B. Tobacco-specific nitrosamine 1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal (NNA) causes DNA damage and impaired replication/transcription in human lung cells.PLoS ONE 2022,17, e0267839. [CrossRef] 50.Horton, J.K.; Baker, A.; Berg, B.J.; Sobol, R.W.; Wilson, S.H. Involvement of DNA polymerase beta in protection against the cytotoxicity of oxidative DNA damage.DNA Repair 2002,1, 317–333. [CrossRef] 51.Anthony, H.M. Reactive changes in the blood of smokers and the development of arterial diseases and COPD, a review: Evidence of associations between changes and subsequent disease with implications for the evaluation of harmful effects of cigarettes, and for susceptibility to the chronic effects of inhaled pollutants.Rev. Environ. Health 1989,8, 25–86. 52.Matta, J.A. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor redux: Discovery of accessories opens therapeutic vistas.Science 2021,373, eabg6539. [CrossRef] 53.Changeux, J.P. Nicotine addiction and nicotinic receptors: Lessons from genetically modified mice.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.2010,11, 389–401. [CrossRef] 54. Gotti, C.; Fornasari, D.; Clementi, F. Human neuronal nicotinic receptors.Prog. Neurobiol.1997,53, 199–237. [CrossRef] 55.Singh, S.; Pillai, S.; Chellappan, S. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor signaling in tumor growth and metastasis.J. Oncol.2011, 2011, 456743. [CrossRef] 56.Gu, S.; Matta, J.A.; Lord, B.; Harrington, A.W.; Sutton, S.W.; Davini, W.B.; Bredt, D.S. Brain 7 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Assembly Requires NACHO.Neuron 2016,89, 948–955. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57.Arredondo, J.; Chernyavsky, A.I.; Grando, S.A. Nicotinic receptors mediate tumorigenic action of tobacco-derived nitrosamines on immortalized oral epithelial cells.Cancer Biol.2006,5, 511–517. [CrossRef] 58.Lee, R.H.; Tseng, T.Y.; Wu, C.Y.; Chen, P.Y.; Chen, M.F.; Kuo, J.S.; Lee, T.J. Memantine inhibits 3 2-nAChRs-mediated nitrergic neurogenic vasodilation in porcine basilar arteries.PLoS ONE 2012,7, e40326. [CrossRef] 59.Jull, B.A.; Plummer, H.K., 3rd; Schuller, H.M. Nicotinic receptor-mediated activation by the tobacco-specific nitrosamine NNK of a Raf-1/MAP kinase pathway, resulting in phosphorylation of c-myc in human small cell lung carcinoma cells and pulmonary neuroendocrine cells.J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol.2001,127, 707–717. [CrossRef] 60.Arredondo, J.; Chernyavsky, A.I.; Grando, S.A. The nicotinic receptor antagonists abolish pathobiologic effects of tobacco-derived nitrosamines on BEP2D cells.J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol.2006,132, 653–663. [CrossRef] 61.Askari, M.D.; Tsao, M.S.; Schuller, H.M. The tobacco-specific carcinogen, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone stimulates proliferation of immortalized human pancreatic duct epithelia through beta-adrenergic transactivation of EGF receptors.J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol.2005,131, 639–648. [CrossRef] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 218 Toxics 2022,10, 363 16 of 17 62.Schuller, H.M.; Tithof, P.K.; Williams, M.; Plummer, H., 3rd. The tobacco-specific carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3- pyridyl)-1-butanone is a beta-adrenergic agonist and stimulates DNA synthesis in lung adenocarcinoma via beta-adrenergic receptor-mediated release of arachidonic acid.Cancer Res.1999,59, 4510–4515. 63.Schuller, H.M.; Al-Wadei, H.A.; Majidi, M. Gamma-aminobutyric acid, a potential tumor suppressor for small airway-derived lung adenocarcinoma.Carcinogenesis 2008,29, 1979–1985. [CrossRef] 64.Kawai, H.; Berg, D.K. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors containing alpha 7 subunits on rat cortical neurons do not undergo long-lasting inactivation even when up-regulated by chronic nicotine exposure.J. Neurochem.2001,78, 1367–1378. [CrossRef] 65.National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. Reports of the Surgeon General. In The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US): Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014. 66.Geijer, R.M.; Sachs, A.P.; Verheij, T.J.; Salomé, P.L.; Lammers, J.W.; Hoes, A.W. Incidence and determinants of moderate COPD (GOLD II) in male smokers aged 40-65 years: 5-year follow up.Br. J. Gen. Pract.2006,56, 656–661. 67.Gwilt, C.R.; Donnelly, L.E.; Rogers, D.F. The non-neuronal cholinergic system in the airways: An unappreciated regulatory role in pulmonary inflammation?Pharm. Ther.2007,115, 208–222. [CrossRef] 68.Schuller, H.M. Carbon dioxide potentiates the mitogenic effects of nicotine and its carcinogenic derivative, NNK, in normal and neoplastic neuroendocrine lung cells via stimulation of autocrine and protein kinase C-dependent mitogenic pathways. Neurotoxicology 1994,15, 877–886. 69.Schuller, H.M.; McGavin, M.D.; Orloff, M.; Riechert, A.; Porter, B. Simultaneous exposure to nicotine and hyperoxia causes tumors in hamsters.Lab. Investig.1995,73, 448–456. 70.Rosa, J.G.; Prokopczyk, B.; Desai, D.H.; Amin, S.G.; El-Bayoumy, K. Elevated 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine levels in lung DNA of A/J mice and F344 rats treated with 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and inhibition by dietary 1,4- phenylenebis(methylene)selenocyanate.Carcinogenesis 1998,19, 1783–1788. [CrossRef] 71.Chung, F.L.; Xu, Y. Increased 8-oxodeoxyguanosine levels in lung DNA of A/J mice and F344 rats treated with the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamine)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone.Carcinogenesis 1992,13, 1269–1272. [CrossRef] 72.Bilodeau, J.F.; Wang, M.; Chung, F.L.; Castonguay, A. Effects of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs on oxidative pathways in A/J mice.Free Radic. Biol. Med.1995,18, 47–54. [CrossRef] 73.Liu, H.; Liu, Z.; Lu, T.; Zhang, L.; Cheng, J.; Fu, X.; Hou, Y. Toxic effects of 1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal on the maturation and subsequent development of murine oocyte.Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.2019,181, 370–380. [CrossRef] 74.Hegde, V.; Wang, M.; Deutsch, W.A. Human ribosomal protein S3 interacts with DNA base excision repair proteins hAPE/Ref-1 and hOGG1.Biochemistry 2004,43, 14211–14217. [CrossRef] 75.Park, Y.J.; Kim, T.S.; Kim, E.H.; Kim, H.D.; Kim, J. Ribosomal protein S3 is a novel negative regulator of non-homologous end joining repair of DNA double-strand breaks.FASEB J.2020,34, 8102–8113. [CrossRef] 76.Hang, B.L.; Chenna, A.NovelNNA-DNAAdductsasBiomarkersforDetectingExposuretoThirdhandSmoke.U.S. Patent 10,538,549, 2020. 77.Molimard, R. The European report “Lifting the Smoke-Screen”: Epidemiological study or manipulation?Rev. Epidemiol. Sante Publique 2008,56, 286–290. [CrossRef] 78.Hellström-Lindahl, E.; Nordberg, A. Smoking during pregnancy: A way to transfer the addiction to the next generation? Respiration 2002,69, 289–293. [CrossRef] 79.Roberts, J.W.; Dickey, P. Exposure of children to pollutants in house dust and indoor air.Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.1995,143, 59–78. [CrossRef] 80.Martins-Green, M.; Adhami, N.; Frankos, M.; Valdez, M.; Goodwin, B.; Lyubovitsky, J.; Dhall, S.; Garcia, M.; Egiebor, I.; Martinez, B.; et al. Cigarette smoke toxins deposited on surfaces: Implications for human health.PLoS ONE 2014,9, e86391. [CrossRef] 81.de Zeeuw, P.; Zwart, F.; Schrama, R.; van Engeland, H.; Durston, S. Prenatal exposure to cigarette smoke or alcohol and cerebellum volume in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and typical development.Transl. Psychiatry 2012,2, e84. [CrossRef] 82.Matt, G.E.; Quintana, P.J.; Hovell, M.F.; Bernert, J.T.; Song, S.; Novianti, N.; Juarez, T.; Floro, J.; Gehrman, C.; Garcia, M.; et al. Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: Sources of infant exposures.Tob. Control 2004,13, 29–37. [CrossRef] 83.Roels, H.; Hubermont, G.; Buchet, J.P.; Lauwerys, R. Placental transfer of lead, mercury, cadmium, and carbon monoxide in women. III. Factors influencing the accumulation of heavy metals in the placenta and the relationship between metal concentration in the placenta and in maternal and cord blood.Environ. Res.1978,16, 236–247. [CrossRef] 84.Matt, G.E.; Quintana, P.J.E.; Hoh, E.; Dodder, N.G.; Mahabee-Gittens, E.M.; Padilla, S.; Markman, L.; Watanabe, K. Tobacco smoke is a likely source of lead and cadmium in settled house dust.J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol.2021,63, 126656. [CrossRef] 85.Yang, A.M.; Lo, K.; Zheng, T.Z.; Yang, J.L.; Bai, Y.N.; Feng, Y.Q.; Cheng, N.; Liu, S.M. Environmental heavy metals and cardiovascular diseases: Status and future direction.Chronic Dis. Transl. Med.2020,6, 251–259. [CrossRef] 86.Bertone, E.R.; Snyder, L.A.; Moore, A.S. Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of malignant lymphoma in pet cats. Am. J. Epidemiol.2002,156, 268–273. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 87.Benowitz, N.L.; Nardone, N.; Jain, S.; Dempsey, D.A.; Addo, N.; St Helen, G.; Jacob, P., 3rd. Comparison of Urine 4- (Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3)Pyridyl-1-Butanol and Cotinine for Assessment of Active and Passive Smoke Exposure in Urban Adolescents.Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev.2018,27, 254–261. [CrossRef] [PubMed] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 219 Toxics 2022,10, 363 17 of 17 88.Vardavas, C.I.; Fthenou, E.; Patelarou, E.; Bagkeris, E.; Murphy, S.; Hecht, S.S.; Connolly, G.N.; Chatzi, L.; Kogevinas, M. Exposure to different sources of second-hand smoke during pregnancy and its effect on urinary cotinine and tobacco-specific nitrosamine (NNAL) concentrations.Tob. Control 2013,22, 194–200. [CrossRef] 89.Pratt, K. The Effects of Thirdhand Smoke on Biomarkers of Exposure, Inflammation and Oxidative Stress. UCSF. ProQuest ID: Pratt_ucsf_0034M_11144.REDACTED. Merritt ID: Ark:/13030/m53804q4. Available online:https://escholarship.org/uc/item/ 91g8450d (accessed on 24 April 2022). 90.Jacob, P., 3rd; Goniewicz, M.L.; Havel, C.M.; Schick, S.F.; Benowitz, N.L. Nicotelline: A proposed biomarker and environmental tracer for particulate matter derived from tobacco smoke.Chem. Res. Toxicol.2013,26, 1615–1631. [CrossRef] 91.Weschler, C.J.; Nazaroff, W.W. Dermal uptake of organic vapors commonly found in indoor air.Environ. Sci. Technol.2014,48, 1230–1237. [CrossRef] 92.Bekö, G.; Morrison, G.; Weschler, C.J.; Koch, H.M.; Pälmke, C.; Salthammer, T.; Schripp, T. Measurements of dermal uptake of nicotine directly from air and clothing.Indoor Air 2017,27, 427–433. [CrossRef] 93.Torres, S.; Merino, C. Biomarkers of Exposure to Secondhand and Thirdhand Tobacco Smoke: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 2693. [CrossRef] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 220 Exhibit E To March 15, 2023 Cover Letter Valuation Report by Dr. Ron Throupe, PhD [see attached] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 221 Throupe & Associates LLC Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants An AVP partner 944 Aztec Drive Castle Rock, CO 80108 Tel: (425) 681-6602 Fax: (303) 871-2971 rthroupe@gmail.com Ron Throupe Ph.D. CRE MAI FRICS 944 Aztec Drive December 9, 2022 Castle Rock, CO 80108 Carolynne C. White Esq. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck AP 410 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 2200 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 223 1197 CWhite@BHFS.com Re: 323 S Loomis Ave. Fort Collins, CO Prepared for Mediation and Settlement Purposes Only To Whom It May Concern: Our services were retained by Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck AP. Previously a vita and press release pertaining to Dr. Throupe were provided. It is our understanding that the owners have outstanding concerns regarding contamination, costs of repair, and market resistance after cleanup for the subject property. Our assignment is to provide a preliminary opinion on any diminution in value as a result of contamination, assess the physical condition of the subject, and opine on the issues affecting value of the subject property. The subject property is located at 323 S Loomis Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 so known as tax parcel #9711328002. The legal description listed with the County Assessor is: S American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 222 20 Ft of Lot 12 & N 30 Ft of Lot 13.of Block 278, Loomis FTC. It comprises a lot of 9,603 sq ft according to public records. The owners of record are Holger P. Kley and Jacqueline C. Zipser of 2048 Bennington Circle Fort Collins, CO 80526-1557.The current owners purchased the property on 6/3/2021 for $534,000 from the estate of Joann May Cannon a/k/a Jodie Cannon according to Larimer County records. The deed of record states that Jeffrey Paul Cannon, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joann May Cannon a/k/a Jodie Cannon sold the property to Holger P. Kley and Jacqueline C. Zipser.In discussion with the purchasers, they indicated the purchase was under the premise of a complete renovation with addition(s) or a demolition in order to build a new single-family residence. The scope of work includes a review of the history of the subject property, together with related documents pertaining to the physical condition of the property as provided. We conducted a site visit and a review of pertinent valuation literature on real estate damages and market resistance to contaminated property. We also reviewed Colorado state records of asbestos contaminated homes, indoor smoke risks and the state of Colorado’s residential disclosure form. Colorado law pertaining to cleanup requirements and alternatives for property owners of contaminated properties. Specifically, in forming opinions, we reviewed the following documents: ●Risk Removal Environmental Services, Abatement services proposal dated 2/9/22; ●Architectural Inventory Form, 5LR.8026, by Humstone Consulting; ●Asbestos Inspection and sampling Report, by Banyan Environmental, dated December 16, 2021; ●Effects of Cigarette Smoke on Home Value by MINDY ABRAMSON, November 14, 2016, Albuquerque Journal; ●Listing marketing information, by Jeanette Meyer, dated May 5, 2021; ●Personal inspection on November 22, 2022; ●Inspection report, Pillar to Post Home inspectors, dated May, 13, 2021; ●Human Transport of Thirdhand Tobacco Smoke: A Prominent Source of Hazardous Air Pollutants into Indoor Non Smoking Environments; Science Advances, Vol 6, N0.10; ●Seller’s property disclosure report, dated April 30, 2021; ●Banyan Environmental, Asbestos Inspection and Sampling Report; ●General Information, Larimer County Assessor Website, downloaded November 28, 2022: American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 2 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 223 ●Building Improvements, Larimer County Assessor Website, downloaded November 28, 2022; ●Property Tax History, Larimer County Assessor Website, downloaded November 28, 2022; ●Thirdhand Smoke: New Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions, Chem Res Toxicol. 2017 January 17; 30(1): 270–294; ●Fort Collins Municipal Code, CHAPTER 14 - LANDMARK PRESERVATION; ●The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th Edition, The Appraisal Institute, Chicago Il. 2015; ●Real Estate Damages, 3rd Edition, Randall Bell, Appraisal Institute, Chicago Il, 2016;●Chalmers, J. and S. Roer, “Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated Property,”The Appraisal Journal, January 1993, 28-41; ●Mitchell Phillip S., “Estimating Economic Damages to Real Property Due to Loss of Marketability, Rentability, and Stigma,”The Appraisal Journal, April 2000, 62-170; ●Mundy, Bill, “Stigma and Value”, The Appraisal Journal, Jan. 1992, at 7-13; ●Mundy, Bill, “The Impact of Hazardous Materials on Property Value”,The Appraisal Journal,Apr. 1992, at 155-62; ●Mundy, Bill, “The Impact of Hazardous and Toxic Materials on Property Value Revisited,”The Appraisal Journal, October 1992c: 463-71; ●Patchin, Peter, “Contaminated Properties-Stigma Revisited,”The Appraisal Journal, April 1991a, 162-72; ●Roddewig, Richard, “Stigma Environmental Risk and Property Value: 10 Critical Inquiries”, Appraisal Journal, October 1996, pgs. 375-386; ●Throupe, Ron, John Kilpatrick, Bill Mundy, Will Spies,“Valuation of Impaired Property,” The Environmental Law Reporter, 2007, Vol. 37, No. 7, 10562-10572; ●Fitchen, Janet M., “When Toxic Chemicals Pollute Residential Environments: The Cultural Meanings of Home and Homeownership,” Human Organization 48, Winter, 1989, 313-324. Please note that we have not performed an appraisal under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and this letter is not to be interpreted as an appraisal report under those standards. American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 3 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 224 I. Summary of Conclusions and Opinions Diminution It is our opinion that a current diminution in market value resulting from contamination in the form of asbestos and cigarette smoke render the subject property not marketable resulting in no value to the public. These hazards (asbestos and cigarette smoke) are listed within the environmental hazards category of the real property disclosure form. There are preliminary estimates for some cleanup which leave open the potential for additional cleanup and costs, along with owner responsibility for coordination and fees. A review of the photography of the property, available reports and personal inspection, confirm that the subject property “as is” is uninhabitable and not marketable based on its physical condition regardless of contamination. The property inspection report by Pillar to Post home inspectors show a need for extensive repairs and upgrades to make this property marketable, irrespective of contamination concerns. The cost to physically repair the property would be extensive because of a need to strip the property to a skeleton structure, never mind the additional unknown risks of structural inadequacies to be determined, and potential permutation of contaminants. Furthermore the property is in need of updates to utility systems, appliances, general condition issues, functional floor plan layout, code requirements, visible physical damage and a potential need of structural repair. Along with interior finishing, kitchen amenities, porches, clapboard, and gutters in need of repair or replacement. Frankly there is not much of this residence that is not in need of replacement or significant repair to make it marketable at anything other than land value minus demolition costs. Market Resistance An owner of the subject is also faced with the likelihood of “market resistance” even if the property was completely repaired. The state of Colorado requires a property disclosure form be available to any potential buyer. This form would need to reveal the history of contamination and repairs made to the property. Potential buyers would be limited because some will not want to take on a property with a contamination history regardless of so called guarantees. This will create extended marketing times, resulting in holding costs to the seller. The seller will need to provide further assurances as to the properties clean-up which is likely to include inspections beyond a typical residential sale. Furthermore the market of potential buyers will ask for American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 4 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 225 discounts to the sales price to compensate for future risks whether real or perceived. There is also a likelihood that potential buyers would factor in the cost to maintain under historic regulations as greater than typical home ownership and incorporate those perceived costs into their willingness to pay for the property. Assessor Value The Assessor has the subject property improvements valued at $352,000 for 2022 with a land value of $90,000. Based on the current condition of the subject property it is highly unlikely that the structures are worth what is stated in tax records. That means that a tax appeal is warranted, to revise the value to the current condition of the subject property improvements for tax purposes. Demolition Likelihood As stated, after reviewing the materials listed in this report we conclude that the subject property is not marketable, and that the repairs needed and the residual damage to property value even after cleanup and repairs renders the subject property improvements of no market value. The value of the property would be the value of the building lot minus the costs of demolition of structures. This conclusion matches with the potential decisions of the current owner when they transacted for the property and supported by the marketing information by the listing agent as an extensive renovation of the property prior to any known contaminants being discovered. The contaminants only further the severity of the condition to warrant a default to a demolition of the structures for public safety. Delay in Use An additional issue arises from delays in the owner's ability to use the property or erect a replacement residence. It is our understanding that the property was scheduled for demolition and is now delayed. This renders the owner with a loss of use for whatever period is deemed as the delay in process. The cost of delay may be compensable and again a tax appeal of the subject property is in order. American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 5 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 226 II.Supporting Literature and Economic Reasoning Effects of Impairment on Property Values Real estate economics – and appraisal practice – uniformly recognizes that a physical impairment has a negative impact on property values. Indeed, appraisers are required by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice to consider the impacts of such contamination in the value estimation process.1 Much of the literature on impaired property stems from the many environmentally contaminated property cases studied in academia over the past thirty-five years. Fitchen (1989)2 was one of the first to look at the value of the rights of a property owner in the face of impairment – in this case, a toxic chemical pollution. As an anthropologist and a Professor of Anthropology at Ithaca College, she looked principally at residential values, not only at the real aspects of “violation of the home” by contamination (e.g. – carcinogenic effects of polluting chemicals) but also about the symbolic interference on what she calls “…a threat to the assumptions people have about themselves and the way life is supposed to be.”3 She continues, “Toxic contamination also attacks the valued institution of homeownership, violating many of the rights that are assumed to flow from the ownership of one’s home, including the assumed right to control entry to it…chemical contamination may affect homeowners more seriously than renters, not only in terms of potential financial loss, but also in terms of devaluation of the achieved status of homeowners.” Detrimental Conditions A diminution in value is defined as “The difference between the unimpaired and impaired values of the property being appraised. This difference can be due to the increased risk and/or costs attributable to the property’s environmental condition (Advisory Opinion 9).”4 Based on 4 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th Edition, The Appraisal Institute, Chicago Il. 2015, pg. 351 3 Ibid, 320. 2 Fitchen, Janet M., “When Toxic Chemicals Pollute Residential Environments: The Cultural Meanings of Home and Homeownership,” Human Organization 48, Winter, 1989, 313-324. 1 This is specifically covered under USPAP Rule 1-2(e). This is one of the rules from which departure is specifically not permitted. In other words, an appraiser may not fail to take physical disutility into account even if s/he discloses such departure from the rules. A thorough discussion of the appraiser’s responsibility is also contained in Eaton, J.D., Real Estate Valuation in Litigation (Chicago: The Appraisal Institute, 1995). For specific references, see pages 128, 129, 149-54, and 235-37. It is clear that an appraisal of a residence, which fails to account for a physical deficiency such as a failure in the siding, would violate the Uniform Standards. As of this writing, all 50 states have adopted these standards as a matter of law. In addition, adherence to these standards is mandatory for all federally-insured mortgage transactions. American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 6 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 227 the information available the diminution in value for the subject property stems from the “assessment” and “repair” stages shown in the detrimental condition matrix with the issue being a loss of use or uncertainty factor (discount) and the “ongoing stage” with the issue being market resistance (residual stigma).5 This commonly used detrimental condition matrix, stages of repair and model are attached herein. The Detrimental Conditions model and what has been called the “Bell” chart classifies the environmental or biomedical defect as a class VIII model.6 Figure 1 shows the classic diagram of a detrimental condition and the stages of recovery. At the onset the property has low marketability as the property damage is assessed and a high level uncertainty exists. At later stages the property value starts to recover as information is better understood and remediation proposals are put into action. Later a cure or attempted cure is put in place and the market determines if they are confident enough to purchase the property or require discounts (market resistance), or know they can extract discounts from sellers. This is the classic residual stigma concept which is measured in price paid. A warning though, as stigma (market resistance) damage can include holding costs, time delays, and the value of the comparables properties changing during the time to cure, not depicted in this diagram. Figure 1 Bell Chart Figure 2 shows a matrix of conditions from the stages of detriment shown in Figure 1 crossed with the issues expected at each stage. Note that listed for the on-going risk is market resistance 6 Real Estate Damages, Ibid, pg. 29. 5 Real Estate Damages, 3rd Edition, Randall Bell, Appraisal Institute, Chicago Il, 2016, pg. 20. American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 7 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 228 and residual resistance. Otherwise known as diminution after a cure is attempted and residual stigma because of a potential latent defect that is unknown until a sufficient time elapses and the cure works, coupled with the concern as to whether the cure is permanent. Or will the cure at some point in time fail from degradation of materials. Figure 2: Detrimental Conditions Matrix Source: Real Estate Damages, 3rd Edition, Appraisal Institute Delay in Marketability Another area to analyze damages is a focus on the delay in marketability. Simons and Throupe (2010) point out that real estate is considered a bundle of rights which include the right to use, enjoy, control and dispose of property. The right to control includes the ability to control the timing of sale and the sales price. This right can be thought of as an option to sell a property in any given period at a price acceptable to the seller. (This is analogous to extended marketing time and exposure time in appraising a property) If an owner loses the ability to sell at his chosen time and at full market value, this right has been taken away or diminished. This is most prominent when there is an extended holding period. The right of control also includes being able to refinance a property that you own in order to access capital. If there is a significant loss of value so that it impacts the ability to finance the property without additional costs, the right of control has been reduced or removed, and the owner has lost the ability to use capital for other investment or enjoyment. American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 8 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 229 There are additional costs associated with an owner needing to delay a sale (or in this case delay actions to redevelop) due to reduced value of the property or marketability. These additional costs include the continuance of paying taxes, insurance, loan interest, and maintenance costs due to the extended holding period. Stigma or Market Resistance Stigma related damages were originally defined by Patchin (1991) as “any residual loss in property value from an uncontaminated condition beyond the cost to cure the contamination.” This is analogous to Mundy who in a series of articles described various factors of stigma damages in terms of real risks vs. perceived risks by the public (1992a). Chalmers and Roer (1993) defined stigma as “increased risk associated with the property and the effect of this on marketability and financability.” Mitchell (2000) summarized the results of these historical articles and coined the category as indirect damages, “all loss of income and value of a property, from the moment of the discovery of the situation until the property has returned to its nominal market value” and later calls these “lingering residual effects.” These effects on property include marketability, rentability and stigma otherwise known as “market resistance”. Mundy (1991a) identifies the phenomenon of stigma, which is in the lexicon to this day. In his definition, Mundy lists specific criteria for stigma for contamination, which are: 1. Responsibility—Is someone or some company specifically shouldering the blame? 2. Exposure—Has there been a risk amplification, such as in the media? 3. Disruption—Does the contamination impact daily lives? 4. Concealability—Is the risk hidden? 5. Aesthetic effect—Can the contamination be seen, felt, or smelled? 6. Prognosis—Will the contamination be cleaned up in the near future? 7. Peril—Is there a health risk? 8. Fear—What is the general concern level associated with this contamination? 9. Involuntary—Are the property owners themselves innocent in this contamination? These criteria are the conditions for environmental stigma. The subject property exhibits the criteria described. Mundy also established the prevailing formula for valuation of contaminated property, analogous to the method well established in the eminent domain appraisal literature: Value Unimpaired American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 9 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 230 Minus Value Impaired Equals Diminution in Value Absent a decrease in selling price, value is diminished due to the increased time necessary to realize liquidity as well as an increase in the discount rate to account for higher risks of holding a relatively illiquid asset. (Mundy 1992).Stigma,as it applies to real estate affected by environmental risk,is generally defined as "an adverse public perception about a property that is intangible or not directly quantifiable."7 It has an additional impact on value,over and above the cost of cleanup or remediation. This amount above the cost of clean-up consists of taking on risk of unknown and an appropriate entrepreneurial return to take on responsibility to manage the clean up process and risk of cost overruns.This research on stigma is based on contaminated property and not other detrimental conditions. There are many detrimental conditions or perceived negative externalities described by Bell (2016). These types of detrimental conditions may have a component called “market resistance”. Resistance by the public to purchase because of concerns about the condition of the property or the cure of a prior condition, in like kind to the term environmental stigma. Diminution and Property Values Research by many appraisers and researchers nationwide indicate that diminution in value can, in some cases, be attributed to stigma. When the diminution in value of a property is greater than the cost to cure and monitor the situation, there is a negative impact on the value of the property. This concept is not only used for contamination but also for other negative effects on property value. Stigma (market resistance) is as much public perception as reality and can impact the price potential buyers are willing to pay. Many theoretical studies debate at what point stigma should eventually subside. This debate is based on whether a cure is possible, complete, and understood or accepted by the market. An overall diminution in value, which may or may not include a stigma effect, is a measurement of damage typically evaluated by some type of “Before vs. After” methodology. A review article 7 Roddewig, Richard, Stigma Environmental Risk and Property Value: 10 Critical Inquiries, Appraisal Journal, October 1996, pgs. 375-386. American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 10 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 231 by Throupe et al. (2007) demonstrates the many methods used to determine damages in practice. The percentage range of residual stigma (after a potential cure is put in place) in terms of property value damage is typically between 0-20%. The most severe being properties that are non-curable or considered not likely. From a recent national litigation case against Weyerhaeuser for the impregnation of formaldehyde on wood beams used in new homes, the plaintiff had to cure the condition of wood that continues to emit toxic fumes. The residual effects to market value were estimated to be 3-8% depending on method to cure. Other examples are clean-up of hazardous properties affected by contaminants such as PCB’s or radioactivity. These clean-ups are considered suspect because under federal and state law “clean” is not without contaminant, but with a tolerable level based on state laws for environmental clean-up resulting in a no further action letter.8 These cases may be reopened for further action because of new evidence and thus, an environmental risk. For the detrimental condition of the subject property the type of condition is considered average in the range for any potential residual stigma (after cure or clean-up) or market resistance. For residual stigma we judge the environmental risk to be average while the market resistance will consist of more detailed inspections for a potential buyer, limited market, price concessions and extended holding costs. The residual damage is estimated to be 4%-8% of market value and not expected to dissipate over time because of the likelihood of leaching and further monitoring. If needed, an “unimpaired” market value estimate of the subject property can be extracted from assessor records and updated to a current value based on price changes in the local market, then applied, for a price estimate of residual effects. III. Conclusions Based on the above, it is our opinion that a current diminution in market value resulting from contamination in the form of asbestos and cigarette smoke render the subject property not marketable resulting in no value to the public. There are preliminary estimates for some cleanup which leave open the potential for additional cleanup and costs, along with owner responsibility for coordination and fees. A review of the photography of the property, available 8 “No Further Action Letter Status Can Change”, Allen Keiter, Appraisal Journal October 2002, pg. 374 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 11 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 232 reports and personal inspection, confirm that the subject property “as is” is uninhabitable and not marketable based on its physical condition regardless of contamination. The cost to physically repair the property would be extensive because of a need to strip the property to a skeleton structure, never mind the additional unknown risks of structural inadequacies to be determined, and potential permutation of contaminate. Furthermore renovation or replacement of the utility systems, general condition, functional floor plan layout, code requirements, visible physical damage and a potential need of structural repair. Along with interior finishing, kitchen amenities, porches, clapboard and gutters in need of repair or replacement render this property suitable for demolition. An owner of the subject is also faced with the likelihood of “market resistance” even if the property was completely repaired. The state of Colorado requires a property disclosure form be available to any potential buyer. This form would need to reveal the history of contamination and repairs made to the property. Potential buyers would be limited because some will not want to take on a property with a contamination history regardless of so called guarantees. This will create extended marketing times, resulting in holding costs to the seller. The seller will need to provide further assurances as to the properties clean-up which is likely to include inspections beyond a typical residential sale. Furthermore the market of potential buyers will ask for discounts to the sales price to compensate for future risks whether real or perceived. There is also a likelihood that potential buyers would factor in the cost to maintain under historic regulations as greater than typical home ownership and incorporate those perceived costs into their willingness to pay for the property. The Assessor has the subject property improvements valued at $352,000 for 2022 with a land value of $90,000. Based on the current condition of the subject property it is highly unlikely that the structures are worth what is stated in tax records. That means that a tax appeal is warranted, to revise the value to the current condition of the subject property improvements for tax purposes. Based on a review of the materials listed in this report we conclude that the subject property is not marketable. That the repairs needed and the residual damage to property value even after cleanup and repairs renders the subject property improvements of no market value. The value American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 12 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 233 of the property would be the value of the building lot minus the costs of demolition of structures. This conclusion matches with the motivations of the current owner when they transacted for the property and supported by the property listing which acknowledges the condition of the property as a “true fixer-upper” prior to any known contaminants being discovered. The contaminants only furthers the need to demolish the structures for public safety. Additional issues arise from delays in the owner's ability to use the property or erect a replacement residence. It is our understanding that the property was scheduled for demolition and is now delayed. This renders the owner with a loss of use for whatever period is deemed as the delay in process. The cost of delay may be compensable and again a tax appeal of the subject property is in order. It is our understanding that we may be asked to conduct further research to address any diminution in market value of the subject property. At that time, our opinions may be modified or refined to reflect any new information developed or obtained. Sincerely, Ron Throupe Ph.D. CRE MAI FRICS Colorado License Number: 100016449 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 13 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 234 Appendix A Ron Throupe Vita American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 14 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 235 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 15 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 236 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 16 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 237 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 17 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 238 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 18 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 239 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 19 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 240 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 20 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 241 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 21 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 242 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 22 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 243 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 23 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 244 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 24 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 245 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 25 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 246 American Valuation Partners TM (AVP), Denver Colorado www.americanvaluationpartners.com 26 |Page ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 247 Exhibit F To March 15, 2023 Cover Letter Email to Applicant Terri Berger [see attached] 25072074.5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 248 11/28/22, 12:20 PM Gmail - 323 S Loomis https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=90d0556e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1749343198578999920&simpl=msg-f%3A1749343198…1/1 Jacqueline Z <jzipser87@gmail.com> 323 S Loomis 1 message J.C. Zipser <jzipser87@gmail.com>Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 6:41 PM To: tberger22@comcast.net Cc: Holger Kley <holger31@comcast.net> Dear Ms. Berger, You recently submitted an application to the City of Fort Collins to have our house at 323 South Loomis Ave designated as a historic landmark. As you have been informed by the City, we do not consent to the proposed designation. We’re reaching out today to explore the possibility that we can all sit down together over a cup of coffee and discuss the matter before embarking on what looks to be a drawn-out formal process. We hope that you’ll consider the idea and let us know your thoughts. Thank you, —Jacqui Zipser and Holger Kley ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 249 NAME ADDRESS EMAIL/PHONE SUPPORT/OPPOSE RECEIVED Steve Mann mann.steven.douglas@gmail.com Support Prior to Hearing 1 Diane Idler diane.idler@comcast.net Support Prior to Hearing 1 Gail Baker 330 S Grant Ave rongailbaker@msn.com/970-402- 0207 Support Prior to Hearing 1 Jeni Makinen jeni.makinen@gmail.com Oppose Prior to Hearing 1 Lisa Hoffman 427 W. Oak St. 970-219-0045; lisahmixedmedia@gmail.com Oppose Prior to Hearing 1 Jeff Achter and Rachel Preis 723 W. Mountain Ave.970-690-4261; jachter@gmail.com Oppose Prior to Hearing 1 Alicia Skinner Cook 315 and 309 S. Loomis Ave.alicia.cook@colostate.edu Oppose Prior to Hearing 1 Michelee Haefele michelle.haefele@outlook.com Support Prior to Hearing 1 Connie Werner 935 W. Oak St.clwaok@gmail.com Support Between Hearing 1 and 2 Amy K. Rosenberg 5313 Highcastle Court rosenberg.2@hotmail.com Oppose Between Hearing 1 and 2 Mathew Dickstein 7418 Streamside Dr.mattdickstein@comcast.net Oppose Between Hearing 1 and 2 Dave Rosenberg 5313 Highcastle Court drosenberg.0411@gmail.com Oppose Between Hearing 1 and 2 Walt Cate walt@catebrothers.co Oppose Between Hearing 1 and 2 WRITTEN COMMENTS IN SUPPORT:5 WRITTEN COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION: 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 250 From:Steve Mann To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] 323 S. LOOMIS Date:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:55:47 PM This beautiful home should be preserved. To think that it would be destroyed is beyond my imagination. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider any negative decision. Sincerely, Steve Mann, Fort Collins resident for many years. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 251 From:Diane Idler To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] 323 South Loomis Date:Saturday, October 29, 2022 11:38:51 AM Attachments:image.png To Whom it may concern, I am emailing in regards to preserving the home at 323 S Loomis Ave. This home was originally built in 1905. I personally lived in the home from 1960 until 1976 with my parents Don and JoAnn Cannon. My love for the home is as strong as preserving its history. I have to admit Wayne Sundberg was a great influence to me when I was going to Lincoln Junior High. He instilled in me a love of local history then as well as now. Neighborhoods in the Old Town area seem to be slowly dwindling. I believe its critical to keep some of these homes preserved so that our present and future citizens will appreciate our past history. Sincerely, Diane Idler Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 252 From:RONALD L BAKER To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Demolition of 323 S Loomis Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 11:54:26 AM To Whom it may concern, I am a neighbor of the house located at 323 S Loomis. I have heard that it is slated for demolition. I would hope that the city would prevent this from happening due to the unique architectural design. I would like my name added to the nonconsensual designation application. Gail Baker 330 S Grant Ave Ft Collins, CO 80521 970-402-0207 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 253 From:Lisa Hoffman To:Melissa Matsunaka Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re Agenda Item #7- 323 South Loomis Date:Sunday, December 11, 2022 11:44:50 AM Attachments:Jacqueline & Holger Property.pages Hello…. I’m attaching a letter re 323 South Loomis, Agenda #7 in your upcoming (Tuesday?) Commission meeting. Thank you so much for your attention. Warmest Regards, Lisa Hoffman (970) 219-0045 427 West Oak Street 80521 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 254 12-10-22 To The Historic Preservation Commission Re: The Zipser/Kley Property Agenda Item #7 323 South Loomis Fort Collins, CO I’m writing in regards to the above property that I came to be familiar with, shortly after it was listed in the spring of 2021. A friend was interested in purchasing it and asked me if my partner, James A. Cox, A.I.A. and I would walk through to give her some professional input and guidance before making an offer. In addition to being an architect, Jim was a former member of the Historic Commission in Fort Collins and Loveland. He passed away in February of this year. We happily complied. Please understand that Jim was deeply invested in preserving any home of historical significance. He would always encourage and lean towards preservation, gently guiding his clients (sometimes insisting) that the original design and integrity be preserved. Being a local architect since the 70’s, and working within and later, with the Historical Commission, he was no stranger to the rules, nuances and details regarding that journey. That said, I will tell you his observations re: this property. I’ll add that I shared his vision and listened carefully as he walked through for a length of time, this was not a quick fly-by. Once inside, the deep stench of cigarette smoke was noted. We walked slowly and carefully, visually mapping every room. What struck us immediately was the complete lack of respect for ANY original detail. Indeed, there was virtually nothing left, not a hint of the original plan or the materials of origin. Gone. It was just a series of rooms that had been altered in a haphazard and careless way. The cheapest materials totally replaced every surface. The floors were varying heights and also replaced the original flooring. There was nothing left of the homes original flow, leaving the occupant in a confused rabbit warren that spoke NOTHING of the original plan. Every surface appeared scuffed, broken and damaged. One of Jim’s most concerning finds was the undeniable lack of stability and safety that the previous alterations had created. The electric was out of date, no trace of a followed code, and obviously dangerous. The supporting beams had been altered and jerry rigged by someone who had no training or knowledge, again leaving the occupants in a dangerous situation. The basement foundation had water and severe structural damage, again needing extreme measures to secure. Addressing my friend, he said that the house was unsalvageable. He shook his head and said that there was no way that this house could be pulled from the brink. He suggested that if my friend and her husband were to move forward with an offer, they should be ready to completely scrape the house and start over. In his many, many ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 255 years of practice as an architect (also holding a degree in structural engineering), he had only said that twice, and this was his conclusion. That particular friend opted to cross this house off their list. I was shocked when the current owners of the property explained the after-purchase grab for Historic Preservation Status by the listing owners. I’m also shocked that this needs to be stated or reviewed. As a fan of old homes (mine was built in 1906 on Oak Street) I assure you that I would emphatically stand up for ANY chance of preservation or restoration. In this case, there’s no way. Anyone in doubt need only put their head in the front door. The current owners of the property have enlisted a renown local architect and would bring beauty and a perfect Old Town “voice” back to this location with a single family home and one car garage. Please allow them to proceed. Lisa Hoffman Former Old Town Business Owner and Old Town Resident and Neighbor since 1994 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 256 From:Jeni Makinen To:Melissa Matsunaka Cc:jeni Makinen Subject:[EXTERNAL] 323 S Loomis landmark designation Date:Sunday, December 11, 2022 5:46:00 PM This email is to voice my objection to Landmark Designation for 323 S Loomis. Family members of the previous owners, who sold the house in 2021, are the ones applying for the designation. It is my opinion that this request should have been made before they sold the property and benefited financially from the house not having Landmark Designation at that time. Further, this family informed me that the current owners planned to raze the house and build apartments even though there was no basis or truth to this information, It appeared that this false and misleading information was a way to garner support for designation, which would in turn prevent the house from demolition. My family moved into the 300 block of S Loomis in 1959 and my father still owns the property and lives on that block. My father’s house is individually eligible at a national and state level for Landmark Designation. We would not appreciate an uninvolved third-party making the decision for our family on whether or not to apply for Landmark Designation. Finally, I think this has the potential to set a very negative and harmful precedent for homeowners should this particular application be approved. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my input, Jeni Bustos Makinen ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 257 723 W Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 12 December 2022 To: The Historic Preservation Commission We are writing about the proposed involuntary historic designation of the property at 323 Loomis Street. We are against this declaration, for the following reasons. As homeowners – we live a few blocks away from the site in question – we think a hostile designation such as this should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. We have walked through this house, and it is completely unreasonable to demand that its new owners restrict themselves to remediating the extensive hazards (wiring, asbestos, legacy of cigarette smoke, plumbing, foundation etc.) present in the property. Old Town is the vibrant core of Fort Collins. It will only remain this way if homeowners are allowed to create safe, welcoming environments. As citizens of Fort Collins, we don’t understand why the claimants are pursuing a historic designation. Surely, the time for the owners to have secured such a finding was while they still owned the house, and before they advertised the property as a “true fixer-upper” where the owners could “creat[e] your own custom home in old town Fort Collins” (attachment 7, exhibit A). However, we understand that at the current hearing, it is the HPC’s job to decide whether the current house has sufficient significance and integrity to qualify as a potentially historic building. As professional mathematicians – we are both full professors of mathematics at Colorado State University – we take exception to the asserted “proportional relationships” in attachment 8 (pages 305–307). The so-called golden ratio contributes nothing to the significance or integrity of the house. The technical descriptions of the Fibonacci sequence, etc. are accurate – indeed, they seem to be copied from Wikipedia – but irrelevant to 323 Loomis. The history of architecture is littered with subjects which have been claimed to be modeled on the golden ratio, but with little to no support. Almost all of these claims fall apart under examination. (Le Corbusier’s modernist buildings are a notable exception; the Wikipedia survey on this is quite illuminating.) There can be a tendency to assume that any ratio of at least 3:2, but less than 2:1, somehow echoes the golden ratio; but observing that one length is about two thirds of another tells us nothing about a given building. For the property at hand, it seems that nobody has ever claimed that, say, the Lucas spiral is important in Queen Anne architecture; and attachment 8 gives no reason whatsoever to believe this classical ratio is encoded in the design of 323 Loomis. We have additional reservations about the claimed integrity (there have clearly been modifications to the porches, etc., and it’s unclear to us why an untouched house from 1905 would have asbestos present) and significance (a building can’t be significant simply because ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 258 its first owner was employed) – but here, we are simply writing as informed citizens. In contrast, it is our professional opinion that the asserted significance due to the golden ratio is without foundation. Thank you for your consideration. Jeff Achter Rachel Pries 723 W Mountain Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 259 From:Cook,Alicia To:Melissa Matsunaka Subject:[EXTERNAL] 323 S Loomis Ave Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 6:11:29 PM Members of the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission: I am writing in support of the owners of 323 S. Loomis Avenue building a new home to replace the one that is currently on this lot. I understand that the current structure is under review by the Historic Preservation Commission. I am sending this email because my husband, Graham Luckett, and I own two properties on the same block on which 323 S. Loomis is located. I bought 315 S. Loomis Avenue in 1979 (over 40 years ago!) because I loved the historical nature of the neighborhood. In 2002, my husband and I purchased 309 S. Loomis which we have used as a rental property for the last twenty years. We have put a significant amount of money into both homes over the years to maintain the structural integrity, appearance, and quality at the high standard they deserve. I come from a long line of family members who value older buildings. My grandfather died in his 80s in the same house he was born in. My elderly brother currently lives in the same house my father built when he married my mother. My husband and I plan to stay in our beloved home for as long as we live. Houses have history, but they also must be cared for. Sadly, over the years I have watched 323 S. Loomis become more and more dilapidated and many needed repairs neglected. This state of disrepair is more than cosmetic, one example being the extensive water damage to the foundation. Given the poor condition of the current home on the property, it is hard to imagine that any historical significance it might have had would outweigh the very costly repairs that are now needed (if the repairs are even possible at this point). It is my understanding that the new owners have engaged a respected architect that has designed a new home that would meet their needs and also be compatible with the neighborhood. I look forward to this new construction and strongly believe it will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. It is my understanding that the petitioners who filed for 323 S. Loomis to undergo a historic preservation review benefited (or stand to benefit in the future) from the sale of the house. The new owner purchased the property believing that no restrictions existed on the home. It raises ethical questions for me when family members, AFTER selling the home and apparently knowing the intention of the buyer, then turn around and petition that severe limitations be placed on what the new owners can do with the property. The previous family had many, many years to request that 323 S. Loomis be designated an historic property but chose to act only after the house had sold. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 260 Thank you for considering my input. As long-term residents, my husband and I care deeply about our neighborhood and feel that the current owners of 323 S. Loomis should be allowed to build a new home to replace the older structure for the reasons I have outlined in this email. Kind regards, Alicia Skinner Cook ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 261 December 15, 2022 Members of the Historic Preservation Commission, Thank you for your vote on December 14 to move the designation of 323 S. Loomis as a Fort Collins Historic Landmark forward. I’m writing to express my support for this designation. I believe that it is important to preserve our irreplaceable historic structures. The character of Old Town is part of what attracts new residents and retains lifelong residents to Fort Collins, and specifically to this part of town. While it is well-established that historic preservation is important for aesthetic, cultural, and educational reasons, it is also good for the city’s economy and our environment. Studies have shown that historic preservation impacts local and regional economies by boosting industries such as tourism and film, while retaining the infrastructure to support housing and other needs (often through the use of tax credits tied to historic preservation). The construction industry is one of the largest consumers of raw materials (lumber, minerals, etc.) and greenhouse gas emissions as well as the source of a large portion of landfill waste. The reuse of existing buildings creates environmental benefits by minimizing both the use of increasingly scarce natural resources and the amount of construction and demolition waste entering the landfill. There are also many studies that compare the embodied energy in existing buildings with new construction (even that which builds in energy efficiency) and finds that retaining existing buildings is at least equivalent and sometimes exceeds the energy saved by new “green” building. A study conducted by the state historical fund (History Colorado) finds that historic preservation across the state has produced benefits that include jobs and income, higher tax revenue, and increased tourist spending. The report features Fort Collins’ Northern Hotel and Old Town along with other projects in Northern Colorado. The demolition of aging houses exacerbates the unaffordability issue. Demolishing a smaller, less expensive house would replace an affordable house with something that will no doubt be far out of reach for most residents if (more likely when) it finds its way back on the market. Historic preservation brings many benefits to both the homeowner and to our community and these should be acknowledged. Thank you for your consideration of this very worthy and well-researched Landmark Designation. Sincerely, Michelle Haefele Below are some references on the economic and environmental benefits of historic preservation. If you would like copies of any of these papers please let me know and I will send them. Clarion Associates, 2017. Preservation for a Changing Colorado: Technical Report. Prepared for Colorado Preservation Inc., funded by History Colorado State Historical Fund Grant. https://www.preservationbenefitscolorado.com/ Frey, P. 2008. Building Reuse: Finding a Place on American Climate Policy Agendas. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 39 p. Frey, P. 2011. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 94 p. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 262 Foster, G. 2020. Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce environmental impacts. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 152: 104507 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104507 Fuertes, P. 2017. Embodied energy policies to reuse existing buildings. Energy Procedia 115: 431-439. Girard, L.F., and Gravagnuolo. A. 2017. Circular economy and cultural heritage/landscape regeneration. Circular business, financing and governance models for a competitive Europe. BDC. Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini. 17(1): 35-52. Laurie, J. 2008. Historic preservation and cluster based economic development. The IEDC Economic Development Journal, 7(1): 38-46. Listokin, D., Listokin, B., and Lahr, M. 1998. The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3): 431-478. Mason, R. 2005. Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature. A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. 67 p. National Trust for Historic Places. 2022. Six Essential Reasons to Save Old Places. https://savingplaces.org/stories/six-essential-reasons-to-save-old-places Nocca, F. 2017. The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: Multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool. Sustainability 9: 1-28. https://doi:10.3390/su9101882 Paul, E. 2009. The Environmental and Energy Conservation Benefits of the Maryland Historic Tax Credit Program. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Center for Policy Initiatives. 31 p. Phillips, R.G. and Stein, J.M. 2013. An indicator framework for linking historic preservation and community economic development. Social Indicators Research, 113:1–15. https://DOI:10.1007/s11205- 011-9833-6 Wise, F., Moncaster, A., Jones, D., and Dewberry, E. 2019. Considering embodied energy and carbon in heritage buildings – a review. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Built Environment Conference 2019, Wales, UK, 24–25 September 2019. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 263 1 Yani Jones From:C L Werner <clwaok@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:57 PM To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed Landmarking for Preservation of a possible Demolition, 323 S. Loomis To whom it may pertain, For weeks I have driven by the home on 323 S. Loomis, and I am greatly in favor of marking this unique and charming home with Landmarking Status. This home could of easily been added onto in the back while maintaining its historically rich facade, yet a demolition has been the chosen option. Several decades ago when consultants from Boulder gave workshops on how to preserve our older neighborhoods, they emphatically shared to NOT do what had happened in many neighborhoods in Boulder. They encouraged homeowners to keep the street view integrity of their home, even if modernization of the interior was preferred. This advice has always stuck with me. Many American cities have been able to protect their historic neighborhoods, and I believe Fort Collins needs to make a greater effort to do so here. Please seriously consider making 323 S. Loomis an historically designated home on the west side of Old Town. If we continue to demolish homes at the rate we are currently doing, Old Town will no longer be an appropriate reference point for this part of town. Does New Town ring truer for you? I hope you get to do your job and protect the character of this section of town, which I love so much. Sincerely, Connie L. Werner 935 W. Oak St. Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Sent from my iPad ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 264 From:mattdickstein@comcast.net To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Item #3 323 S. Loomis Date:Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:54:05 AM I am writing in support of the owners’ objection to historic landmark designation for 323 S. Loomis Ave. Involuntary historic landmark designation imposes severe financial hardship and use restrictions on the property owner. It’s an extreme measure that should only be used in the most extraordinary of circumstances. 323 S. Loomis does not remotely rise to this standard in any regard. It is one of many Queen Anne cottage style home in the area and has no unique architectural or historic significance. Moreover, the property is dilapidated and has asbestos and tobacco contamination that cannot be fully mitigated. It poses a severe health risk and a board certified expert toxicologist recommended complete demolition of the property. 323 S. Loomis represents the most egregious misuse of historic landmark designation in the city’s history. My understanding is that there has never been an involuntary historic landmark designation of a residential property in Fort Collins. Such a designation constitutes an extreme infringement of personal property rights and imposes significant financial hardship for property owner. Moreover, the circumstances under which this property was nominated are outrageous in the extreme. The application was filed by the family of former owner who owned the property for approximately 50 years without considering historic designation. They sold the property advertising the opportunity to “build a true custom home” and benefitted financially from that representation. The fact that the seller reaped the financial benefits of selling an unrestricted property, and then subsequently applied for an involuntary designation clearly violates any reasonable standard of fairness and is an egregious misuse of the historic designation process. There is little benefit to the Fort Collins community from designating 323 S. Loomis as an historic landmark. An involuntary historic landmark designation would set a dangerous precedent that could jeopardize sales and negatively impact property values for many Fort Collins homeowners. Balanced against the financial hardship, health risk and infringement of rights of the property owner, it is unconscionable that the Historic Preservation Committee would proceed with such an action. Sincerely, Matthew Dickstein 7418 Streamside Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 mattdickstein@comcast.net ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 265 From:Amy and Dave Rosenberg To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] 323 Loomis Street Date:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:11:51 PM I am writing to oppose the designation of property at 323 Loomis Street as a historic landmark over the objection of its owners, Dr. Holger Kley and Ms. Jacqueline Zipser. It is simply absurd to permit someone who has no current connection to the property (and who, in fact, profited from its sale) to prevent its current owners from building a home there. If the previous owner, Joann Cannon, had thought the house worthy of the designation, she could have pursued it, but she did not. Neither did her daughter, Terri Berger. Ms. Berger, her husband, and her son have applied to have the property landmarked—but only after Ms. Berger received proceeds from the sale of the property which, after Ms. Cannon’s death, was advertised for sale as a site for a custom home. To accept proceeds from the sale of property represented in that light and then to pull the rug out from under the new owners is beyond mean-spirited. It is devious and phony. And if you permit the property to be landmarked under these circumstances, you are complicit in a plan that would prevent Dr. Kley and Ms. Zipser from building a home that complies with all the requirements for new home construction on that lot. Moreover, you will have permitted Ms. Berger, without spending a dime of her own money, to force the new owners to defend their property rights with the expensive assistance of legal counsel. This dog-in-the-manger policy needs to change. The City of Fort Collins has a lot to say about the need for diversity and affordable housing across the spectrum of our neighborhoods. But if people who have nothing to lose can prevent owners like Dr. Kley and Ms. Zipser from building a home, or can force them to spend thousands of dollars to defend what they have already paid for, Old Town will be populated only by our city’s wealthiest residents. Respectfully, Amy K. Rosenberg 5313 Highcastle Court Fort Collins, CO 70525 970 227 1310 Sent from Mail for Windows ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 266 From:Dave Rosenberg To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Historic Landmark Designation for 323 Loomis Street Date:Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:39:57 PM Dears Sirs and/or Madam, My name is Dave Rosenberg. I am writing to you about the house (if you can call it that) located at 323 Loomis Street and its possible designation as a historic landmark. I have lived in Fort Collins for over 28 years. Before I retired, I worked as an engineer for Hewlett Packard Company for more than 41 years. It is my understanding that you are considering a request by a non-owner to landmark the property over the owners’ objection. To me, it seems unreasonable for a person who has no financial interest in a property to be allowed to prevent the removal of a dilapidated and dangerous structure so that a new home—one that will enhance the neighborhood—can be built there. When Dr. Holger Kley and Ms. Jacqueline Zipser purchased the property, it had been advertised as a property that could be the site of a new custom home. The designation you are considering would prevent that from happening, and Dr. Kley and Ms. Zipser would be left with a totally useless property. For this property, remediation can only be reasonably accomplished by constructing something new. Dr. Kley and Ms. Zipser fully intend to make the new home comply with the city’s requirements for new construction in Old Town and to incorporate features that will be compatible with the look, feel and characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. I have visited and inspected the house. Although I am very experienced in home construction, having built five custom homes due to employer-requested relocations, it does not take an expert to see how bad the condition of this house is, and how impractical it would be to try to restore it. · The house is covered in toxic and cancer-causing dust that coats every wall, floor, ceiling and surface from years of smoking by the previous occupants. I found it difficult to even remain in the house for more than a few minutes due to the smell of smoke that infests the air. · I saw that much of the wooden structure had been destroyed by termites. I understand termites are relatively rare in a dry climate like that in Fort Collins, but their droppings are obvious and in numerous locations. · The staircase to the basement is rotted and dangerous. · The electrical system does not meet even the oldest or minimal City of Fort Collins electrical codes. Circuits are not even grounded. And I saw several improperly wired fixtures and outlets. · The so-called furnace is located in a large un-reinforced hole cut into the side of the rock basement wall. I was surprised the hole had not yet collapsed on top of the furnace. If or when it does, an explosion caused by the damaged gas furnace could not only destroy this home but other surrounding homes as well. · I noticed several vertical walls that are rotted, including those that likely include load bearing beams. In my opinion, the only practical option to remediate the situation is to remove this dangerous house and build something new that will be compatible with its surroundings. Dr. Kley and Ms. Zipser want to do exactly that, and to live in the completed home for many years to come. The house to be built will be a welcome asset to the community and to the city. Preventing them, and others like them, from exercising reasonable discretion over their own property will only leave the city with empty, dilapidated properties that are unattractive to potential home buyers. I strongly request the city reject the irresponsible request by a third party to landmark the property. Sincerely, Dave Rosenberg ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 267 5313 Highcastle Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80525 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 268 From:Walt Cate To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] #3 323 south loomis Date:Friday, March 10, 2023 2:45:09 PM The property owners should be able to do whatever they want with the old house. If the city wanted to keep it historical they should of bought it when it came up for sale in may of 2021. Let them build whatever they want as long as it meets the new standards. -- Walt Cate Cate Brothers, Inc. 970-290-4442 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 269 From:Eric Guenther To:Jeni Arndt; Susan Gutowsky; Maren Bzdek; Jim Bertolini Cc:Kurt Knierim; Anne Nelson; Bonnie Gibson - Contact; Jenna Edwards - Contact; Jim Rose-Contact; Margo Carlock - Contact; Yani Jones; Heather Jarvis; Brad Yatabe Subject:[EXTERNAL] Historic Preservation Commission Resignation - Eric Guenther Date:Monday, February 6, 2023 7:34:25 AM Dear Mayor Arndt and Councilmember Gutowsky, Please consider this communication as my resignation from the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). While I have enjoyed serving on the HPC, I find the process for Involuntary Landmark Designations (ILD) as defined in Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code to be severely flawed and unfair to property owners. As such, I cannot ethically and in good conscience vote in favor of an Involuntary Landmark Designation. My specific concerns and recommendations for improving the process, increasing transparency and building community support are outlined below: Conflicts of Interest: Require Applicants for an Involuntary Landmark Designation to confirm they and/or their immediate family members have no conflict of interest related to the property, including prior ownership, partnerships and/or business interests associated with the property. Please Note: With respect to the two ILD nominations presently before the HPC, the Applicants and/or their immediate family members had previous ownership interests or partnerships with the current owners. Furthermore, the Applicants and/or immediate family members had ample opportunity to pursue Historic Landmark Designations prior to selling the property to the current owners. Instead, the nominations were initiated after the sales were complete. Disclosures and Acknowledgements: Require every commercial and residential real estate transaction involving properties 50 years or older to include a Seller's Disclosure and Buyer's Acknowledgement regarding the process for an Involuntary Landmark Designation. While the process is outlined in the Municipal Code, it is not reasonable to require every potential buyer to review the code in detail. Given the significant impact an ILD has on the value and marketability of a property, the issue should be fully transparent at the time the real estate transaction is completed. Applicants: Increase the required number of Applicants for an ILD from three residents to at least twenty-five residents, and ensure none of the Applicants are members of the same immediate family or household. This modification will demonstrate more community buy-in for the nomination and minimize risk of perceived bias on the part of the Applicants. In addition to the noted recommendations, several other factors are centrally important to consideration for Involuntary Landmark Designations. My understanding is these factors may be considered at various levels by the HPC, but not by City Staff in development of their recommendations. Primary issues that should be fully explored prior to approval of an Involuntary Landmark Designation include: Financial Impact on Owners: The HPC and City Staff should evaluate the impact of an ILD on the livelihood and financial interests of the current owners, including investment value, frozen asset costs and maintenance costs. The HPC and City Staff must also consider whether a property was originally marketed and purchased as an opportunity for an expansion and/or scrape and rebuild. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 270 Contamination: Substances that make a property uninhabitable and/or unsaleable (i.e.asbestos, methamphetamine, radon, nicotine and other dangerous substances) should be considered by City Staff in development of their recommendations. Future Plans: Applicants and/or City Staff should be required to present viable plans for the future of the property, including evaluation of the concept, funding sources, community support and Owner's participation. Approving an ILD without considering a comprehensive strategy for the future of the property is a disservice to the Owners and the community. Alternative Options: For nominations that focus primarily on people and events (versus architecture), the HPC and City Staff should consider alternate options for recognition (i.e. plaques, parks, street names, etc.). Semantics: Although technically accurate, property Owners should not be referred to as Opponents in the Involuntary Landmark Designation process. They should be referred to as Owners. The word Opponent in this context carries an inherent negative association. I appreciate your consideration of this input and your ongoing efforts to make Fort Collins such a wonderful and vibrant community. Eric E. Guenther1308 West Mountain AvenueFort Collins, CO 80521 Cell: 248.767.5023e-Mail: eric.e.guenther@gmail.com ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 271 323 S. Loomis Ave. Landmark Designation Hearing 3-15-2023 Hearing #2 – Policies & Purposes Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 2Role of the Historic Preservation Commission – Hearing #2 HPC Hearing #2: Determination if designation of the property supports the policies in 14-1 and purposes in 14-2 sufficiently to outweigh owner objection. • Owners do not support Landmark designation • Adopt a Resolution stating: • whether designation of the property sufficiently meets policies & purposes to outweigh owner objection; and • Making a recommendation to City Council on designation • If no, process is terminated (not subject to appeal) • If yes, process moves to City Council for final decision Motions for involuntary designations require at least 6 votes to pass (4 if fewer than 6 commissioners can participate due to conflict of interest) 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 272 3Process Overview: Non-Owner Initiated Landmark Designation WE ARE HERE Basis for HPC Decision – 2 nd Hearing 4 14-1 – Policies • Protect, enhance, and perpetuate resources of significance within the City • Such protection is necessary in the interests of prosperity, civic pride, and general welfare • Maintain & enhance the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of the City 14-2 - Purposes a) Survey, identify, designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate resources that reflect important elements of the City’s heritage b) Foster civic pride in beauty & accomplishments of the past c) Stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality d) Protect/enhance heritage tourism e) Promote the use of resources for education, stimulation, and welfare f) Promote good urban design g) Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of resources h) Promote economic, social, and environmental sustainability through identification, use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of resources. 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 273 5Summary Timeline DATE ACTION September 26, 2022 Owners requested initiation of the Single-Family Demolition Notification process for 323 S. Loomis Ave. Notification added to HPC’s Oct. 19 agenda September 28, 2022 Notice for proposed demolition posted on City’s Historic Preservation website October 5, 2022 Historic Review sign posted at 323 S. Loomis Ave. October 18, 2022 Complete non-owner-initiated Landmark nomination application submitted by 3 residents. Request for consent/no consent to nomination sent to owners October 27, 2022 Owners provided decision of no consent to staff November 9, 2022 Notice of hearing sent to owners by first-class mail (hearing information also sent to owners and applicants via email) November 22, 2022 Notice of hearing requested for publication in Coloradoan December 14, 2022 HPC Hearing #1 – HPC found 323 S. Loomis Ave. is Eligible (5-2) February 9, 2023 Notice of hearing sent to owners by first-class mail (hearing information also sent to owners and applicants via email) February 21, 2022 Notice of hearing requested for publication in Coloradoan March 15, 2022 HPC Hearing #2 – Policies & Purposes 6Location 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 274 Background • Constructed 1905 by builder W.T. Dimick • A.J. and Maggie Hood first residents • Purchased by current owners in 2021 7 SUMMARY OF KNOWN EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS DATE PERMIT #NAME NOTES 1905 ‐‐A.J. Hood $2,500, 5‐room frame cottage, constructed by W.T. Dimick 2/10/1928 1844Charles H. Fuller Reshingle roof with composition shingles 9/20/1939 5955William Thompson Reroofing 1943‐1948 ‐‐Back porch 1970 ‐‐D.W. and JoAnn Cannon Back porch enclosed/screened 7/29/2011B1104085 Donald and JoAnn Cannon Reroofing 2012 ‐‐JoAnn Cannon 10‐light glass front door replaced with 6‐panel wood door on south porch 2013 ‐‐JoAnn Cannon Wrought iron railings added to both front porches 8Historic Photo and Sanborn Map 1925 Sanborn Map1948 Tax Assessor Photo 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 275 9Façade (East Elevation) and South Elevation 10South Elevation Enclosed Porch and Rear (West) Elevation 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 276 11North Elevation North elevation east end North elevation west end 12Potential Outcomes If Designated by City Council • Prohibits demolition • Qualifies property for preservation incentives for rehabilitation If Not Designated by City Council • Demolition and new construction permits can be issued 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 277 13Responses to Work Session Request for Information 1. To be added after work session 14Questions for HPC to Consider 1. How does this property compare to other, similar, known properties within its historic context? 2. How does designation of this property specifically support any or all of the policies and purposes in 14-1 & 14-2 of Municipal Code? 3.Does the degree to which the City’s preservation policies and purposes would be supported by the designation of this property outweigh the owner’s objection? 13 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 278 15Public Comment Summary To date, 17 public comments have been received (written and spoken), including: • 6 in favor of designation • 11 against designation 16Role of the Historic Preservation Commission – Hearing #2 HPC Hearing #2: Determination if designation of the property supports the policies in 14-1 and purposes in 14-2 sufficiently to outweigh owner objection. • Owners do not support Landmark designation • Adopt a Resolution stating: • whether designation of the property sufficiently meets policies & purposes to outweigh owner objection; and • Making a recommendation to City Council on designation • If no, process is terminated (not subject to appeal) • If yes, process moves to City Council for final decision Motions for involuntary designations require at least 6 votes to pass (4 if fewer than 6 commissioners can participate due to conflict of interest) 15 16 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 279 323 S. Loomis Ave. Landmark Designation Hearing 3-15-2023 Hearing #2 – Policies & Purposes Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 17 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 280