Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2024 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting (2)Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Jenna Edwards And remotely via Zoom Anne Nelsen Tom Wilson David Woodlee Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting March 20, 2024 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/98864384557 . (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 98864384557. 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 48 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 48 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 20, 2024 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February, 2024 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   3DFNHW3J Page 3 2. SF DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 700 E ELIZABETH The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 700 E Elizabeth. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. REPORT ON STAFF 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). 4. 2608 (2612) E. DRAKE (JOHNSON FARM BARN) – STABILIZATION AND REPAIR UPDATE DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide notice to the HPC of the plans to stabilize and repair the Johnson Barn, a contributing structure of the City Landmark at 2608 (2612) E Drake, following the order to demolish issued on March 7, 2024. The barn sustained severe damage during high winds in the week of February 26, 2024. Subsequent evaluation by a structural engineer who specializes in historic preservation recognized the need to resolve the barn’s structural instability immediately and the City’s Chief Building Official issued an order to demolish based on the structure’s imminent danger of collapse. The order provided options to address the imminently dangerous conditions, including immediate stabilization, careful deconstruction of the damaged portions, salvage of reusable and reference materials, and repair and reconstruction of the barn. The applicant is pursuing stabilization, repair, and reconstruction as the immediate course of action and will describe progress to date at this meeting. Staff expects to receive a subsequent application for a building permit that will address weatherproofing and primary reconstruction activities that will be required following stabilization. At a previous Commission meeting on June 13, 2012, the owner provided plans for adaptive reuse of the farmstead, which were ultimately approved as part of the Bucking Horse Filing Two development plan. The property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on June 18, 2013. As adaptive reuse plans move forward in the future, building permit review will ensure conformance with the approved 2012 plan set and will be documented via a Certificate of Appropriateness to reflect conformance with landmark design review requirements. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Gino Campana, Bellissimo, LLC STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager   3DFNHW3J Page 4 5. 220 E. OAK ST. (EAST OAK TOWNHOMES) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Development application at 220 E. Oak Street to include demolition/potential deconstruction of all existing structures, construction of fifteen (15) 3 and 4-story townhomes with a private center alley. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Laurie P. & Robert Davis (owner/developer) ldavis@davisdavisarch.com; rdavis@davisdavisarch.com Randy Shortridge, auWorkshop (design professional) rshortridge@auworkshop.co STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner • 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   3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY MARCH 20, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2024 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC February 21, 2024 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Anne Nelsen David Woodlee Tom Wilson Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting February 21, 2024 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Anne Nelsen Jim Rose, Tom Wilson, David Woodlee ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Heather Jarvis, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated there were changes to the published agenda, including a few items under Staff Reports Not on the Agenda and a discussion of Saving Places Conference in Other Business. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek provided updates on the new HPC appointments coming forward on March 19, 2024. The new commission members shall join the HPC for the April meetings. Ms. Bzdek asked the HPC regarding their interest in participating in the Super Issues Meeting on March 25, 2024. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission '5 $ ) 7 ,7(0$77$&+0(17   3DFNHW3J Page 2 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2024. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 17, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. SF DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1011 W MAGNOLIA The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 1011 W Magnolia. Commissioner Carlock made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nelsen, to approve the consent agenda for the February 21, 2024, meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Nelsen, Wilson, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 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). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed some of the staff activities that have occurred since the last meeting, including a Design Review Highlight for 237 West St. (Sondburg House) that was awarded a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan for installation of two basement egress windows. She also discussed a Survey Highlight for the Lee Suniga Property, located at 818/818.5 Sycamore St. that is Landmark Eligible (818.5) for its notable association with Fort Collins figure Lee Suniga. Timestamp 5:45pm • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS The Commission discussed the Saving Places Conference held in Boulder, CO. Commissioner Nelsen noted that the conference might have been her favorite Saving Places conference she has attended and expressed her appreciation to the HPC for funding their continuing education toward the important work the HPC is involved in. The Commission discussed their favorite tours, including the NCAR Mesa Laboratory building. The Commission discussed the Conference’s focus on sustainability and felt it was timely. They wanted to highlight the carbon-avoided retrofit estimator (caretool.org) as a user-friendly way to evaluate the carbon impact of an existing building to compare against building reuse versus a new building. '5 $ ) 7 ,7(0$77$&+0(17   3DFNHW3J Page 3 The Commissioners noted that the speakers at the sessions were especially knowledgeable, and the sessions were very interesting. Commissioner Carlock mentioned that several speakers were willing to consider amending or modifying the Secretary of the Interior Standards, or applying them more leniently, to modernize the SOI Standards’ application or appropriateness. The Commissioners discussed the Relevancy Project and recognizing the opportunities for preservation to provide leadership on climate change issues and affordable housing. Ms. Bzdek noted that the City of Fort Collins will be modifying its solar policy this year to make the administrative process smoother to install solar panels. Ms. Jones mentioned a theme at the conference to leverage and build upon existing organizations, systems, and skills already existing in the community, such as preservation trades training. Heather Jarvis noted that it was a fantastic and fun conference. She brought up a session that discussed mobile homes as an affordable housing element of a city’s housing inventory and the stories that arise from the people within those structures. It was an interesting session that discussed the history of the mobile home parks and the planning aspects. Ms. Bzdek noted that the City did a Quonset Hut study on the temporary, pre-fabricated building type, called “Soldiers of the Sword, Soldiers of the Ploughshare: Quonset Huts,” located on the Preservation Webpage, under Local History heading, Architecture & Design. She discussed that it’s a great analog to the conversation about how to consider manufactured homes, including the preservation policy issues and how significance is defined for buildings that were designed to be moveable. The Commission agreed that the Saving Places Conference was an invaluable opportunity and thanked the City for supporting the HPC’s continuing education. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. '5 $ ) 7 ,7(0$77$&+0(17   3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 20, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 700 E. ELIZABETH ST. STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about a demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the demolition notification process after receiving a written request from the property owner and confirmation that the proposed new construction is a single-family residence or would otherwise not fall under the development review processes required by the Land Use Code. As part of the notification process, the property is included in the next available consent agenda for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. 700 E. Elizabeth St. Historical Background The property at 700 E. Elizabeth St. was built c. 1922. The owner at the time was Charles R. Jones, who was a CSU professor. The Jones family lived in the house until the 1940s and were the longest known residents of this property. There is no detailed survey record for this property. Please note that this is re-notification of a proposed demolition. The first demolition notification occurred in October 2022, and so it is being repeated because more than 6 months have elapsed. Although several members of the public called Historic Preservation Services staff to inquire about the sign posting at the property, none chose to submit a written or spoken comment during the October 2022 notification to the Historic Preservation Commission. The item was acknowledged but not acted on by the HPC through the approval of the consent agenda. Public Comment As of 3/7/2024, no written public comments have been received related to this Demolition Notification. Staff have received 19 phone calls and 1 email from individuals inquiring about the proposed demolition and have provided information related to the Demolition Notification process to those people. Building Permit Records DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 3/1/1933 3427 Charles R. Jones Reshingle front porch 6/23/1937 4831 C.R. Jones (prof CSU) Build 11x20 trailer shed on rear of present garage: comp roof, com/paint siding Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 7/24/1939 5855 C.R. Jones Reroofing 9/5/1952 13001 Ronald O. Roberts General remodeling of residence 9/9/1986 21102 Charles S. Hatchette One story frame garage 9/15/1987 27608 Charles S. Hatchette Reshingle roof 11/17/1992 923192 Charles S. Hatchette 288 sq. ft. greenhouse 3/26/2002 B0201145 Charles S. Hatchette Residential remodel - replace windows, remodel interior of 2nd floor, remodel of existing 2nd story balcony. 5/1/2002 B0202253 Charles S. Hatchette Reroof 5/29/2002 B0202594 Charles S. Hatchette New 520 sq. ft. detached garage 12/16/2008 B0806810 Asbestos survey and bulk sampling report 3/9/2009 B0806805 Charles S. Hatchette Remove existing deck and raise it to match floor level of house, add on to dining room 240 sq. ft., and add a 2-story addition with a wheelchair lift (elevator from first floor to second) of 55 sq. ft. Residents (to 1975) YEAR 700 E Elizabeth NOTES (h/o indicates owner) 1922 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones/Paul L. Getchell Chas - Instructor at CAC (h)/student 1925 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones Chas - Associate prof CAC (h) 1927 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones Chas - Prof CAC (h) 1929 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones/Garrett H. Teeslkink Chas - Instructor CAC (h)/Student 1931-1933 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones Chas - Associate prof CAC (h) 1934-1940 Charles R. and Lena M. Jones Chas - Prof CAC (h) 1948 Ralph C. and Evelyn S. Bryant (o) Ralph - Prof forestry Colo A &M 1950 Thomas H. and Eva Evans (o) Thomas - Dean of Engineering at Colo A&M 1952 Ralph C. and Evelyn S. Bryant (o) Acting head of Forest Management Colo A&M 1954 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - purchasing agt. Colo A &M 1956 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - Purchasing agent Business Office Colo A&M and Board Member Zoning Board of Adjustment City of FC 1957-1959 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - Assistant business manager CSU 1960 Ronald O. and Virginia Roberts (o) Ron - Assistant Mayor City of FC and Assistant business manager CSU 1962 Charles G. Clark/Robert E. Friehauf/Roger C. Hedlung/Robert Herchenroeder/William Reynolds/Larry Smith CSU students (all) 1963 Vacant 1964-1966 Henry E. and Virginia S. Bredeck (o) Henry - Prof CSU 1968-1969 Richard O. and Carol Hayes (o) Rich - Biologist US Public Health 1970-1971 NL 1972 Refused Information 1973-1975 Richard O. Hayes Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 1948 Tax Assessor Photo 1970 Tax Assessor Photo ATTACHMENTS 1. Photos Packet Pg. 11 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 21, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING FEBRUARY 8 TO MARCH 6) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist 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). For cases where a project can be reviewed/approved without referral to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) through the issuance of 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 are also 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. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting recent items and events. Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, 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 Preservation 101 Historic Larimer County Staff presentation on historic significance and integrity Approx.. 25 February 27, 2024 Women’s Suffrage in Fort Collins – Virtual Walking Tour She Goes High Staff presented a virtual walking tour as part of the Lead Lunch and Learn Approx. 15 March 6, 2024 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 701 Mathews St (Schroeder/McMurry Property) Replacement of 4 vinyl windows with 1/1 wood windows. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 9, 2024 328 W. Mountain Ave. (Avery House) Rehab of deteriorated wood areas of upper level sleeping porch. City Landmark and Historic Property on State and National Registers. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 16, 2024 522 Whedbee St. (O. Ozias House) In-kind reroofing. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 21, 2024 2005 N. Overland Trl. (1883 Fort Collins Waterworks) Code-compliant replacement of non- historic fence and installation of removable plexiglass guardrails for one exterior door. City Landmark and Historic Property on State and National Registers. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 21, 2024 317 Jefferson St. (Watkins-Pennington Building) Sign. Contributing property to Old Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 28, 2024 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 415 S. Howes, Park Lane Towers (North) Construction of an enclosed bike rack/locker facility on the alley side of the North building (attached to the single-story commercial strip facing north onto Magnolia) Approved – meets LUC 3.4.7/SOI Standards March 1, 2024 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 1700 Willox Ct (NE Corner of Willox Ct & Willox Ln) Conceptual Development Review: Proposed outdoor storage facility. Comments only: Design compatibility with 1809 N. College will be required (abutting) March 7, 2024 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 2601 S. College Ave. Eligible; **Appealed by applicant – HPC hearing April 17, 2024 Yes August 25, 2023 2035 W. Mulberry St. Not Eligible Yes February 9, 2024 309 Scott Ave. Eligible Yes February 16, 2024 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 FTA (through Transfort); Bus stop in Laurel School Historic District (NRHP) Conversion of existing bus stop pad into ADA accessible pad No Adverse Effect February 15, 2024 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. Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 Within this period, staff processed a total of 5 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 5 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 17 Headline Copy Goes Here March 20, 2024 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation PlannerYani Jones, Historic Preservation PlannerRebekah Schields, Historic Preservation SpecialistMaren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Historic Preservation Commission Staff Activity Report Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Survey Highlight Frank T. Ulrich Property – 309 Scott Ave. Landmark Eligible & NRHP Eligible Built (or possibly re-built) at this location c. 1938, this house is a rare example of Rustic architecture in Fort Collins. Its log construction, prominent stone chimney, and multilight wood windows are particularly reflective of that style. 1 2 ,TE0 3 ATTACH0ENT 1 Packet Pg. 1 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Education/Outreach Highlight Preservation 101 Rebekah Shields presented on the concepts of historic significance and integrity at an evening event hosted by Historic Larimer County at Funkwerks Brewery on February 27. (photo from Poudre Landmarks Foundation) Headline Copy Goes HereJoin Our Newsletter! 4 • Get monthly updates and information from Historic Preservation Services directly in your inbox such as: • Upcoming events/activities • Historic Preservation Commission agenda overviews • Notification of historic surveys in progress and completed • Notification of single-family residential demolitions • Local preservation financial support program open/close notifications • Landmark spotlights • And more! • Scan the QR Code, or go to https://www.fcgov.com/subscriptions/#group_id_2, to sign up by toggling on the “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter! 3 4 ,TE0 3 ATTACH0ENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 20, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 2608 (2612) E. DRAKE (JOHNSON FARM BARN) – STABILIZATION AND REPAIR UPDATE STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide notice to the HPC of the plans to stabilize and repair the Johnson Barn, a contributing structure of the City Landmark at 2608 (2612) E Drake, following the order to demolish issued on March 7, 2024. The barn sustained severe damage during high winds in the week of February 26, 2024. Subsequent evaluation by a structural engineer who specializes in historic preservation recognized the need to resolve the barn’s structural instability immediately and the City’s Chief Building Official issued an order to demolish based on the structure’s imminent danger of collapse. The order provided options to address the imminently dangerous conditions, including immediate stabilization, careful deconstruction of the damaged portions, salvage of reusable and reference materials, and repair and reconstruction of the barn. The applicant is pursuing stabilization, repair, and reconstruction as the immediate course of action and will describe progress to date at this meeting. Staff expects to receive a subsequent application for a building permit that will address weatherproofing and primary reconstruction activities that will be required following stabilization. At a previous Commission meeting on June 13, 2012, the owner provided plans for adaptive reuse of the farmstead, which were ultimately approved as part of the Bucking Horse Filing Two development plan. The property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on June 18, 2013. As adaptive reuse plans move forward in the future, building permit review will ensure conformance with the approved 2012 plan set and will be documented via a Certificate of Appropriateness to reflect conformance with landmark design review requirements. APPLICANT/OWNER: Gino Campana, Johnson Farm, LLC RECOMMENDATION: N/A COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). In this hearing, the Commission shall receive background information about the current state of the barn and the status of the deconstruction process and provide comments on staff’s proposed timeline for next steps. This meeting will fulfill the requirement in Section 14-8 of Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 the municipal code for noticing the HPC when an order to demolish is issued due to imminent danger and will also inform the community of the situation and provide opportunity for public comment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Date of Landmark designation: June 18, 2013 • Built c. 1918 • Order to demolish issued March 7, 2024 • Proposed work includes deconstruction and salvage of building materials following wind damage event; reconstruction of the barn per SOI Standards for Reconstruction SIGNIFICANCE: The following description is from the 2013 Landmark nomination: The Wesley Johnson Farm is significant to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard One (1) for its agricultural associations beginning in the late nineteenth century. Historic activities on the farm demonstrate multiple agricultural contexts significant to the city, including cattle and sheep raising, farming, and ranching. The property is additionally significant under Standard Two (2) for its association with several prominent Fort Collins citizens, including Charles Evans and the Johnson brothers: Elmer, Wesley, Edwin, and Harvey. The Johnsons first moved to Fort Collins in 1902 where they established multiple farms in the area. Throughout the twentieth century, the Johnsons thrived in farming and stock raising. One Johnson brother in particular, Harvey, exerted significant political influence in the city as president of the Water Supply and Storage Company and mayor from 1963 to 1967. The property also holds significance under Standard Three (3). Its two farmhouses, built in the 1910s by Elmer Johnson, are excellent examples of vernacular agricultural architecture. Additionally, the Johnson barn, built around 1918, represents one of the city’s few remaining examples of a bank barn. It is built into the side of the land’s natural grade to provide livestock easier access to forage stored in the barn. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The following description is from the 2013 Landmark nomination: Johnson Barn Construction Date: ca. 1918 Architect/Builder: Elmer Johnson Building Materials: Wood, concrete Architectural Style: Vernacular agricultural Footprint: 70’ N-S by 42’ E-W; 30’ High Description: Constructed around 1918 by Elmer Johnson, the property’s barn stands north of the two farmhouses. This large, two-story bank barn sits on a concrete foundation with a gambrel roof, flared eaves, and wood shingles. A cross-gambrel section extends from the roof on the west elevation, while the north elevation contains a gabled hay hood beneath the eaves. A centrally located gabled-roof cupola sits at the top of the structure. The Johnson barn represents an intact and well-preserved example of a bank barn type, holding a high level of integrity. Bank barns were typically built into a hillside to take advantage of the natural grade of the land, allowing ground-level access to both the upper and lower floors. The barn facilitated access for wagons or trucks carrying feed or hay to the upper floor, which could be easily distributed to animals in the barn and corrals surrounding the lower-level entrance. The barn is aligned on a north- south axis, and exterior walls are clad in wood, shiplap siding. The north and south elevations include pairs of 8/8 double-hung windows, and several boarded square hopper windows located between the upper story and the foundation provided light to the stables in the lower story. On the south elevation, large hayloft doors sit beneath the gabled roof junction. Underneath the cross-gambrel roof on the   3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 west elevation, a large horizontal sliding barn door, with vertical plank siding, opens to the interior of the barn. Three rectangular windows, currently boarded, provide light to the upper story while several small square windows are contained in the concrete wall of the lower story. The east elevation includes two vertical plank horizontal sliding barn doors that provide access to the barn’s lower story. Five rectangular windows also sit at various places on the east elevation, currently boarded. Though suffering from some neglect, this barn has retained a strong historic integrity, and the barn has not been substantially altered from its original construction. Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 Photos and elevations on this page from rehab plan document submitted in 2012 (Aller, Lingle, Massey) Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 April 5. 2013– South and East Elevations Packet Pg. 24 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 April 5. 2013– South and West Elevations April 5. 2013 – North and West Elevations Packet Pg. 25 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 7 February 29, 2024 – East and North Elevations February 29, 2024 – North and East Elevations Packet Pg. 26 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 8 ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property include: • Landmark nomination form recognizes that the additional outbuildings (granary, outhouse, loafing sheds) had fallen due to disrepair prior to the property’s landmark designation. HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: This property underwent a complimentary design review for a proposed rehabilitation plan on June 13, 2012, with the Landmark Preservation Commission (see attached minutes). The proposed work was shared with the Commission prior to submittal of a building permit, and the property had not yet been designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. The minutes from that meeting indicate that staff was anticipating reviewing the rehabilitation plans for the farm structures upon submittal of the building permit application to ensure they met SOI Standards. The applicant also agreed to return to the Commission with a 75 percent plan set to keep them updated on the progress. Subsequently, the same plans for adaptive reuse of the farmstead were ultimately approved as part of the Bucking Horse Filing Two development plan, with recognition that the LPC had provided support for the plan. As adaptive reuse plans move forward in the future, building permit review will rely on conformance with the 2012 plan set. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: This item is to provide notice to the HPC of the order of demolition of the Johnson Barn, a contributing structure of the City Landmark at 2608 (2612) E Drake. The barn sustained severe damage during high winds in the week of February 26, 2024. Subsequent evaluation by a structural engineer who specializes in historic preservation recognized the need to resolve the barn’s structural instability immediately and the City’s Chief Building Official issued an order to demolish based on the structure’s imminent danger of collapse. The order provides options to address the imminently dangerous conditions, including immediate stabilization, careful deconstruction of the damaged portions, salvage of reusable and reference materials, and repair and reconstruction of the barn. The applicant is pursuing stabilization, repair, and reconstruction as the immediate course of action and will describe progress to date at this meeting. The initial building permit to address the condition of imminent danger was approved on Friday, March 15, 2024 and will address the following methodology from the structural engineer: “JVA recommends that debris and partially attached materials that can become airborne during another wind event be removed. Diagonal (raker) braces should be installed that brace the perimeter walls out of plane laterally. Braces can be installed on either side of remaining walls or on both sides. Where braces are installed on only one side of the wall, the connections on each end of the braces should be capable of resisting both tension and compression loads. Where wall sheathing is missing or deteriorated, walls should also be braced in plane by installing diagonal braces to the face of the wall framing. After the walls are braced, the roof rafters should be tied down to the purlins and trusses via metal or lumber uplift ties.” Staff expects to receive a subsequent application for a building permit that will address weatherproofing and primary reconstruction activities that will be required following stabilization. HPC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1. Since the property was landmarked over a decade ago, what measures, if any, has the property owner taken to conform to the maintenance provisions in Chapter 14? 2. Provide description of stabilization work to date and what immediate measures will be required to prevent further damage 3. What is the timeline for future reconstruction and adaptive reuse? 4. What are the respective conditions of the two residences on the property, and what plans are in place to ensure their maintenance and stability? 5. Describe how two residences will be addressed in the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse plans PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY   3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 9 Staff has received several inquiries regarding the status of the barn following the wind damage event, but no formal public comment about this project has been received at this time. RELEVANT CODE SECTIONS 2021 International Property Maintenance Code 113.5 Historical. For any site, structure, or object 50 years of age or older and subject to any of the processes contained in Chapter 14 of the City Code that in the code official's judgment is so old, dilapidated or has become so out of repair as to be dangerous, unsanitary or otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy, the code official shall order the owner to repair the site, structure, or object to make it safe and sanitary unless the owner has complied with all applicable requirements of Chapter 14 or the building official has determined that such site, structure, or object is an imminent danger. Section 202 Definitions: IMMINENT DANGER. An existing condition that is reasonably likely to cause immediate serious or life-threatening injury or death. Chapter 14 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code Sec. 14-7. - Minimum maintenance requirements for designated resources. (a) All designated resources shall be maintained in such fashion as to meet the requirements of the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Existing Building Code, as adopted and amended by the City. The owner of such designated resource(s) shall also keep in good repair all structural elements thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such designated resources to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair which would have an adverse effect upon such designated resources. (b) The Commission may request that the Director require correction of defects or repairs to any designated resource(s) regulated by this Section. Sec. 14-8. - Remedying of dangerous conditions. In any case where a properly authorized public official or employee orders the demolition of any historic resource for the purpose of remedying conditions determined by that official or employee to constitute an imminent danger, as such term is defined in the version of the International Property Maintenance Code adopted and amended by the City, to life, health or property, nothing contained herein shall be construed as making it unlawful for any person to comply with such order. Such official or employee shall take immediate steps to notify the Commission of the proposed issuance of such order and may include in the order any timely received requirements or recommendations of the Commission or staff. In the event that such official or employee has determined that the historic resource, with the exception of single-family detached dwellings, and accessory buildings or structures associated with single-family detached dwellings, that are non- designated, is capable of being made safe by repairs and need not be demolished, the historic resource shall be repaired, or demolished, in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Sec. 14-51. - Alterations to designated resources requiring a certificate of appropriateness or report. (a) Except as provided in § 14-8, no person shall make, or otherwise cause to be made, any alteration described in Subsection (b) to any designated resource described in this Subsection (a) unless such person has first obtained a certificate of appropriateness or the Commission has issued a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer as follows: (1) Fort Collins landmarks or contributing or non-contributing resources within Fort Collins landmark districts, whether designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic Places, require a certificate of appropriateness issued pursuant to the requirements of this Article. (2) Resources designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic Places, and that are not Fort Collins landmarks or within Fort Collins landmark districts, require a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer issued pursuant to the requirements of this Article. (b)The following proposed alterations to the designated resources listed in above Subsection (a) require a certificate of appropriateness or Commission report: Packet Pg. 28 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 10 (1) Alteration of any land surface, including the addition or removal of any improvement to or from any land surface, that is within or part of any designated resource listed in above Subsection (a). (2) Exterior alterations, including windows or siding replacement, or partial or total demolition of any designated resource listed in above Subsection (a). (3) Alteration of any interior space of a designated resource listed above in Subsection (a) that is readily visible from any public street, alley, park or other public place. (c) Any person proposing any alteration to a designated resource that requires a certificate of appropriateness or report pursuant to this Section shall submit an application pursuant to § 14-52. (d) If any alteration is made without first obtaining a certificate of appropriateness, the City may issue a stop work order for any permits issued for the property upon which the designated resource is located, refuse to finalize any issued permits, refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy, refuse to issue additional City permits, and take any other available action, or any combination of the aforementioned, until the applicant has applied for and received approval for the alteration. If the alteration is not approved, the property owner shall restore the site, structure, or object to its original condition prior to any alteration occurring. (e) In the design review process, the staff and Commission consider the unique circumstances of each proposed alteration. Therefore, previous approval of a specific alteration of a designated resource in one setting and set of circumstances does not necessarily set a precedent for the approval of future proposed alterations that may appear to be similar but actually present their own unique circumstances. Sec. 14-52. - Stay on issuance of City permits. Except as provided in § 14-8, no City permit shall be issued to allow any alteration to a designated resource described in § 14-51 until a certificate of appropriateness or report has been issued pursuant to this Article and, for certificates of appropriateness, the period for filing a notice of appeal has passed or until a final decision on an appeal is rendered should a notice be filed. This stay on the issuance of permits shall include any period for filing a notice of appeal to City Council from a Commission decision on an appeal of a staff determination or until City Council has made a final decision in such an appeal should a notice of appeal be filed. FINDINGS OF FACT: The property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on June 18, 2013. At a previous Commission meeting on June 13, 2012, the owner provided plans for adaptive reuse of the farmstead, which were ultimately approved as part of the Bucking Horse Filing Two development plan. As adaptive reuse plans move forward in the future, building permit review will ensure conformance with the approved 2012 plan set and will be documented via a Certificate of Appropriateness to reflect conformance with landmark design review requirements. To date, the applicant has complied with requirements to obtain a building permit (#B2401672) to address the immediate issue of imminent danger following the wind damage, following the methodology provided in the approved documentation from a qualified historic preservation structural engineer. RECOMMENDATION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Order to Demolish 2. JVA Structural Engineering Report 3. TD Structural Engineering Report 4. JVA Permit Letter 5. Design Review Application 6. LPC 2012 Minutes 7. Bucking Horse Approved Architectural Elevations 8. Bucking Horse Approved Site Plan 9. Landmark Designation Ordinance 10. Landmark Designation Form 11. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 29 Planning, Development, and Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave. - PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2740 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/nbs ORDER TO DEMOLISH March 7, 2024 Johnson Farm LLC 7307 Streamside Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: 2612 E Drake Rd. Parcel Number: 8720465001 Dear Building Owner, The Johnson Barn, located at 2612 E Drake Rd., sustained substantial structural damage following high winds last week. Because the property is a designated Fort Collins historic landmark , a structural engineer hired by the City of Fort Collins performed an on-site assessment of the damage. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the current structural integrity of the building, the potential danger it presents, if the building could be repaired and if any material could be salvaged for restoration and reconstruction. After careful review and consideration of that assessment and the additional information provided by your structural engineer (attached) and a site visit, it has been determined that this structure is imminently dangerous as defined by the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code. Immediate action shall be taken to hire a qualified deconstruction expert to obtain a building permit for and deconstruct the damaged portions of the building and stabilize the structure. Due to the potential for restoration and reconstruction noted in the attached letter from JVA, mechanical demolition , which would negatively impact the quantity of salvageable materials and further damage the intact portions of the structure, is prohibited. Becau se the property is a designated Fort Collins historic landmark, city code requires that immediate steps be taken to notify the Historic Preservation Commission of this order to demolish. The next meeting of the Commission is March 20, 2024, and City Historic Preservation Staff request your attendance at that meeting to discuss this matter with the Commission, begin to define plans to rebuild the barn, and address any additional mitigation requirements . Staff has included the following requirements: •Pursuant to the JVA Consulting Engineers letter dated March 4, 2024, “the upper main story of the barn may be carefully dismantled down to the deck of the main floor, with as much material as possible being salvaged for future reconstruction.” In anticipation of reconstruction of this City Landmark, to comply with City Code historic preservation requirements, pursue this course of action and preserve the deconstructed material for reconstruction. •Once immediate dangerous conditions are addressed, the Commission determines repair and restoration or reconstruction requirements under City Code Chapter 14. Staf f will review and approve the proposed deconstruction methodology and relevant experience of the deconstruction contractor upon submittal of the building permit application. This order only applies to the barn. The two single family homes on site were not substantially impacted by the high winds or the damage sustained by the barn and shall continue to be maintained in accordance with chapter 14 of the City of Fort Collins municipal code. ,7(0$77$&+0(17   3DFNHW3J Relevant code sections: 2021 International Property Maintenance Code: 113.5 Historical. For any site, structure, or object 50 years of age or older and subject to any of the processes contained in Chapter 14 of the City Code that in the code official's judgment is so old, dilapidated or has become so out of repair as to be dangerous, unsanitary or otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy, the code official shall order the owner to repair the site, structure, or object to make it safe and sanitary unless the owner has complied with all applicable requirements of Chapter 14 or the building official has determined that such site, structure, or object is an imminent danger. Section 202 Definitions: IMMINENT DANGER. An existing condition that is reasonably likely to cause immediate serious or life-threatening injury or death. Chapter 14 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code: Sec. 14-7. - Minimum maintenance requirements for designated resources. (a) All designated resources shall be maintained in such fashion as to meet the requirements of the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Existing Building Code, as adopted and amended by the City. The owner of such designated resource(s) shall also keep in good repair all structural elements thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such designated resources to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of dis repair which would have an adverse effect upon such designated resources. (b) The Commission may request that the Director require correction of defects or repairs to any designated resource(s) regulated by this Section. Sec. 14 -8. - Remedying of dangerous conditions. In any case where a properly authorized public official or employee orders the demolition of any historic resource for the purpose of remedying conditions determined by that official or employee to constitute an imminent danger, as such term is defined in the version of the International Property Maintenance Code adopted and amended by the City, to life, health or property, nothing contained herein shall be construed as making it unlawful for any person to comply with such order. Such official or employee shall take immediate steps to notify the Commission of the proposed issuance of such order and may include in the order any timely received requirements or recommendation s of the Commission or staff. In the event that such official or employee has determined that the historic resource, with the exception of single-family detached dwellings, and accessory buildings or structures associated with single-family detached dwellings, that are non-designated, is capable of being made safe by repairs and need not be demolished, the historic resource shall be repaired, or demolished, in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Failure to comply with the specific requirements of this order to demolish is grounds for the City of Fort Collins to issue you a citation to appear in court and fines up to 3,000.00 dollars per day from the date of the order. With regards, Marcus Coldiron Chief Building Official City of Fort Collins (970)416-2324 mcoldiron@fcgov.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 Cc: Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director; Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager; Jim Rose, Historic Preservation Commission Chair ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 March 4, 2024 Marcus Coldiron Department Head City of Fort Collins Building Services 281 N College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Johnson Barn, 2612 E Drake Rd JVA Job No 240513l.STR Dear Marcus: At the City’s request, I visited the historic Johnson Barn at 2612 East Drake Road this morning, meeting with you and the owners, Gino, Tony, and Mike Campana. As discussed on site, it is my professional opinion that the barn should be considered “imminently dangerous” from a structural perspective after the damage due to the high winds last week. The barn is two stories, roughly 42 feet wide x 70 feet long, with a wood-framed gambrel roof and wood-framed main floor over a walk out basement. Roughly 25% of the roof framing at the north-east has failed and the north gambrel end wall has failed, with all failed framing collapsed to the ground on the north and east of the barn. The four primary interior Gambrel Trusses remain, though they have varying states of bowing and racking due to the roof and wall damage. The wind damage has left the barn susceptible to “partially enclosed” wind loading, which results in higher wind pressures than an intact fully enclosed building. Further, the failed north wall has eliminated half of the building’s lateral load resisting system in the transverse direction, which leaves the building susceptible to extreme torsional loading in the transverse direction. Both of those conditions will lead to further uncontrolled damage due to future high winds unless immediate action is taken. The barn will likely continue to progressively collapse, one section of roof and wall framing at a time with each subsequent high wind event. Although the temporary fencing that has been erected around the building is an appropriate first step of precaution, it is possible that the fencing won’t fully contain future dislodged roofing debris. It is recommended that the remaining framing be addressed as soon as possible, by means of one of several options, either: •The upper main story of the barn may be demolished down to the deck of the main floor. Note that although the main floor sheathing has areas of severe deterioration, the floor framing is mostly intact and allows for the lower story to remain since the main floor as a whole is not a candidate for near term collapse. •The upper main story of the barn may be carefully dismantled down to the deck of the main floor, with as much material as possible being salvaged for future reconstruction. A large majority of the roof and wall framing is intact and is structurally acceptable for re- use if reconstruction is chosen. ,7(0$77$&+0(17   3DFNHW3J Johnson Barn, 2612 E Drake Rd JVA Job No 240513l.STR March 4, 2024 2 of 2 • The remaining roof and wall framing may be stabilized by a specialty contractor that can install design-build shoring, including wall rakers along the lengths of the longitudinal walls and the remaining gambrel end wall, and temporary tie downs of the remaining roof rafter framing to the primary girders and Gambrel Trusses. Although the last option will allow for the possibility of in situ strengthening and reconstruction, in my experience the existing conditions will make it difficult to adequately restore the structure to its pre-damaged state. The walls are no longer plumb, and the trusses have varying states of bowing and racking. Shoring will lock any damaged deformations into place and be difficult to undo during a reconstruction effort. Please feel free to contact me for further information or clarification. Sincerely, JVA, INCORPORATED By: ____________________________________ Jeffrey S. Schalk, P.E., S.E. Senior Project Manager, Historic Preservation Specialist ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J TD Structural Engineering, Inc. | 2909 Oxford Ct., Fort Collins, CO 80525 | 970.372.1140 | www.tdstructural.com March 4, 2024 Gino Campana Bellisimo Inc. Project: Johnson Barn Location: Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado TDSE Project No.: 24-017 Observation Dates: February 26th, 2024 Per your request a site visit was performed at the Johnson Farm Barn on Drake road east of Timberline road in Fort Collins. I understand the north wall fell out due to the recent high wind. Observations were done from a distance outside the fence that was erected after the partial failure. As stated on site, it is my opinion that the barn is unsafe for workers from the structure itself, and any work performed on the barn should be done from heavy equipment that can extend overtop of the structure. Note that any work from above will likely end up falling and potentially damaging the existing floor of the structure. The state of the current structure is questionable with framing between gambrel trusses in disrepair. The main structure for the roof is the gambrel trusses spaced several feet apart, with 2x purlin framing spanning between. If any of the existing gambrel trusses could be reused in situ is beyond my area of expertise. I recommend a grading expert and/or a forensic engineer be retained to assess the quality of wood and connections to support the existing roof. In addition the floor should be inspected for quality of the remaining wood. From the outside vantage point of observation it appears that the northeast corner of the floor is damaged and/or rotting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Wendy Thomas Dworak, P.E. President - TD Structural Engineering Inc. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 35 March 14, 2024 Gino Campana Bellisimo, Inc. 3702 Manhattan Avenue, Unit 201 Fort Collins, CO 80526 RE: Johnson Barn: 2612 East Drake Road, Fort Collins Structural Letter for Temporary Shoring Permit Dear Gino, JVA visited the Johnson Barn after it was damaged during a windstorm earlier this month. We determined that the building was unsafe, and we offered three remediation options. Bellisimo, Inc. selected the ‘stabilize in place’ option which will retain the most historic fabric that will offer more authenticity to a planned future rehabilitation compared to the ‘demo’ and ‘demo & reconstruct’ options. As such, Bellisimo, Inc. has asked JVA to prepare this letter to accompany the permit application for temporary shoring. In our opinion, the expediency of the temporary shoring is of upmost importance as the barn appears to be in a state of progressive collapse. The details of the shoring are also important. JVA recommends that debris and partially attached materials that can become airborne during another wind event be removed. Diagonal (raker) braces should be installed that brace the perimeter walls out of plane laterally. Braces can be installed on either side of remaining walls or on both sides. Where braces are installed on only one side of the wall, the connections on each end of the braces should be capable of resisting both tension and compression loads. Where wall sheathing is missing or deteriorated, walls should also be braced in plane by installing diagonal braces to the face of the wall framing. After the walls are braced, the roof rafters should be tied down to the purlins and trusses via metal or lumber uplift ties. The recommended shoring work is best accomplished by a specialty contractor having experience shoring and rehabilitation existing buildings. Once the shoring is in place, JVA will visit the site to review the work and subsequently provide commentary. Please feel free to contact me for further information or clarification. Sincerely, JVA, INCORPORATED By: ____________________________________ Ian Glaser, P.E. Principal ,7(0$77$&+0(17   3DFNHW3J City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. Reminders: Complete application would need all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing and proposed. The following attachments are REQUIRED: □Complete Application for Design Review □Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) □Color photos of existing conditions Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate demolition application may need to be approved. Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense). ,7(0  $77$&+0(17  3DFNHW 3J  City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 38 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work.” Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this application. Drawing with dimensions. Product specification sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. □Partial or full demolition is a part of this project. Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition. Signature of Owner Date ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J. Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 1 of 14 Project Description cont. / Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work To prevent the potential of further damage, we have developed a plan that will allow us to take the barn to an interim weatherproof condition while the plans are being completed for the "final condition". This plan will allow us to bring the barn back to the state shown in the photos on the plan previously submitted to the LPC (Johnson Farm Barn Plan Sheet FDP1 - attached). We love to preserve history for our community and have extensive experience in the restoration of historic structures. Leveraging this experience, spending several days onsite assessing the barn damage, and considering the engineers assessments, we would like to immediately move forward with Jeffrey Schalk’s (JVA) recommended third option: “The remaining roof and wall framing may be stabilized by a specialty contractor that can install design-build shoring, including wall rakers along the lengths of the longitudinal walls and the remaining gambrel end wall, and temporary tie downs of the remaining roof rafter framing to the primary girders and Gambrel Trusses.” While this will be the most challenging of the three options, we want to save the barn and preserve the option to retore it to the fullest extent. We believe deconstructing it or demolishing it should be the very last resort. The Team - City of Fort Collins Building Department o Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official - City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services o Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager - Bellisimo Inc. o Gino Campana, General Contractor § Gino was the liaison to the LPC from Council for several years. o Tony Campana, Project Manager § Tony was also the Project Manager for the Jessup Farm restoration. - JVA Consulting Engineers o Jeffrey Schalk P.E., S.E., Structural Engineer - Deep Roots Craftsman o Jon Sargent, Craftsman § Jon will be sub-contracted under Bellisimo Inc. as the licensed framer. Jon’s resume is included as an attachment to this application. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 40 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 2 of 14 - AL2MS o Ian Shuff, Architect § Ian has been the architect on the Johnson Farm project through the LPC process and was the lead architect on the Jessup Farm restoration. Ian also served on the LPC for several years. Scope of Work 1. Obtain a General Alteration Permit to stabilize the barn so that it is no longer “Imminently Dangerous”. Jeffrey Schalk will provide a general shoring and bracing plan to be submitted with the permit application. 2. Utilizing a telehandler tractor and an extended basket platform, carefully deconstruct any unsafe roof remaining. Install the shoring and bracing per plan and permit. Once this work is complete, Jeffrey Schalk will inspect the barn and provide a letter that the bracing and shoring is installed per the plan. Upon review and approval of the work, Marcus Coldiron can remove the “Imminently Dangerous” designation. 3. Submit and obtain a building permit to restore and reconstruct the barn. 4. Using come-along cables and straps, bracing, mechanical jacking, and racking, plumb and straighten the gambrel trusses, walls, and roof. The objective is to square and plumb the building prior to re-assembling it. 5. Salvage any material in its most assembled state. Meaning, if we can stabilize a wall section and swing it back into position, we do that first. We have tested deconstructing some roof sections and have found that the material is strong as assembled but can be brittle when you attempt to deconstruct it. We can minimize the damage to the historic material using this method. 6. Rebuild the remaining wall and roof sections using as much of the salvaged material as possible. 7. Add additional structural members and bracing to ensure the barn can whether another 100 years of Northern Colorado wind and snow! Although the barn was built well and withstood the test of time, engineering means and methods have improved since it was built. As we did at Jessup Farm, we will need to work with Jeffrey Schalk and add structural members, gussets, and mechanical fasteners where needed. 8. Weatherproof the barn to an interim condition: Installing plywood and interim roofing to the roof; securing the windows and doors; repairing any holes in the siding. 9. Correct the grading around the barn to ensure positive drainage. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 41 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 3 of 14 Photos of Existing Conditions Johnson Farm Barn, North Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 42 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 4 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, North Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 43 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 5 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, North Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 44 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 6 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, North Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 45 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 7 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, North Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 46 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 8 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, North Elevation 03/03/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 47 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 9 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, West Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 48 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 10 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, North West Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 49 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 11 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, South West Elevation 02/25/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 50 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 12 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, Interior Facing East Elevation 03/07/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 51 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 13 of 14 Johnson Farm Barn, Interior Facing South Elevation 03/07/24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 52 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Applicant: Johnson Farm LLC Page 14 of 14 Additional Attachments - JVA Consulting Engineers, ‘Site Visit Letter’ dated 03/04/24 - Johnson Farm Barn Plan Sheet FDP1 - Deep Roots Craftsmen, Resume ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 53 March 4, 2024 Marcus Coldiron Department Head City of Fort Collins Building Services 281 N College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Johnson Barn, 2612 E Drake Rd JVA Job No 240513l.STR Dear Marcus: At the City’s request, I visited the historic Johnson Barn at 2612 East Drake Road this morning, meeting with you and the owners, Gino, Tony, and Mike Campana. As discussed on site, it is my professional opinion that the barn should be considered “imminently dangerous” from a structural perspective after the damage due to the high winds last week. The barn is two stories, roughly 42 feet wide x 70 feet long, with a wood-framed gambrel roof and wood-framed main floor over a walk out basement. Roughly 25% of the roof framing at the north-east has failed and the north gambrel end wall has failed, with all failed framing collapsed to the ground on the north and east of the barn. The four primary interior Gambrel Trusses remain, though they have varying states of bowing and racking due to the roof and wall damage. The wind damage has left the barn susceptible to “partially enclosed” wind loading, which results in higher wind pressures than an intact fully enclosed building. Further, the failed north wall has eliminated half of the building’s lateral load resisting system in the transverse direction, which leaves the building susceptible to extreme torsional loading in the transverse direction. Both of those conditions will lead to further uncontrolled damage due to future high winds unless immediate action is taken. The barn will likely continue to progressively collapse, one section of roof and wall framing at a time with each subsequent high wind event. Although the temporary fencing that has been erected around the building is an appropriate first step of precaution, it is possible that the fencing won’t fully contain future dislodged roofing debris. It is recommended that the remaining framing be addressed as soon as possible, by means of one of several options, either: • The upper main story of the barn may be demolished down to the deck of the main floor. Note that although the main floor sheathing has areas of severe deterioration, the floor framing is mostly intact and allows for the lower story to remain since the main floor as a whole is not a candidate for near term collapse. • The upper main story of the barn may be carefully dismantled down to the deck of the main floor, with as much material as possible being salvaged for future reconstruction. A large majority of the roof and wall framing is intact and is structurally acceptable for re- use if reconstruction is chosen. ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Johnson Barn, 2612 E Drake Rd JVA Job No 240513l.STR March 4, 2024 2 of 2 • The remaining roof and wall framing may be stabilized by a specialty contractor that can install design-build shoring, including wall rakers along the lengths of the longitudinal walls and the remaining gambrel end wall, and temporary tie downs of the remaining roof rafter framing to the primary girders and Gambrel Trusses. Although the last option will allow for the possibility of in situ strengthening and reconstruction, in my experience the existing conditions will make it difficult to adequately restore the structure to its pre-damaged state. The walls are no longer plumb, and the trusses have varying states of bowing and racking. Shoring will lock any damaged deformations into place and be difficult to undo during a reconstruction effort. Please feel free to contact me for further information or clarification. Sincerely, JVA, INCORPORATED By: ____________________________________ Jeffrey S. Schalk, P.E., S.E. Senior Project Manager, Historic Preservation Specialist ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J A5 A10 A13 A5 A13 A4 A23 A2 A1 A6 A1 A6 A1 A1A1 A7 A25 A1 A2 A5 A10 A5A5 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1A1A1A1A1A1 A26 A4 A23 A17 A1A1A1A1A1A1A1 A1 A5 A2A1 A9 A16 A16 A5 A5 A5 A10 A7 A10 A5 A5 A7 A10 A13 A26 A1 A1 A1 A1 A2 A23 A4 A8 A8 A8 0 1/ 2 " 1" 2" PROJECT DATE DRAWN 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.alm2s.com PR I N T E D FI L E N A M E : © al m 2 s 2 0 1 9 NOT FO R CON STRU CTION 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 9 : 3 5 : 4 5 A M 11 4 0 - J E S S U P - S D . r v t OFFICE BLDG. 1 1140 MDN 10/30/12 FDP1 BE L L I S I M O I N C O R P O R A T E D FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O BU C K I N G H O R S E F I L I N G T W O OF F I C E B L D G . 1 NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST 3/32" = 1'-0"2 BARN - EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING 3/32" = 1'-0"6 BARN - EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 3/32" = 1'-0"1 BARN - NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 3/32" = 1'-0"3 BARN - SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 3/32" = 1'-0"4 BARN - WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING KEYNOTES NOTE DESCRIPTION A1 (E) WD. FRAME WINDOW TO BE REHABILITATED OR REPLACED W/ IN-KIND MATERIALS TO MATCH (E), PAINT A2 (E) DOOR AND HARDWARE TO BE REHABILITATED OR REPLACED W/ IN-KIND MATERIALS AND FIXED IN OPEN POSITION, PAINT. OPENING TO BE INFILLED W/ ALUM. STOREFRONT SYSTEM A4 (E) SIDING AND WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, BROKEN/ MISSING PIECES TO BE REPLACED W/ IN-KIND MATERIAL, PAINT A5 (E) TAPER-SAWN SHINGLE ROOFING TO BE REMOVED, ORI GINAL SKIP SHEATHING TO REMAIN BROKEN/ MISSING PIECES TO BE REPLACED W/ IN-KIND MATERIAL. INSTALL NEW 1/2" PLYWOOD, BREATHABLE UNDERLAYMENT AND NEW TAPER-SAWN SHINGLE ROOFING OR WEATHERED WOOD ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE A6 NEW ALUMINUM CLAD DIVIDED LIGHT WD. WINDOW W DBL. INSULATED GLAZING IN NEW OPENING A7 (E) HOIST BEAM AND HARDWARD TO BE REHABILITATED, PAINT A8 NEW ALUMINUM CLAD DIVIDED LIGHT WD. WINDOW W DBL. INSULATED GLAZING IN ORIGINAL OPENING A9 (E) DOOR AND HARDWARE TO BE REHABILITATED OR REPLACED W/ IN-KIND MATERIALS, PAINT A10 (E) WD. LOUVERS AND HARDWARE TO BE REHABILITATED OR REPLACED W/ IN-KIND MATERIALS, PAINT A13 (E) EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS TO BE REHABILITATED OR REPLACED WITH IN-KIND MATERIAL, PAINT A16 NEW ALUM CLAD WD. DIVIDED LIGHT DBL. GLAZED WINDOW TO BE PLACED IN NEW OPENING A17 NEW ALUM CLAD FULL GLASS WOOD DOOR W/ DIVIDED LI TES A23 (E) C.I.P CONCRETE FOUNDATION TO BE PAINTED A25 (E) GRAIN SHUTE AND HARDWARE TO BE REHABILITATED OR REPLACED W/ IN-KIND MATERIAL A26 NEW WD. DECK AND RAILING W/ ANGLED WD. SUPPORT BRACKETS, PAINT 3/32" = 1'-0"5 BARN - NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 3/32" = 1'-0"7 BARN - SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 3/32" = 1'-0"8 BARN - WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 9 VIEW - FROM SE10VIEW - FROM NW NO ISSUE DATE ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 56 ABOUT DEEP ROOTS CRAFTSMEN Based in Fort Collins, Colorado, Deep Roots Craftsmen specializes in historic preservation, window and door restoration and reproduction, traditional timber framing, logwork and craftsmanship. The hands-on owner, Jon Sargent, brings a wealth of experience on historic projects spanning true preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation. With an academic base in architectural history and historic preservation (B.A. and M.A.), Jon’s subsequent professional career has been devoted to the industry of historic preservation. His time at a large construction management firm on the east coast, along with several years at Wattle & Daub Contractors in Fort Collins formed a strong and balanced foundation before starting Deep Roots Craftsmen (Deep Roots Timberworks LLC) in 2018. Among other things, these past roles involved a combination of on-site management and extensive experience with cost estimating, cost tracking, quality control, and risk management, managing projects ranging in size from less than $10,000 to $8 million. These balanced skill sets have contributed to Deep Roots Craftsmen’s ability to take on challenging projects with tight budget and schedule restraints. JON SARGENT 2018 - Present Owner, Deep Roots Craftsmen 2015 – 2018 Project Manager, Wattle & Daub Contractors 2015 Preservation Carpenter, Sweeney Restoration 2010-2014 Project Engineer/ Asst. PM, Consigli Construction M.A. Historic Preservation Savannah College of Art and Design B.A. Architectural History Wesleyan University H7(0  $77$F+0(17 D 3MFNHP 3JB D RECENT AND UPCOMING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE (SHF funded projects in bold) Boggsville, Phase III Rehabilitation Las Animas, CO 2024 Granite Stage Stop, Structural Restoration Granite, CO 2024 Historic Chaffee Co. Courthouse, Interior Rehabilitation Buena Vista, CO 2024 Smith Homestead, Exterior Rehabilitation Leadville, CO 2024 San Luis Bank Temporary Stabilization San Luis, CO 2024 Belvidere Theater, Window and Door Restoration Central City, CO 2024 Gilpin Co. Courthouse, Porch Restoration Central City, CO 2024 CU Old Main, Door Restoration Boulder, CO 2024 Prairie Canyon Ranch, Window Restoration Franktown, CO 2024 Littleton Equine Center, Barn Restoration Littleton, CO 2024 Evans Gandy Homestead Structural Stabilization Franktown, CO 2023-2024 Letterpress Depot, Phase II Interior Rehabilitation Englewood, CO 2023-2024 Valley View Schoolhouse Rehabilitation Salida, CO 2023-2024 Carr Residence, Storm Windows Breckenridge, CO 2023-2024 Pemberton’s Headquarters, Phase II Restoration Vicksburg, MS 2023-2024 Fox Theatre – Walsenburg, Exterior Rehabilitation Walsenburg, CO 2023-2024 Tarryall-Cline Ranch, Exterior Rehabilitation Como, CO 2023 Race Street Residence, Window Restoration Denver, CO 2023 Old Park County Jail, Masonry Rehabilitation Fairplay, CO 2023 Boggsville, Phase III Rehabilitation Las Animas, CO 2023 Academy at Mapleton, Window Restoration Boulder, CO 2023 Historic Chaffee Co. Courthouse – Front Door Replication Buena Vista, CO 2023 Douglas Masonic Lodge, Door and Window Restoration Castle Rock, CO 2023 Homelake Administration Building, Porch Restoration Monte Vista, CO 2023 Saguache Hotel, Phase III Rehab, Storm Windows and Windows Saguache, CO 2023 Historic Chaffee Co. Courthouse, Phase III Rehabilitation Buena Vista, CO 2023 Myers Residence, Window Restoration Denver, CO 2023 Grose Residence, Window Restoration Estes Park. CO 2023 Montgomery Court, Window Reproduction Denver, CO 2023 New Raymer Texaco, Window and Door Restoration New Raymer, CO 2023 W 33rd Residence, Window and Door Restoration Denver, CO 2023 Truxaw Mercantile Rehabilitation, Phase II New Raymer, CO 2023 Limon Farmhouse, Porch Restoration Limon, CO 2023 Truxaw Mercantile Rehabilitation Phase I New Raymer, CO 2022-2023 Fort Jefferson – Dry Tortugas NP, Front 4 Rehabilitation Key West, FL 2022-2023 Buckeye Community Club, Screen Window and Window Restoration Wellington, CO 2022-2023 Historic Chaffee Co. Courthouse, Courtroom Rehabilitation Buena Vista, CO 2022-2023 H7(0  $77$F+0(17 D 3MFNHP 3JB D RECENT AND UPCOMING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE (Continued) Alma, CO 2022-2023 La Junta, CO 2022-2023 Englewood, CO 2021-2023 St. Elmo, CO 2022 Fairplay, CO 2022 Fraser, CO 2022 Denver, CO 2022 Denver, CO 2022 Key West, FL 2022 Vicksburg, MS 2022 CO Springs, CO 2021-2022 Boulder, CO 2021-2022 Las Animas, CO 2021 Canon City, CO 2021 Granite, CO 2021 Denver, CO 2021 Fraser, CO 2021 Morrison, CO 2021 Buena Vista, CO 2021 Alpine, CO 2021 New Raymer, CO 2021 Denver, CO 2021 Castle Rock, CO 2020-2021 Saguache, CO 2020-2021 Las Animas, CO 2020-2021 Franktown, CO 2020 Central City, CO 2020 Romley, CO 2020 Howard, CO 2020 Foxton, CO 2020 New Raymer, CO 2020 Las Animas, CO 2020 Lone Tree, CO 2020 Franktown, CO 2020 Elizabeth, CO 2020 Coaldale, CO 2020 (SHF funded projects in bold) North London Mill, Assayer’s Office, Interior Rehabilitation La Junta Masonic Building, Re-roof Letterpress Depot, Phase I Interior Rehabilitation Cash Williams Building, Structural Stabilization Old Park County Courthouse, Exterior Rehabilitation 4 Bar 4, Phase III Hotel Reconstruction and Restoration Gilmartin Home, Window Restoration Gilpin Street Residence, Window Restoration Fort Jefferson, Lighthouse Restoration Pemberton’s Headquarters, Porch Restoration and Stabilization Boatwright Residence, Window Restoration Hutchinson Residence, Window Restoration Boggsville Historic Site, Window Restoration and Reroof Gardenpark School, Exterior Rehabilitation Granite Stage Stop and Hotel, Log and Window Restoration Montview Church, Window Restoration 4 Bar 4 Stagecoach Hotel, Reconstruction and Restoration (Sub) The Fort Restaurant, Door Replacement and Tower Restoration Chaffee County Courthouse, Window and Door Restoration Alpine Bank Log Repair and Restoration New Raymer Bank Mothballing O’Connor Residence, Porch Restoration Douglas Masonic Lodge #153, Window Restoration Saguache Hotel, Structural Rehabilitation Penrose School, Phase II Rehabilitation Evans Gandy Homestead, Structural Stabilization Thomas House Museum, Porch Restoration Mary Murphy Mine, Romley Terminal Rehabilitation Howard Church, Exterior Rehabilitation Foxton Post Office, Mothballing and Temporary Roof New Raymer Texaco Station, Mothballing and Reroof Penrose School, Phase I Rehabilitation Schweiger Ranch Maintenance (Sub) Converse Ranch, Chicken Coop Repairs Independence Homestead Barn, Barn Restoration Julius Parker Cabin, Chinking and Daubing Legacy Park Ranch, Windmill Stabilization and Restoration Granby, CO 2020 H7(0  $77$F+0(17 D 3MFNHP 3JB DE RECENT AND UPCOMING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE (Continued) (SHF funded projects in bold) Arkansas Ave. Residence Restoration and Remodel Denver, CO 2020 2nd Street Window Restoration Fort Collins, CO 2020 17 Mile Barn Restoration (Sub) Centennial, CO 2019 Falconwood Lodge Rehabilitation (Sub) Larkspur, CO 2019 Constance Street Residence Restoration New Orleans, LA 2019 Navarre Avenue Residence Rehabilitation New Orleans, LA 2019 Broce Ranch, Barn Restoration (Sub) Evergreen, CO 2019 4 Bar 4, Ford Barn Restoration (Sub) Fraser, CO 2018 London Mill Assay Building Mothballing (Sub) Alma, CO 2018 OTHER RECENT PROJECT EXPERIENCE Boulder, CO 2022 Denver, CO 2022 Fort Collins, CO 2021-2022 Boulder, CO 2021-2022 Morrison, CO 2021 Fort Collins, CO 2021 Golden, CO 2021 Silverthorne, CO 2021 Livermore, CO 2020 Fort Collins, CO 2020 Oso, WA 2020 Berthoud, CO 2019-2020 Weogufka, AL 2019 Glenhaven, CO 2019 Fort Collins, CO 2019 Pagosa Springs, CO 2019 Evans, CO 2019 Evergreen, CO 2018 Laramie, WY 2018 Fort Collins, CO 2018 Fort Collins, CO 2018 Chase Residence, Storm Windows Bost Residence, Exterior Trim Restoration Toland Residence Addition and Remodel Moelter Residence, Custom Storm/ Screen Door The Fort Restaurant, Door Installation and Tower Restoration Nash Timber Entryway Meadowlark Drive Logwork Ptarmigan Road Remodel Red Feather Lakes Timber Home (Sub) Logan Ave. Timber Frame Outbuilding Timber Framers Guild, Oso Memorial Community Build Heron Lakes Golf Course Clubhouse (Sub) Timber Framers Guild, Maskoke Roundhouse Community Build Wiegand Residence Remodel (Sub) Santostevan Deck Pagosa Springs Custom Tree house (Sub) Evans Pergola (Sub) Bensonwood Custom Home Envelope (Sub) King Ranch, Solar Battery Storage Building Mountain Avenue Timber Framed Porch Myrtle Street Timber Framed Entryway 2nd Street Pergola Fort Collins, CO 2018 H7(0  $77$F+0(17 D 3MFNHP 3JB  2018 2018 2018 2018 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2016 2016 2016-2018 2016 2016 2016 2016 2015 OWNER’S ADDITIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE (WHILE EMPLOYED BY OTHER CONTRACTORS) (Jon Sargent’s role noted in parentheses) Camp Amache, Recreation Building Relocation (Project Manager - PM) Castle Keystone Building, Envelope Restoration (PM) Wyoming Territorial Prison, Horse Barn Restoration (PM) Schweiger Ranch, Barn and House Repairs Twin Creek Ranch, Barn Rehabilitation (PM) King Ranch, Horse Barn Restoration (PM) Laramie Basement Remodel (PM) Prince of Peace Church, Window Restoration (PM) La Foret Conference Center, Ponderosa Lodge Logwork Restoration (Carpenter) Goshen County Administrative Building Re-roof (Carpenter) Parish House Museum and Visitor Center Rehabilitation (PM) Schweiger Ranch, Tractor Barn Restoration (Carpenter) Parker Schoolhouse Rehabilitation (Carpenter) Paris Mill, Structural Stabilization (Carpenter) Loveland Elks, Exterior Restoration (Carpenter) Vine Street, Milk Barn Rehabilitation (Carpenter) Bobcat Ridge, Chicken Coop Restoration (Carpenter) Various Historic Remodels and Residential Restorations, New Orleans (Carpenter) Massachusetts Statehouse, Governor’s Suite Restoration (Asst. PM) 2014 H7(0  $77$F+0(17 D 3MFNHP 3JB  RELEVANT PROJECT: Twin Creek Ranch Barn Rehabilitation Location: Castle Rock, CO Date: 2018-2019 Project Role: Jon Sargent While as Project Manager with Different Contractor Project Description: Structural restoration and rebuild of a 2,500 sf historic late 1800’s barn into a functional event space. Gut down to the structural system, followed by structural restoration/ supplements, and new metal roof, siding, and interior loft/ details. Installation of refurbished windows and new doors as well as supplemental heavy timber framing at replicated south shed roof. Completed through challenging late fall and early winter weather. Overall project was success despite shortcomings of concrete sub’s work which required to be removed and repoured. Valuable lessons learned on installation of concrete footings beneath existing historic columns. All work except for concrete self-performed with Jon as 100% on-site project manager and client contact. Reference: Stan and Cecilia Gryde (Private Owner) (303-999-1949) sporepea@aol.com/ sgryde@aol.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 62 RELEVANT PROJECT: Independence Barn Restoration Location: Elizabeth, CO Date: 2020 Project Role: Lead Sub, 100% of carpentry scope Project Description: Structural stabilization and restoration of 2,000 sf turn-of-the-century barn on historic homestead. Work involved full shoring and jacking of structure back to original elevation; new concrete footings at post locations; full replacement of all sills; structural framing supplements including replacement of wall framing, addition of carrying beams, installation of rafter sisters and rafter ties throughout; top plate replacement and addition of bracing. All work except for concrete footings performed in-house. Reference: Eric Kaufmann, White Construction (720) 514-1262 Ekaufman@whitecg.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 63 LocaƟon: Centennial, CO Date: 2019 Project Role: Lead Sub: 100% of carpentry scope Project DescripƟon: Handled all of structural carpentry scope for restoraƟon of historic 1870s Ɵmber- framed barn. Work included replacement of all Ɵmber-framed knee braces, scarf joint replacement of secƟons of top plates, addiƟon of raŌer Ɵes, raŌer sisters and supplemental steel at areas of joint failure. DeflecƟon removed from carrying beams and addiƟon of plinth blocks and supplemental bracing to prevent future racking and beam deflecƟon. Worked closely with GC, engineering, and design team to minimize impact of new elements on historic design of structure. RELEVANT PROJECT: 17 Mile Barn Structural RestoraƟon ,7(0  $77$&+0(17 D 3MFNHP 3JB  RELEVANT PROJECT: Broce Ranch Barn Restoration Location: Evergreen, CO Date: 2018-2019 Project Role: Lead Sub: 100% on site labor Project Description: Structural stabilization and rehabilitation of 1880s timber-framed barn. Work involved excavation, shoring, and installation of concrete piers beneath all interior and (6) exterior posts; replacement of most sills along (7) column lines and Dutchmen of (7) posts with full mortise and tenon joinery into sills; replacement of missing braces and partial jacking of structure to bring top plates closer to level and remove humps in roof; and selective replacement of exterior siding. Space was made ready for owner to install wood and brick floor to complete space as available event and storage space. 100% of work including excavation and concrete completed in-house. Reference: Teri and Mike Hubbeling (Private Owner) (512) 788-1907 terivanceh@outlook.com / mikehubbeling@gmail.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 65 RELEVANT PROJECT: 4Bar4 Ranch, Ford Barn Restoration Location: Fraser, CO Date: 2018 Project Role: Lead Sub: 90% of on-site project labor Project Description: Full restoration of historic barn named onto CPI’s Most Endangered Places List. Work involved full sill log replacement, log Dutchmen work, racking and straightening of structure, and replacement of missing and damaged log sections before installation of modern roof system and reinstallation of exterior gables and trim. Over twenty entire logs in total installed. Reference: Kent Wehmeyer (Historic Fraser, Inc.) (970) 722-0110 kdwehmeyer@msn.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 66 RELEVANT PROJECT: Schweiger Ranch, Tractor Barn Restoration Location: Lone Tree, CO Date: 2015 Project Role: Jon Sargent While with Other Contractor Project Description: Restoration of historic barn on historic ranch complex. Scope of work include jacking of structure, restoration to siding, roof replacement and window and door restoration. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 67 RELEVANT PROJECT: King Ranch Horse Barn Restoration Location: Laramie, WY Date: 2017 Project Role: While Jon Sargent as Project Manager with Different Contractor Project Description: Structural stabilization and restoration of historic late 1800’s horse barn on original homestead. Work involved stabilizing, shoring and re-plumbing existing structure, pouring of new concrete footings, rebuild of infill dry-laid stone foundation, rebuild of east log wall of barn, replacement of sill logs and selective toothed-in logs, supplements to roof framing, roof demo and replacement, door restoration, restoration of interior stalls and introduction of subtle steel elements and steel cabling for additional shear strength support. All of work self-performed. Reference: Jim Mackenzie (Private Owner) (505) 350-6000 jimimacknm@comcast.net ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 68 RELEVANT PROJECT: Historic Valley View School Rehabilitation Location: Salida, CO Date: 2023-2024 Project Role: GC Project Description: Full exterior and interior rehabilitation of a historic 1904 school house to convert the space into headquarters for local non-profit. Full development of the site including parking, driveway, drainage and ADA access ramp. Historic elements include full restoration of exterior finishes including restored windows and doors, selective window and door replacement, and replacement and restoration of cedar siding. Interior rehabilitation includes plaster, flooring and door restorati on, and full modern fit-out of rear space into modern office space. H7(0  $77$F+0(17 D 3DFNHP 3J  RELEVANT PROJECT: 4Bar4 Ranch, Stagecoach Hotel Restoration and Reconstruction Location: Fraser, CO Date: 2021 Project Role: Lead Sub Project Description: Restoration and partial reconstruction of historic hotel located along historic stagecoach route. Due to disrepair, building was deconstructed in 2017. Project consisted of restoring and reinstalling salvageable historic logs atop new foundation and selective installation of new logs as first phase of work on building. Project to resume in summer 2022. ,7(0  $77$F+0(17 D 3DFNHP 3J  RELEVANT PROJECT: Repenning Residence Location: Evergreen, CO Date: 2018 Project Role: Sub Project Description: Erection and construction of pre-fabricated timber-frame hybrid shell home and garage. House footprint approximately 2,500 sf and 2,000 sf garage and studio space. Structures consisted of timber frame elements surrounded by custom SIP panels. Both structures dried in completely with all windows and doors installed within three weeks’ time combined. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 71 RELEVANT PROJECT: Howard Church Exterior Rehabilitation Location: Howard, CO Date: 2020 Project Role: GC Project Description: Exterior rehabilitation of historic church built in 1898 now owned and operated by local historic society as a museum space. Work included partial demolition of front deck, restored and rebuilt to code, repointing of foundation, exterior grading, full restoration of siding and windows, new traditional front entry door, and repainting of exterior. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 72 RELEVANT PROJECT: Mary Murphy Mine, Romley Terminal Rehabilitation Location: St. Elmo, CO Date: 2020 Project Role: GC Project Description: Exterior rehabilitation to historic mining structure that served as the lower terminal for the tramway from the Mary Murphy Mine. Work completed amongst extremely challenging access with all work self-performed. Work included installation of new corrugated metal roof and ridge cap, as well as replica matching siding sourced out of Missouri. Structural supplements added to the timber-frame at ground level and site cleaned/ partially excavated for work to occur. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 73 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 13, 2012 Minutes Excerpt (Johnson Farm Rehabilitation/Adaptive Reuse) Council Liaison: Wade Troxell (219-8940) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek. Roll was called with a quorum present at 5:30 at 281 N College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. John Albright, Doug Ernest, W.J. (Bud) Frick, Ron Sladek, and Sondra Carson were present. Excused absences were Pat Tvede, Mark Serour, and Jerome Johnson. Also present were Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Josh Weinberg, and Nina Lopez, Secretary. COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW: 2608 EAST DRAKE ROAD, JOHNSON FARM REHABILITATION/ADAPTIVE REUSE – GINO CAMPANA, BELLISIMO INC; IAN SHUFF, ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY ARCHITECTS Mr. Campana stated this is conceptual as they haven’t delved into construction drawings or details. The team presented a slide show of a section of the site plans illustrating the barn, the original house, and the main house. It showed the new development off to the east and north but they are providing some buffer, retaining some existing trees, and providing green space. Their vision is an innovation center where Mr. Campana will relocate his office to, as well as having other tenants and a mini campus. The large barn will be the new office so this is a rehabilitation of a barn into a different use. The curb cut will be in the same place it is right now and they will add a parking lot left of the barn. They’ve saved as much of the two different fences as possible and those will be rehabilitated. The existing landscaping will remain. They will transition to “estate lots” for more of a rural feeling, and the backs of the lots will retain more of an open space quality. The safety buffer required around the sewage treatment plant is 1,000 feet, and all the homes are outside that buffer. For each building, they showed slides illustrating the condition, existing elevations and the proposed work. Their goal is to respect the distinctive architectural elements of each building. Regarding the barn structure, they felt that the east elevation was very prominent and considered the public face, and they will take steps to minimize what is done on that elevation. On the east elevation there are few windows so they propose to add two more below the eaves in the same proportion as the three existing eave windows. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission voted to recommend the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot project with Options 4, 5, 6, and 7. The Commission conducted a Complimentary Review on the Johnson Farm Rehabilitation/Adaptive Reuse; and Heard a Presentation on the Linden Street Interpretive Signage. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 74 Landmark Preservation Commission June 13, 2012 - 2 - The south is the entrance elevation. The hayloft door will be secured in an open position, and the opening infilled with glass. The drawing shows two additional windows on the lower half; this is likely an error. Unless there is evidence of the lower windows on the south elevation, the Commission was not supportive of adding these windows. On the north elevation, they want to add a balcony, door, and windows to the second floor level; the balcony would be designed so it could be removed in the future. It will be 6-8’ in depth projection. On the west elevation, they are just fixing the door open and infilling the space with a glass system. The interior framing trusses will be left but some 2x6’ “sisters” will be added. The vertical trusses are every 12’ and the opening is cathedral-like. The roof will be re- done with the same materials (wood shingles). Insulation will be added through the interior, leaving the rafter tails and decking as is. This will possibly be done to the other buildings as well. The interior trapdoor chutes will be retained, as will the plank loading floor and hardware. The hay rail/trolley system will be kept, too. The site is not designated on any list but is eligible for local landmark and national landmark. The original house structure’s east side has a storage area extending into the bank, perhaps built in phases. The house is anticipated to be used as a small office. The windows have plywood over them, so it is not clear how much original material remains. If they are missing, they’ll be replaced; if there they will try to rehab them. They have added one window to the design, on the north elevation. They would like to add a little porch/shelter as an entry. The rest of the work is mostly rehabilitation, including a new roof which will retain the rafter tails. There is a significant grade; it drops about 12’ overall and 30’ to the lots. The addition of a porch was a concern. There was discussion whether they should add it, and if so, should it be made to look like the structure and have it blend in vs. making it appear obviously as an add-on. The main house is the most difficult because there have been so many additions over time, and many were not quality work. On the south side is an enclosed porch. They would maintain this porch, but add larger windows. They will retain the low pitched hip roof that tucks underneath the upper main hip roof. On the east side is a lean- to shed/side porch, which was built poorly and in bad shape. This will need to be re- constructed but on the same footprint. It needs a different type of roof because to try to tuck the low slung roof under the eave is awkward. The ceiling height is approximately 8’-9.’ Mr. Frick was concerned if there is room to drop the heights of the east and west “wings” below the main roof, so it does look like an addition, rather than matching them. The applicant wants to respect the low pitch and therefore, they will have to use a membrane type roof to tuck it under there. Taking the hips and dropping the eave just below might be a better option. They’ll research to find out if the front porch was ever actually an open porch. A study of the property was done in 1996 that provides a lot of information, but historic building permits weren’t required as it was a farm and not in the city limits. There was discussion about the roof lines on the original building versus the proposed changes. The Commission encouraged restoring the porch, as it would bring back the front façade facing Drake, and modifying the roofs on the additions by dropping them down to be on a different plane then the main roof. On the west side, they could make it a shed roof ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 75 Landmark Preservation Commission June 13, 2012 - 3 - rather than a hip. Dropping the eave height on the two add-ons roofs and maintaining the hip would be the best option. Stick to the same bearing height of the lean-tos and the hips could still extend out, but lower the bearing height to more closely resemble what is there now. There are also outhouses, one sitting behind the barn and one inside the barn. They will check the historic study to identify where they originally sat on the site. Only one likely belongs to the property. There was discussion of how to repurpose it and one idea was to use it as a pump-house over the well, another was to use it as storage. The buffer is 233’ from the lot which is a half-acre, so 400’ to the back of a house. The covenants will dictate that no privacy fences can be put up; only open post rail fencing. Their next step is to submit for a building permit upon which there will be an opportunity for one more staff review. Ms. McWilliams stated this is not a designated landmark yet, so LPC’s purview doesn’t extend to design review; only eligibility review and that would be determined when the building plans are submitted. Those would be reviewed by the LPC Chair and the CDNS director to ensure the proposed changes don’t affect the eligibility. The Johnson Farm team will return to the Commission with a 75 percent set of plans to keep them updated on their progress. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 76 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 77 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 78 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 79 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 80 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 2608 East Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 7 of Bucking Horse Filing Two, Located in Section 20, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado. Property Name (historic and/or common): Johnson Farm Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Johnson Farm LLC Email: Phone: (970)229-5900 Address: 7307 Streamside Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other: Vacant FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planner; John Kochanczyk, Historic Preservation Intern Address: City of Fort Collins, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-219-3974 Email: jweinberg@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: April 10, 2013 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 81 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Wesley Johnson Farm is significant to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard One (1) for its agricultural associations beginning in the late nineteenth century. Historic activities on the farm demonstrate multiple agricultural contexts significant to the city, including cattle and sheep raising, farming, and ranching. The property is additionally significant under Standard Two (2) for its association with several prominent Fort Collins citizens, including Charles Evans and the Johnson brothers: Elmer, Wesley, Edwin, and Harvey. The Johnsons first moved to Fort Collins in 1902 where they established multiple farms in the area. Throughout the twentieth century, the Johnsons thrived in farming and stock raising. One Johnson brother in particular, Harvey, exerted significant political influence in the city as president of the Water Supply and Storage Company and mayor from 1963 to 1967. The property also holds significance under Standard Three (3). Its two farmhouses, built in the 1910s by Elmer Johnson, are excellent examples of vernacular agricultural architecture. Additionally, the Johnson barn, built around 1918, represents one of the city’s few remaining examples of a bank barn. It is built into the side of the land’s natural grade to provide livestock easier access to forage stored in the barn. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 82 Page 3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION At 2608 East Drake Road, the historic Wesley Johnson Farm is located on the north side of Drake nearly a half mile east of Timberline Road. The farm sits atop a ridge overlooking former agricultural bottom lands along the Cache le Poudre River and straddles the boundary between two quarter sections that were first claimed in the 1870s under the Homestead Act. In November 1873, a homestead patent was issued to Malon B. Gannon for property directly west of the current farm site. This homestead claim is the only evidence that connects Malon B. Gannon to the farm lands. According to the patent, Gannon exchanged property in Arkansas for lands in Colorado. This was likely the Irish immigrant Michael Gannon listed in the 1870, aged fifty-five at the time, living in Little Rock with his wife and four children. It is not entirely surprising that Gannon largely disappears from the historical record, as census takers tended to Americanize traditional Irish names when recording them. For instance, the 1870 census records available online through HeritageQuest list forty-five Michael Gannons across sixteen states, every one of Irish descent, and none recorded as Malon. The 1880 census lists 111 Michael Gannons in twenty three states, all Irish, with no Malons mentioned. Such enumerative practices reflect broader trends of Irish immigration beginning in the 1840s, as well as American tendencies to simplify elements of Irish identity, such as traditional names, for purposes of assimilation.1 The following year, in June 1874, the federal government issued a patent to Jacob Ganow for the quarter section where the Johnson farm buildings sit today, adjacent to Gannon’s property. Born in Ohio in 1839, Ganow first appeared in the 1870 census as a resident farmer in the Fort Collins area along with his wife, Luzetta, and four children. The census indicates that all four children were born in Missouri, suggesting that Ganow first arrived in the area around 1868 or 1869 after spending some time in the Midwest. According the 1880 census, Ganow continued to farm in the area, now employing two laborers and a carpenter in his household. The censuses represent the primary source of information available on the Ganow family. Grave records reveal that his wife, Luzetta, died in 1904 in Idaho, while Ganow passed away in 1911 in Valentine, Nebraska. The 1910 census lists several of the grown Ganow children living in Valentine, verifying the family’s migratory pattern following their life in Colorado.2 While little is known of the property’s use during the 1880s and 1890s, prominent cattlemen James B. Arthur, Joseph Jessup, and the Sherwood brothers owned property adjacent to the Wesley Johnson farm site, and their herds grazed in the area at the turn of the century before the Johnson family arrived in the Larimer County.3 For most of the twentieth century, the farm was owned and operated by members of the John Peter Johnson family. Historically, the Johnson family traces their heritage to nineteenth- century Sweden. Throughout their history, Swedish-American identity was important to the family. A 1979 family history by Edna Johnson Hoover emphasized this point: “The family may not have had much money but they always had good health and they kept the Faith. The strength of their character has been passed on to their children and their children’s children. It is interesting to note that not one of this ‘House Full of Swedes’ ever got in bad with the law or in any serious trouble. The generations that follow can be justly proud of their Swedish roots.”4 The history of the Johnson family is an interesting tale of early American settlement, migration, and assimilation. However, this document will not tell that story in its entirety, but will focus 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, Agricultural Scrip Patent, vol. 137, p. 232;1870 U.S. Census; 1880 U.S. Census. 2 BLM, GLO Records, Agricultural Scrip Patent vol. 137, p. 277;1870 U.S. Census; 1880 U.S. Census; 1910 U.S. Census; cemetery records from www.findagrave.com. 3 Colorado Historical Society, “Historic Building Inventory Records: Jessup Farm,” June, 1992. 4 Edna Hoover Johnson, “A House Full of Swedes,” 1979, p. 11, in Harvey Johnson Papers, CSU Water Resources Archive. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 83 Page 4 instead on the family’s relationship with a specific piece of land, the Wesley Johnson farm property as it exists today, a small tract that illustrates over a century of agricultural and human history. In 1902, John Peter and Augusta Johnson moved their large family by covered wagon from Kansas to Ault, Colorado where they found early work in the sugar beet fields. Motivated by drought and the search for higher living standards, J. P. Johnson hoped to establish his family in an area where they would thrive as farmers, thus assuring the future prosperity of his children. Soon after arriving in Colorado, the Johnsons moved to the Fort Collins area and worked for one year on Jack Rigden’s farm. The Rigden farm was historically located near the Wesley Johnson farm site where Drake Road crosses the Cache le Poudre River, and Rigden’s lands overlapped with the historic Johnson farm. After spending nearly a year with Rigden, John P. Johnson traded his land in Kansas for a quarter section along Fossil Creek and moved the family south of town. One of the oldest Johnson children, Elmer, continued to work with Rigden. By 1914, Elmer, in partnership with Charles Evans, acquired the farm lands adjacent to Rigden’s farm where the Johnson Farm property is located today. 5 Throughout the 1910s and 1920s, members of the Johnson family partnered with Charles Evans, working with him on numerous farms in the Fort Collins area. Charles was the son of early Fort Collins settler James C. Evans who arrived in the city in 1879 and prospered as a businessman and politician, twice serving as state senator for Larimer County. An early graduate of Colorado Agricultural College, by 1910 Charles Evans was an established farmer and landowner who operated large scale agricultural ventures throughout the county.6 A 1909 article in the Fort Collins Weekly Courier described Evans as “not only an extensive feeder of both sheep and cattle, but also a scientific farmer and fancier of fine stock.” By this early date, he owned over one thousand acres in the area.7 In this same year, Evans purchased the “nw qr of se qr 20-7-68 and other land” for $13,280 in the close vicinity of what is now known as the Johnson Farm.8 This land was once the site of the historic Sherwood ranch settled by Jesse and F.W. Sherwood in 1860, an area that encompassed nearly 1,000 acres of prime grazing and farm land. By 1915, the Sherwood ranch was divided between a variety of owners, including Charles Evans, Jack Rigden, Joseph Jessup, Jack Cuthbertson, and Elmer Johnson.9 Throughout its history, the Wesley Johnson farm property was prominently associated with four of the twelve Johnson siblings: Elmer, Edwin, Wesley, and Harvey, as well as Edwin’s sons, Glen and Calvin.10 While the property was jointly owned by Elmer Johnson and Charles Evans, Elmer built and occupied the houses and barn that still stand at the farm, constructing both farmhouses around 1915 and the barn around 1918. Working in partnership with Evans, Elmer prospered raising cattle and sheep on the farm. Together, they convinced another Johnson brother, Harvey, to begin raising stock nearby on one of Evans’s farms in 1917. 11 In 1920, the U.S. census indicated Elmer Johnson as the farm’s owner. At this time, many people lived and worked on the property. Elmer’s parents, John and Augusta, his grandmother, son, two daughters, brother Ivan, sister Viola, and wife May all lived at the farm as part of his household. Also enumerated on the site were four farm laborers, two of them 5 Harvey Johnson oral history, interviewed by Jim Hansen, August 27, 1985, p. 4-6, in Harvey Johnson Papers; Bill Hartman, Harvey Johnson: A Remarkable Man, unpublished biography manuscript, 1981, in Harvey Johnson Papers; “A House Full of Swedes,” 11; 1914 plat map. 6 Ansel Watrous, History of Larimer County (Fort Collins: Courier Printing & Publishing Company, 1911): 393. 7 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, March 3, 1909. 8 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, April 21, 1909. 9 The Courier Farmer, April 20, 1915. 10 Cultural Resource Historians, Fort Collins Agricultural Resources Survey, “Management Data Form: Wesley Johnson Farm,” May, 1994. 11 Associated Cultural Resource Experts, “Joseph Jessup and Wesley Johnson Farmsteads Preservation and Development Plan,” April 2001, 8-9; Harvey Johnson oral interview, August 27, 1985, 13-14. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 84 Page 5 single and two living with their families.12 In 1920, Elmer was elected secretary of the Larimer County Breeders’ Association.13 He continued to engage in cattle farming and agricultural production on the farm until the global recession in 1929. The 1930s proved to be a tumultuous period for the Johnson family. The effects of the Great Depression were widespread, affecting farmers across the nation, and the Johnsons were not immune to its impacts. By 1929, Elmer lost the farm in the years leading up to the Depression, and the farm was acquired by Charles Wright by 1930. Elmer later moved his family to Greeley before retiring from farming in 1955. After his brother lost the farm, Edwin Johnson rented and worked at the property until 1934. Of all the Johnson siblings, Edwin alone fought for the U.S. in World War I for two years, returning to Colorado after receiving a shrapnel injury to the foot. In 1919, he married Cora Edwards, and the couple raised three children: Glen, Calvin, and Augusta. Edwin and his family joined Elmer on the farm in 1922, and Ed continued to rent the property after Elmer lost the property. Calvin was born on the site in 1925.14 The 1940 plat map indicated Horace E. Pastorius as the farm’s owner, though it is unknown when he acquired the property. Pastorius was the son of a prominent Colorado Springs landowner, also named Horace E. Pastorius. The elder Pastorius graduated from Harvard in 1899 with a degree in agriculture before moving his family to Colorado Springs in 1900. After several trips to the area with Charles Wright in the 1910s, the Pastorius family moved to Fort Collins by 1920. A 1920 advertisement in the Fort Collins Courier detailed a large farm sale conducted by the Horace Pastorius, senior.15 Little is known of the family’s activity in the area, but by 1940, Horace Pastorius, junior, owned the property where the Johnson Farm sits today. The 1940 census enumerated Pastorius, aged 35, employed in farming with property worth $12,500. Obviously, some farmers were able to prosper and increase their landholdings during the Depression. According to a deed of trust located in Harvey Johnson’s papers, Pastorius sold the farm to Wesley and Minnie Johnson in January 1941.16 For many years, Wesley rented property from Charles Evans and worked lands near the farm that now bears his name. The 1940 census shows that Wesley, his wife, and three daughters leased and farmed land on Hospital Road, enumerated just one page after Pastorius. The following year, the family moved to lands acquired from Pastorius, returning the farm to Johnson family ownership after the property was lost during the Depression. During Wesley’s tenure on the farm, he grew grains and sugar beets in addition to raising sheep and cattle. In January 1944, he was appointed to the board of directors of the Fort Collins Lamb Feeders Association. According to a local biographer, “Farming, church work, and his family occupied all his time. It was on this farm that Wesley was killed in a farming accident on Nov. 21, 1944 at the age of 57. His untimely death left a great void in a family who loved him.”17 Family records offer further glimpses of Wesley’s character: “Wesley was known everywhere for his sunny disposition and he loved little children. The welcome mat was 12 1920 U.S. Census; One of Elmer’s workers, Wilbur Hugus, was counted on the 1920 Census in June of that year. Curiously, a February 4, 1920 article in the Fort Collins Courier claims that Hugus perished of the influenza virus while working on the farm, yet he still appears in the census enumerated several months later. 13 Fort Collins Courier, January 29, 1920, May 19, 1920, December 3, 1920. 14 “Elmer B. Johnson (1883-1972),” Johnson family genealogy file, August 1979, in Harvey Johnson Papers; “Management Data Form: Wesley Johnson Farm,” May, 1994; Cora and Edwin Johnson oral history, July 31, 1975, interviewed by Charlene Tresner, p. 4-6, 16-17, in Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archive; Fort Collins Courier, November 9, 1922. 15 1940 plat map; 1920 U.S. Census; 1919 Harvard University alumni directory; Fort Collins Weekly Courier, February 16, 1912, October 9, 1914; Fort Collins Courier, June 17, 1920, September 21, 1920. 16 1940 U.S. Census; Deed of trust to Wesley Johnson, January 24, 1941, in Harvey Johnson Papers. 17 Larimer County Heritage Writers, History of Larimer County, CO, Volume II (Dallas: Curtis Media Corporation, 1987): 726; Fort Collins Coloradoan, January 29, 1964. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 85 Page 6 always out at his home.”18 His widow, Minnie, retained ownership of the property until the late 1960s, leasing the land to local farmers and other members of the extended Johnson family.19 After Wesley Johnson’s tragic death, the family continued to farm the property. Harvey Johnson served as administrator of Wesley’s estate and operated the farm through the 1950s, primarily raising sheep and cattle. Harvey was a prominent member of the Johnson family, serving as president of the Water Supply and Storage Company for over thirty years. Known by locals as “Mr. Water,” he also served two terms as mayor of Fort Collins from 1963 to 1967. Johnson was perhaps the foremost expert in irrigation and water law in the city. His leadership at the Water Supply and Storage Company expanded the city’s access to Western Slope water. He exerted a significant influence on securing water diversion projects from the Grand Ditch and Laramie River into the Poudre River. During his tenure as mayor, he focused his attention on acquiring water rights to facilitate the city’s long term growth, and he also established the city’s water board. Throughout this period, Harvey managed Wesley’s property and continued to act on Minnie’s behalf as financial trustee.20 In the late 1960s, Harvey sold the farm to his nephew, Calvin Johnson, who incorporated the lands into Spring Creek Farms, Inc., a company he formed with his brother Glen and father Edwin. Spring Creek operated many farms in the Fort Collins area, growing crops including sugar beets, corn, alfalfa, beans, and grains. The Johnsons also owned a cattle feeding company called Caled which they operated on the nearby Jessup farm. After Edwin retired from the business, Calvin managed farming operations for Spring Creek, while his brother Glen took charge of the company’s business and finances. Calvin resided on the property for a time before moving to another Johnson farmhouse at 2600 South Timberline, later renting the Drake farmhouses to private occupants.21 With the city’s adoption of a new statewide annexation policy in 1987, Fort Collins began to incorporate surrounding fields and farm lands. As the city increasingly expanded, farms became subject to annexation after several years within the city’s legal limits. By 1992, the Johnson farm lands encompassed over 400 acres being quickly surrounded by suburban growth. Ultimately, the property was annexed to the city as part of the Timberline Annex, but only after addressing concerns brought before city council by Glen and Calvin Johnson. The Johnson brothers expressed alarm about their ability to operate a farm within city limits, correctly foreseeing the eventual decline of urban agricultural production as the city expanded. Glen Johnson commented on the growth of the city and its potential effects on his family’s historic farm, “It’s very difficult to run an agricultural business when you are entirely surrounded by busy roads and housing developments. Sooner or later the traffic and other constraints are going to make it too difficult to continue operating as a farm. We know that progress is impossible to stop. We just want to keep our property the way it is as long as possible.” Addressing the reality of suburban growth in Fort Collins, chief city planner Ken Waido responded to the Johnson brothers’ concerns: “We have a lot of people asking us if they can keep the cows, if they can keep hunting, things like that. We try to be sensitive to their lifestyle; unfortunately there are some aspects of rural life that just don’t go with urban life.”22 By 2001, the Johnson Farm property and adjacent lands owned by Spring Creek, including the Joseph Jessup Farm, were sold by Calvin Johnson. Plans for adaptive reuse stalled during the 2000s, and the properties were acquired by Gino Campana and his brothers Tony and Mike in 2011. Campana, through his development company, Bellisimo, is the current owner seeking Local Landmark designation. The company is presently undertaking an innovative adaptive reuse plan to preserve the historic integrity and character of the Wesley 18 “John Wesley Johnson (1888-1944),” Johnson Family genealogy file. 19 1940 U.S. Census; 1940 plat map; 1956 plat map. 20 Harvey Johnson oral history, interviewed by David McComb, 1973-1973, 94, in Harvey Johnson Papers; Hartman, 19-22; “Management Data Form: Wesley Johnson Farm,” May, 1994. 21 1963 plat map; “Management Data Form: Wesley Johnson Farm,” May, 1994; Cora and Edwin Johnson oral history, 16-17. 22 Fort Collins Coloradoan, “Don’t fence me in, farmers say: City’s plan to annex property has brothers ready to fight,” December 28, 1992. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 86 Page 7 Johnson Farm. Bellisimo plans to restore the historic buildings on the Johnson Farm, where they will locate their main offices within the broader Buckinghorse subdivision, an area comprising much of the historic Johnson and Jessup farm lands. Although agricultural practices on these lands have ceased, the historic Wesley Johnson farm will stand as a testament to the history of his family and others who established farms in the Fort Collins area in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 87 Page 8 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: ca. 1915 Architect/Builder: Elmer Johnson Building Materials: Wood, stone, concrete Architectural Style: Vernacular agricultural Description: Historic buildings on the Johnson Farm Property include two farmhouses and a large barn. As late as 2001, several additional outbuildings stood on the site, but the historic granary, outhouse, and loafing sheds have since fallen due to disrepair. The remaining buildings on the site represent an excellent example of twentieth-century vernacular architecture displaying high integrity, and the barn is a rare and excellent example of the bank barn type in Fort Collins. Constructed by Elmer Johnson around 1915, probably with the help of his brothers and neighbors, the property’s original house stands one story tall with a front-gabled roof, wood shingles, and overhanging eaves. Like the barn, it is built into the natural slope of the land so that a basement level garage opens to grade at the rear elevation of the house. The rectangular plan house sits on a poured concrete foundation that encloses the basement garage and is clad in beveled wood siding on the upper level. Basement walls are exposed concrete with three rectangular hopper windows on the north and south elevations. All windows on the house are wood-framed, but they are currently boarded over. The west, or primary elevation, contains two large rectangular windows beneath the gabled-end and a wood-framed door on its south side. Two small stone steps provide access to the door. The north elevation also contains two large, rectangular windows beneath the roof eaves. The east elevation, at the rear of the house, includes one large rectangular window on the main level, and large wood plank garage doors opening from the basement. The south elevation contains three rectangular windows, much like the north elevation with the addition of one window toward its western side. Slightly southwest of the farm’s original house sits the property’s main farmhouse, constructed by Elmer Johnson shortly after the house described above. Resting on a poured concrete foundation, this one-story vernacular house has an irregular plan with hipped roof and wood shingles. Its walls are wood-framed, and the house is clad in horizontal wood siding painted white. Multiple additions were added to the main core of the house throughout the years. All windows on the house are wood-framed, and currently boarded over. A screened-in porch with a shed roof sits in front of the house’s main entrance on the east elevation containing a row of rectangular windows broken by a door frame that is also boarded over. An additional rectangular window sits to the north of the porch on the house’s main wall. The south elevation includes a centrally located door, currently boarded, flanked by two small rectangular windows. The south elevation features extending additions on either side, each with a boarded rectangular window. A stone foundation sits centrally on the south elevation, indicating that an addition once stood here enclosing the entrance On the west elevation of the house, two rectangular windows sit to either side of the extending addition, and one small square window sits toward the north. The simple northern elevation contains a single rectangular window. Additions also extend to the east and west of the house’s main plan on the north elevation. Constructed around 1918 by Elmer Johnson, the property’s barn stands north of the two farmhouses. This large, two-story barn sits on a concrete foundation with a gambrel roof, flared eaves, and wood shingles. A cross-gambrel section extends from the roof on the west elevation, while the north elevation contains a gabled hay hood beneath the eaves. A centrally-located gabled-roof cupola sits at the top of the structure. The Johnson barn represents an intact and well-preserved example of a bank barn type, holding a high level of integrity. Bank barns were typically built into a hillside to take advantage of the natural grade ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 88 Page 9 of the land, allowing ground-level access to both the upper and lower floors. The barn facilitated access for wagons or trucks carrying feed or hay to the upper floor, which could be easily distributed to animals in the barn and corrals surrounding the lower-level entrance. The barn is aligned on a north-south axis, and exterior walls are clad in wood, shiplap siding. The north and south elevations include pairs of 8/8 double-hung windows, and several boarded square hopper windows located between the upper story and the foundation provided light to the stables in the lower story. On the south elevation, large hayloft doors sit beneath the gabled roof junction. Underneath the cross-gambrel roof on the west elevation, a large horizontal sliding barn door, with vertical plank siding, opens to the interior of the barn. Three rectangular windows, currently boarded, provide light to the upper story while several small square windows are contained in the concrete wall of the lower story. The east elevation includes two vertical plank horizontal sliding barn doors that provide access to the barn’s lower story. Five rectangular windows also sit at various places on the east elevation, currently boarded.23 23 Sources consulted for architectural description include: Fort Collins Agricultural Resources Survey, “Management Data Form: Wesley Johnson Farm,” May, 1994; Andrews & Anderson, P.C., “Johnson and Jessup Farms Assessment/Feasibility Study,” 2001; Bellisimo, “Johnson Farm,” 2012; Associated Cultural Resource Experts, “Joseph Jessup and Wesley Johnson Farmsteads Preservation and Development Plan,” April 2001. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 89 Page 10 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Andrews & Anderson, P.C., “Johnson and Jessup Farms Assessment/Feasibility Study,” 2001 Ansel Watrous, History of Larimer County, Fort Collins: Courier Publishing & Printing Company, 1911 Associated Cultural Resource Experts, “Joseph Jessup and Wesley Johnson Farmsteads Preservation and Development Plan,” April, 2001 City of Fort Collins Planning Department, Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, 1862- 1994: Historic Contexts and Survey Report, March, 1995 Colorado Historical Society, “Historic Building Inventory Records: Jessup Farm,” June, 1992 Cora and Edwin Johnson, interviewed July 31, 1975, by Charlene Tresner, oral history transcript at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery The Courier Farmer Cultural Resource Historians, Fort Collins Agricultural Resources Survey, “Management Data Form: Wesley Johnson Farm,” May, 1994 Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com Fort Collins Coloradan Fort Collins Courier Fort Collins Weekly Courier Harvard University Alumni Directory, 1919 Harvey Johnson Papers, Colorado State University Water Resources Archive Larimer County Heritage Writers, History of Larimer County, CO, Volume II, Dallas: Curtis Media Corporation, 1987 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, Agricultural Scrip Patent, vol. 137 U.S. Federal Census: 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1940 U.S. General Land Office plat maps: 1914, 1929, 1940, 1956, 1963 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 90 Page 11 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 91 Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Manager Maren Bzdek 2608 (2612) E Drake - Johnson Farm Barn Stabilization and Repair Update 3-20-2024 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Role of the HPC • Receive background information and status report about the current state of the barn and the status of the stabilization and repair process Note: This meeting will fulfill the requirement in Section 14-8 of the municipal code for noticing the HPC when an order to demolish is issued due to imminent danger and will also inform the community of the situation and provide for public comment. 1 2 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg 2 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Location Map – 2608 (2612) E Drake Headline Copy Goes HereProperty Background 4 • City Landmark • Designated June 18, 2013 • Architectural and Historical Significance •Agricultural history •Association with Charles Evans and the Johnson Brothers •Vernacular farmhouses and rare local example of a bank barn built into the grade 3 4 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg 3 Headline Copy Goes Here2013 Photos 5 Headline Copy Goes HereWind Damage – February 2024 6 North elevation, 2/25/24 5 6 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg 4 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 February 2024 Headline Copy Goes Here 8 February 2024 7 8 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg  Headline Copy Goes Here 9 February 2024 Headline Copy Goes Here 10 February 2024 9 10 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg 6 Headline Copy Goes Here 11 Stabilization – Phase 1 (per JVA) • Debris and partially attached materials that can become airborne during another wind event be removed. • Diagonal (raker) braces should be installed that brace the perimeter walls out of plane laterally. Braces can be installed on either side of remaining walls or on both sides. • Where braces are installed on only one side of the wall, the connections on each end of the braces should be capable of resisting both tension and compression loads. • Where wall sheathing is missing or deteriorated, walls should also be braced in plane by installing diagonal braces to the face of the wall framing. • After the walls are braced, the roof rafters should be tied down to the purlins and trusses via metal or lumber uplift ties. Headline Copy Goes Here 12 Bucking Horse Filing Two – Site Plan Detail 11 12 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg  Headline Copy Goes Here 13 Recorded Architectural Elevations (2012) Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Staff Findings • The property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on June 18, 2013. • At a previous Commission meeting on June 13, 2012, the owner provided plans for adaptive reuse of the farmstead, which were ultimately approved as part of the Bucking Horse Filing Two development plan. As adaptive reuse plans move forward in the future, building permit review will ensure conformance with the approved 2012 plan set and will be documented via a Certificate of Appropriateness to reflect conformance with landmark design review requirements. • To date, the applicant has complied with requirements to obtain a building permit (#B2401672) to address the immediate issue of imminent danger following the wind damage, following the methodology provided in the approved documentation from a qualified historic preservation structural engineer. 13 14 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg 8 Headline Copy Goes Here 15 HPC Information Requests 1.Since the property was landmarked over a decade ago, what measures, if any, has the property owner taken to conform to the maintenance provisions in Chapter 14? 2.Provide description of stabilization work to date and what immediate measures will be required to prevent further damage 3.What is the timeline for future reconstruction and adaptive reuse? 4.What are the respective conditions of the two residences on the property, and what plans are in place to ensure their maintenance and stability? 5.Describe how two residences will be addressed in the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse plans Headline Copy Goes Here Historic Preservation Manager Maren Bzdek 2608 (2612) E Drake - Johnson Farm Barn Stabilization and Repair Update 3-20-2024 15 16 ITEM 4 ATTACHME1T 11 Packet Pg  Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 20, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME EAST OAK TOWNHOMES, 220 E. OAK STREET – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development application at 220 E. Oak Street to include demolition/potential deconstruction of all existing structures, construction of fifteen (15) 3 and 4-story townhomes with a private center alley. APPLICANT/OWNER: Laurie P. & Robert Davis (owner/developer) ldavis@davisdavisarch.com; rdavis@davisdavisarch.com Randy Shortridge, auWorkshop (design professional) rshortridge@auworkshop.co STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the project components either meeting the requirements, exceeding the requirements, or meeting the intent of the requirements, in LUC 3.4.7, staff observes that 3.4.7 appears met by this project. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (Planning & Zoning Commission) regarding the proposed alterations, relative to their compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: This is the Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) second discussion of the proposed development, having provided conceptual review comments at the HPC’s October 18, 2023 regular meeting. At that meeting, guidance from the HPC centered on - use of materials like the proposed cement fiber in reference to the all-brick McIntyre House at 137 Mathews; - lack of adequate fenestration referencing to the McIntyre House; - discussion of whether the stepback requirement was met by the inset porch design and/or the 10ft (more than required) setback from the north property line; - City staff, including Historic Preservation staff, have reviewed and commented on several design proposals for this site including mixed use and the current proposal for multi-family housing. The existing properties on the site, the Emanuel Stuver Medical Office at 216 E. Oak Street, and the former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, were surveyed in 2021 by a third-party historian and recommend Not Eligible as City Landmarks. City Preservation staff certified and issued those findings on December 9, 2021. A finding of Not Eligible means that demolition is permitted. City Preservation staff generally recommend building conservation, material salvage, and waste diversion as much as possible (supported by certain existing code requirements for waste diversion). The applicants are exploring deconstruction of both buildings as an option Packet Pg. 100 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 within their project scope with the National Center for Craftsmanship, a local non-profit specializing in deconstruction as a construction trades training opportunity. Preservation staff have advised the applicant under Land Use Code 3.4.7 related to design compatibility. While there are several historic resources within 200 feet of the development site, the primary historic resource identified by staff for the purposes of applying the design compatibility standards is the duplex at 137-139 Mathews Street, the historic McIntyre House, immediately abutting the site to the north. PROJECT SUMMARY: The project would result in the demolition of the existing buildings at 216 and 220 E. Oak Street and construct a new set of fifteen (15) three- and four-story townhomes on the site, clustered around a private center alley. The proposal includes a larger setback than required on the north property line facing Mathews Street, the incorporation of brick along the lower stories, and inclusion of fenestration and porch features that replicate the proportions and patterns of the McIntyre House. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: While there are several historic resources within 200 feet of the development site, the primary historic resource identified by staff for the purposes of applying the design compatibility standards is the duplex at 137-139 Mathews Street, immediately abutting the site to the north. This selection is based on the hierarchy established in LUC 3.4.7(E)(1)(a) that privileges abutting historic resources in the design compatibility hierarchy where there are multiple historic areas of adjacency that overlap the new construction site. The 137 Mathews Street property is known as the McIntyre Residence, built in the 1880s as the home of prominent local residents Josiah and Lucy McIntyre. Lucy McIntyre was one of Fort Collins’ key suffragist leaders, was a founding member of Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and was the founder of the Chautauqua Circle (a local debate club). Although a problematic figure, making classist statements in support of women’s suffrage, she is an important figure in community history. The property is likely Eligible as a City Landmark under Standard 2, Persons/Groups for association with Lucy McIntyre. The property may have significance under other City Landmark standards that have not been fully evaluated yet. Properties over the age of fifty years within the 200ft area of significance, considered secondary for the purposes of design compatibility, are: - 133 Mathews St., 1947, Eligible, Demo/Alt, 2016 - 137 Mathews St., 1872, Eligible, Recon, 2021 - 300 E. Oak St., 1961, Unevaluated (Potentially Eligible), Demo/Alt, 2017 - 142 Remington St., 1955, Eligible, Intensive, 2021 - 148 Remington St., 1936, City Landmark, Designated 1997 - 202 Remington St., 1885, Listed in NRHP, 1983 - 206 Remington St., 1901, Eligible, Recon, 2020 Packet Pg. 101 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: [prioritize and emphasize what is most relevant, introduce discussion items in appropriate order; include direction on order of operations for the discussion to make sure the primary questions] Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Land Use Code 3.4.7 Complies/Does Not Comply Massing and Building Articulation 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The width of the townhomes facing Mathews appear to be of similar width as the McIntyre property at 137 Mathews. The first floor facades are defined by porches, inset with a solid-to-void pattern that replicates the massing of the McIntyre House’s ground floor that appears sufficient to meet the requirement that new construction, in this case each townhome unit, be “similar in width” to the primary historic resource abutting the development site. Complies Massing and Building Articulation 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. The final development plans indicate that this requirement is being exceeded. Staff would note that since the building only rises to three stories at its north edge, no stepback is required under this code section, and no setback from the north property line beyond 5ft is required. The applicant is proposing to increase the side yard setback from the required 5ft to 10ft to provide extra separation. The 137 Mathews property is currently non-conforming and appears to have its southern wall within the 5ft setback from the property line that has been required since the early 1900s. While staff observes this requirement as met/exceeded, the HPC may consider whether a Modification of Standard would be warranted in this circumstance, considering the context and overall new building design. Complies Building Materials The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. Complies Packet Pg. 102 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 Staff finds the proposed materials for the townhomes to meet this standard. Proposed materials include brick, cement fiber, and metal paneling that are all durable, high-quality, and have some degree of reference to either 137 Mathews or other nearby historic resources. Building Materials New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5) pattern. The applicant is proposing to use brick on the lower building elevations, with a combination of cement fiber (to replicate lapboard) and metal (to suggest red brick) siding on the upper floors. While there may be some concern with the limitation of brick to the ground floor of the new building, Staff finds that the intent of this code section is met. While staff observes this requirement as met, the HPC may consider whether a Modification of Standard would be warranted in this circumstance, considering the context and overall new building design. Complies Fenestration Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The final development plans indicate that this requirement is being exceeded, using a combination of all three requirements in reference to the McIntyre House. Similar window patterns to the McIntyre House are used, including the use of paired vertical windows on the third floor, and the use of transoms for many window openings. Similar window proportion of height to width is used, with many window units replicating the approximate proportions of the front porch, bay window, and front door and transom windows on the McIntyre House. Similar solid-to-void patterns are also used, especially in the relationship between porch entries and first floor windows, and the frequent pairing of window units on the second and third floors. Complies Design Details Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. This requirement appears met. The primary reference utilized is the references between the McIntyre House porch and features and the inset porches on the new townhome units. These include the eave height on the McIntyre porch roof aligning with the inset/2nd floor plate height on the new construction as well as the elevation of the porches above the sidewalk to a similar height as the McIntyre House’s porch. Complies Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 Visibility of Historic Features New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Based on the existing historic survey record for 216 and 220 E. Oak Street (determining them Not Eligible for designation as City Landmarks), staff has no concerns about historic resources being obscured (at least not more than they already are). The Site plan on the north side of the property may stand to increase visibility of features on the McIntyre House for the public viewing from Mathews Street, so this project arguably exceeds the visibility requirement. Complies Overall, staff finds that the proposed development meets or exceeds the requirements in LUC 3.4.7 regarding design compatibility with nearby historic resources, most prominently the McIntyre House at 137 Mathews Street. 3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection City staff regularly works with applicants and their construction teams to develop Plans of Protection when historic resources are near the development site. In this case, a Plan of Protection would be developed to confirm appropriate lines of communication between City staff and the construction team, as well as details on construction equipment and material staging to avoid damage to the abutting historic resources during construction. SAMPLE MOTIONS Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker [the Planning & Zoning Commission’s] approval of the East Oak Townhomes project at 220 East Oak Street, finding that the proposal complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 (E), Table 1.” Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the East Oak Townhomes project at 220 East Oak Street, based on the following findings: [insert findings] Sample Motion for a Continuance: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this item to the next meeting in order to seek additional information regarding the following code requirements: [insert] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant Project Review submission/presentation 2. Applicant’s October 18 conceptual review sketches 3. Historic survey findings for 216 & 220 E. Oak Street 4. Staff presentation Packet Pg. 104 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 105 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 106 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 107 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 108 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 109 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 110 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 111 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 112 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 113 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 114 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 115 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 116 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 117 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 118 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 119 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 120 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 121 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 122 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 123 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 124 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 125 Conceptual Review Agenda Meetings hosted via Zoom Web Conferencing Please use the URL and Meeting ID # listed below to join the Review Meeting Review Date 9/21/2023 10:15 AM Project Name Townhomes at 220 Oak CDR230072 Applicant Laurie Davis 619-200-8997 ldavis@davisdavisarch.com Description This is a request to develop 15 townhome units at 220 E Oak St. (Parcel # 9712317922). The applicant proposes fifteen (15) three and four (3 & 4) story townhomes (single family attached dwelling units) around a center garden courtyard. Access would be taken from Matthews St. directly to the east, E Oak St to the south and the alley directly to the west. The site is approximately 0.11 miles east of S College Ave. and approximately 0.06 miles south of E Mountain Ave. The site is within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B), and Downtown District (D) Historic Core Subdistrict zone districts and will be subject to a Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) Review. Zoom Info: Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/96246475877 Meeting ID: 962 4647 5877 Dial by your location: +1 301 715 8592 Planner:Arlo Schumann Engineer:Sophie Buckingham DRC:Brandy Bethurem Harras ,7(0  A77AC+0(17  3acNet 3g  E Oak St Ma t h e w s S t Re m i n g t o n S t Townhomes at 22 Oak Mixed Use Single Family Attached These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. w[287 w[287 w[287 ST14 `_1 ]^‰25 ]^‰25 ]^‰25 Douglas Vine Mountain Vista Mulberry Trilby Le m a y Sh i e l d s Harmony Ta f t H i l l Prospect Horsetooth Drake Ti m b e r l i n e ?@ D NCB NCM Library Park Aerial Site MapVicinity Map Zoning Map 1:9461:3,587 1:228,972 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 127 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 128 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 129 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 130 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 131 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 132 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 133 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 134 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 135 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 136 CC C 22 0 E O A K S T R E E T , F O R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 4 SI T E C O N D I T I O N S 02 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 3 AERIAL MAP OF SITE ZONING MAP OF SITE EXISTING OAK STREET VIEW ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 137 CC C 22 0 E O A K S T R E E T , F O R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 4 PH O T O E S S A Y 02 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 3 CORNER OAK AND MATHEWS LOOKING WEST LOOKING SOUTH WEST FROM MATHEWS REAR LOT VIEW FROM ALLEY LOOKING NORTH WEST FROM MATHEWS LOOKING NORTH AT ALLEY PROPERTY LINE LOOKING EAST FROM ALLEY AT PROPERTY LINE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 138 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services OFFICIAL DETERMINATION: FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY Resource Numbers: 5LR.15020 / B3206; 5LR.15019 / B3207 Historic Building Names: Emanuel Stuver Medical Office; Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Property Addresses: 216 East Oak; 220 East Oak Determination: NOT ELIGIBLE; NOT ELIGIBLE Issued: December 9, 2021 Expiration: December 9, 2026 Gary Chatburn Congregational Financial Officer Community of Christ 220 East Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Property Owner: This letter provides you with confirmation that the above two related properties have been evaluated for Fort Collins landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14, Article II of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and both have been found not eligible for landmark designation. Intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Forms were completed by a third-party historic preservation consultant in order to provide the information that serves as the basis for an evaluation of the properties historic and/or architectural significance and integrity, both of which are required for landmark eligibility as per Article II, Section 14-22. Staff has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity, and landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached forms. Significance: Emanuel Stuver Medical Office (216 E Oak) Consultant’s evaluation: This building near downtown Fort Collins was built in 1906 by Dr. Emanuel Stuver to house his medical practice. Stuver and his family relocated from Rawlins, Wyoming, to Fort Collins in 1899 and he practiced here until his death in 1925, playing a significant role in the Colorado-Wyoming medical community, helping found the Fort Collins hospital, teaching in its nursing school, and being involved in local public education. His widow ,7(0  $77$&+0(17 3 3DFNHW 3J 3 - 2 - lived here from about 1927 until 1949 and rented out the large Stuver home to the east (demolished 1937). The building has housed a variety of businesses from 1949 to the present, including the Larimer County Farm Bureau (1949-69), Rocky Mountain Office Equipment Company (1963-69), The Antique Broker (1976-83), and Northern Colorado Real Estate Brokers (2008-present), as well as housing a rear apartment. The building’s original appearance with red brick walls, rock-faced windowsills, and a corbelled brick front cornice was obscured by the application of exterior stucco at some point between 1949 and 1969, thus diminishing its ability to convey architectural significance as an example of an early 20th Century Commercial building. This also negatively impacts the building’s ability to convey its early (1906-25) association with Dr. Emanuel Stuver as his medical office. The building is assessed as an unlikely candidate for listing in the National or State Register or as a Fort Collins landmark. Staff is comfortable with the consultant’s limited conclusions regarding the property’s lack of significance under any of the applicable criteria based on the following findings. · The survey form does not firmly outline a case for or against historical or architectural significance based on its association with Stuver and its 20th Century Commercial architecture. However, because the building has lost enough historic character due to exterior alterations that impact its integrity in large measure, and therefore does not qualify for landmark eligibility, the limited discussion of significance based on Criteria 2 and 3 is adequate for the purpose of this evaluation. · Each significance criterion is addressed briefly in the statement of significance, even if not applicable. Integrity: Emanuel Stuver Medical Office Consultant’s evaluation: The brick building received exterior stucco at some point between 1949 and 1969, as well as door and window changes/replacement noted in the construction history, impacting the integrity of the building and its ability to represent its original function, design, materials, and style as an early twentieth century physician’s office. Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s integrity based on the following findings. · Essential physical features are identified in the integrity analysis and related to period of significance. · Discussion of integrity relates to the property’s most relevant aspects of integrity per its significance. · Discussion of integrity focuses on the property’s essential physical features and relates to period of significance. Statement of Eligibility: No further action. Alterations have diminished the historic integrity of this building. The official determination is “not eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation.” ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 140 - 3 - Significance: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (220 E Oak) Consultant’s evaluation: The Community of Christ Church (previously the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) erected the nucleus of this large corner church in 1942. The building has been expanded three times, with an education wing (1962), a south entrance addition (ca. 1964), and the current activity center (2004, replacing a 1968 gymnasium). This history represents the evolution and expansion of a small church to meet a growing congregation with new functional and programmatic needs. The additions of the 1960s resulted in a church facility with a compatible scale and overall design coherence. The 2004 activity center overwhelms the historic components of the church and negatively impacts the overall integrity of the building. Therefore the church is assessed as an unlikely candidate for listing in the National Register or as a local landmark. The integration of the 2004 addition directly abutting the older church without a physical break (such as an atrium or hyphen) makes it an unlikely property for listing in the State Register, which can list a portion of a building under certain circumstances. Staff is comfortable with the consultant’s limited conclusions regarding the property’s lack of significance under any of the applicable criteria based on the following finding. · The survey form does not firmly outline a case for or against historical significance based on its association with the history of the RLDS Church. However, because the building has lost enough historic character due to exterior alterations that impact its integrity in large measure, and therefore does not qualify for landmark eligibility, the limited discussion of potential significance is adequate for the purpose of this evaluation. Integrity: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Consultant’s evaluation: The addition of the 2004 activity center differs from the earlier portions of the church in terms of height (two-stories vs. one), scale (close to doubling the footprint), and materials (stucco, glass block, and nonhistoric red, split-face concrete block). The activity center footprint is approximately 89 percent of the area of the footprint of the original church (calculated form Google Earth). Other changes include replacement of basement windows and installation of exterior storm windows in the original 1942 component. Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s loss of historic integrity based on the following findings. · Essential physical features are identified in the integrity analysis and related to period of significance. · Discussion of integrity relates to the property’s most relevant aspects of integrity per its significance. · Discussion of integrity focuses on the property’s essential physical features and relates to period of significance. Statement of Eligibility: No further action. Alterations have diminished the historic integrity of this building. The official determination is “not eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation.” ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 141 - 4 - Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. If you have any questions regarding this determination, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at mbzdek@fcgov.com. Sincerely, Maren Bzdek Interim Manager, Historic Preservation Services Division Attachments: Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403 for 216 E Oak Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403 for 220 E Oak ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 142 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street 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 Field Evaluation of Fort Collins Landmark Eligibility ☐ Individually Eligible ☐ Contributing to District ☒ Not Eligible ☐ Likely Eligible for State/National Register General Recommendations: No further action. Alterations have diminished the historic integrity of this building. I. Identification 1. Resource number: 5LR.15020 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Emanuel Stuver Medical Office, Hannah E. Stuver Residence, Larimer County Farm Bureau, Rocky Mountain Office Equipment Company, The Antique Broker, Rocky Mountain Real Estate Brokers, Inc. ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street 6. Current building name: Rocky Mountain Real Estate Brokers, Inc., Courtyard Building 7. Building address: 216 E. Oak Street 8. Owner name and address: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, c/o Elizabeth Jones, 2007 Devonshire Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69 SE ¼ of SW ¼ of NW ¼ of SW ¼ of section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 493677 mE 4492785 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, Colorado Year: 2019 Map scale: 7.5' ☒ 15' ☐ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 23-25 (part) Block: 131 Addition: Fort Collins Original Town Year of Addition: 1867 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The boundary includes the area of the parcel associated with this property. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 54 x Width 30 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s): Stucco 18. Roof configuration: Flat 19. Primary external roof material: Unknown (not visible) 20. Special features: Segmental Arch, Stoop 21. General architectural description: This one-story, irregularly-shaped, flat roof building faces south, contains 1,514 square feet, and has stuccoed brick walls and a raised, slightly projecting stuccoed foundation. The description begins with the front (south) and proceeds clockwise around the building. Front (South). The front has a slightly off-center segmental arch entrance containing a wood door with three panels and a rectangular light with a carved garland decoration above the light. The door opens onto a concrete stoop accessed by steps with metal pipe railings. Flanking the entrance are paired one-over-one-light segmental arch wood windows with shared stuccoed sills (a historic photograph shows rock-faced stone sills). A business sign is placed at the top of the wall and the former corbelled brick cornice has been stuccoed, producing a curving surface. ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street West Wall. The front part of the west wall holds two tall, narrow, widely spaced one-over-one-light wood segmental arch windows with projecting stuccoed sills. Below, the foundation contains two segmental arch basement windows filled with plywood. The wall then steps out (the 1953 addition), and its narrow south wall contains an entrance (addressed as 216 ½) with a wood door with a nine- light upper section (the lower part of the door is obscured by a nonhistoric metal storm door). The entrance opens onto a concrete stoop accessed by steps with a metal pipe railing. The west wall holds a small, flat-headed, two-part sliding replacement window with a projecting stuccoed sill. Near the north end of the wall is a taller, flat-headed two-part wood window with a narrow transom, and a projecting stuccoed sill. Rear (North Wall). The west part of the rear wall is unfenestrated. At the east end (part of the 1907 addition) is an opening framed with metal and wood and filled with plywood that holds a faux- paneled replacement door with a leaded glass oval in its upper part; there is a metal exterior storm door. The entrance opens onto a concrete stoop and a step with a metal pipe railing and a concrete pedestrian ramp to the west. East Wall. The north end of the east wall (part the 1907 addition) holds tall, narrow paired segmental arch one-over-one-light wood windows with a shared projecting stuccoed sill, followed by a segmental arch entrance containing a replacement door (faux-paneled with a rectangular light) that opens onto a concrete stoop accessed by steps with a wrought iron railing. Farther south (the original 1906 building) the wall holds a tall, narrow single segmental arch one-over-one-light wood window with a projecting stuccoed sill. Below the window is a concrete stairwell accessing the basement; there is a metal pipe railing and gate, with a wood paneled door into the basement. At the south end of the wall is another set of paired tall, narrow segmental arch wood windows with a shared projecting stuccoed sill; the lower part of the north window holds an air conditioning unit, and the upper part is covered with plywood. 22. Architectural style/building type: Commercial/Early Twentieth-Century Commercial 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The level rectangular survey area (the southwest corner of the assessor parcel) covers 0.11 acres and is slightly elevated above the concrete public sidewalk to the south. The building is set back from the public sidewalk. The front (south) of the building features a concrete stoop and a flight of concrete stairs with metal pipe railings that descends to the concrete east-west public sidewalk. The area between the building and the public sidewalk is filled with small boulders west of the stairs, while the area to the east is in grasses with shrubs along the foundation. The parking lawn (treelawn) is in grass with two trees; a short section of concrete sidewalk extends from the public sidewalk to the curb. There is on-street diagonal parking along E. Oak Street. The building’s west wall abuts the west property line, bordering a north-south asphalt-paved alley. The area between the west wall of the building and the alley is filled with small boulders and exhibits a railroad tie ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 145 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street border. A asphalt-paved parking lot lies north of the building. The area east of the building is in grass, with shrubs along the foundation; a large shrub stands at the building’s northeast corner. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: There are no other buildings on this property. The church to the east is documented on a separate survey form. At the southwest corner of the building is a nonhistoric, free-standing sign for a real estate business mounted on square metal posts. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1906 Source of information: Fort Collins Weekly Courier, April 18, 1906, 13 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Stuver, Dr. Emanuel Source of information: Fort Collins Weekly Courier, April 18, 1906, 13 and deed records 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Constructed in 1906, the original portion of the building measured 32’ north-south by 27’ east west. The building had unpainted, solid brick walls, a coursed stone foundation, and a corbelled façade cornice. In 1907 a 22’ x 17’ addition was constructed on the rear (see Figure 1 for the construction sequence). In 1953 a 13’ x 22’ addition was built at the northwest corner, resulting in the current building footprint. At some point between 1949 and 1969 the walls were covered with stucco, including the decorative front cornice. Other changes include nonhistoric window replacements (date unknown) on the west wall toward the rear, boarded up basement windows, and replacement nonhistoric doors on the rear and east walls. 30. Original location ☒ Moved ☐ Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Health Care/Medical Office 32. Intermediate use(s): Domestic/Single Dwelling; Religion/Religious-Related Residence; Commerce and Trade/Business; Commerce and Trade/Specialty Store 33. Current use(s): Commerce and Trade/Business, Domestic/Single Dwelling 34. Site type(s): Office/commercial building and residence 35. Historical background: Fort Collins physician Dr. Emanuel Stuver erected this office/commercial building facing East Oak Street in 1906 to house his medical office. Hannah Stuver, the doctor’s widow lived in this building from about 1927 to circa 1948. She rented out her large house to the east until it was demolished ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street for its materials in 1937. She sold the west part of the parcel but retained a life estate. Beginning about 1949, Mrs. Stuver moved elsewhere in Fort Collins and the building was rented out for various business, commercial, and residential uses until the present day. Stuver. In April 1906 the Fort Collins Weekly Courier reported that Dr. Emanuel Stuver moved his office from the Rohling Block to “the new building erected for his use” at this location. Stuver’s house was located on the same parcel to the east while a large barn stood at the northwest corner of the parcel. Stuver was born in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, in 1856, graduated from the National Normal School (a teachers’ college) in Lebanon, Ohio, and in 1880 completed his medical education at the Ohio Medical College in Cincinnati. He married Hannah M. Emigh (born 1851) in Cambria in 1879. The 1880 census shows the Stuvers living in Fort Collins. According to an obituary for Mrs. Stuver, the couple moved to Rawlins, Wyoming, circa 1881, where Dr. Stuver established a medical practice and operated a drug store, but they kept close ties to Fort Collins. Dr. Stuver played a major role in organizing the Wyoming Medical Society in 1898 and served as secretary of the Rocky Mountain Inter-State Medical Association. In 1899, the Stuvers moved to Fort Collins, acquiring this large corner parcel which held a large one- and-a-half-story house to the east. Stuver practiced medicine in downtown Fort Collins until 1906, when he had this building erected as his office; a rear addition was added in 1907 by contractor H.W. Schroeder for $400. The Carbon County Journal described Dr. Stuver as “a careful and accurate student and is regarded as one of the best informed physicians in the west.” Dr. Stuver contributed articles to various medical journals and was a member of the American Medical Association (1889), the Colorado Medical Society (1892), and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Medicine. He helped establish the Fort Collins hospital, which he served as secretary/treasurer for seventeen years, and taught in its nursing school. Advertisements in the Express-Courier reported Stuver had the most “complete electrical equipment in the city” for up-to- date treatment of a wide variety of diseases, from rheumatism to skin cancer. Stuver also played a role in public education, serving on school boards and lecturing. After Dr. Stuver died suddenly in 1925, his widow, Hannah (born in Pennsylvania in 1851), resided in this building beginning in about 1927 while renting out the large house to the east. She had taught in public schools in Pennsylvania for ten years before her marriage. In Fort Collins she was active in the Woman’s and Columbian clubs. Mrs. Stuver encountered difficulty paying taxes on the property in 1936, and B.F. Hottel apparently acquired the east portion of the parcel (Lots 23 and 24). In 1942 Mrs. Stuver sold the west part of the parcel holding this building (the west 50’ of Lots 23 and 24) to the Estate of B.F. Hottel, but reserved a life estate in the property, i.e., she could continue to live in this building until her death. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 147 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Commercial Uses. The Hottel Estate sold the property to A.H. and Lettie R. Tilton in 1946 with the same life estate stipulation for Mrs. Stuver. Mrs. Stuver moved elsewhere in 1949 and the Tiltons began renting out the property to various businesses and stores. The first tenant was the Larimer County Farm Bureau, which began operating here in July 1949. Curtis Hicks was the organizer of the organization, and Roy Wade was identified as the manager in 1950. The Farm Bureau remained here until about 1969, occasionally sharing the space with a business, such the F. L. Ericson Realty and the H.F. Scott Insurance and Real Estate in 1950-51. The 1953 addition at the northwest rear of the building created an apartment space (addressed as 216 ½) and renters began appearing there. The 1956 city directory listed Helen D. Young, who worked for the We Walk Again International Foundation that was in the office part of the building. In 1960 Charles J. and Hazel M. O’Laughlin lived in the apartment; he was a delivery man for the Bowling Furniture Company. Martha J. Goldsberry occupied the apartment from 1969 to 1981; she worked in the cosmetics department at Walgreen’s. A.H. Tilton died in December 1955 and the property passed to his widow, Lettie R. Tilton. She married Rev. Keith G. Brolliar, minister of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints (RLDS) in October 1956. In 1970 she transferred ownership of this property to the RLDS church. The Rocky Mountain Office Equipment Company opened in the building in 1963 and remained there through 1969; Harold Brisker was the owner. The Farm Bureau and the office equipment business were gone by 1970 and 1971, when the address was not listed in city directories. The 1970s through 1990s saw several successive business occupants in the building: 1972, Pleasant Valley Realty, Peggy Smylie, R.K. Yoder, and Warren Lybarger, partners; 1973, Rangeview Realty, Inc., Peggy Smylie, broker; 1974, American-West Saddle Company, which offered custom saddles and tack and repairs; 1976-83, The Antique Broker, Norman Minch, owner; 1986, Larimer County Food Distribution Center; 1988, vacant; 1989-90, United Seniors of Colorado, Martin Howel, director. Northern Colorado Real Estate Brokers, Inc., the current occupant, has been in the building since at least 2008. RLDS financial officer Gary B. Chatburn noted that the building, referred to as the Courtyard Building by the church, has been used as a parsonage, an apartment, a place to assist the resettlement of refugees, and for community functions, such as the first location of the food bank of Fort Collins. 36. Sources of information: Larimer County Assessor, real estate information, Fort Collins, Colorado; Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, deeds and ownership transactions, Fort Collins, Colorado; Fort Collins city directories, 1906-1995; City of Fort Collins, building permit number 4811, June 10, 1937 (tear down house at 220 E. Oak Street); Larimer County Assessor, 216 E. Oak St., appraisal card photograph, November 1948 and March 18, 1969, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 148 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Collins, Colorado; Fort Collins Weekly Courier, April 18, 1906 (Stuver moves his office here), November 13, 1907 (brick addition to building); Fort Collins Express, January 28, 1899 (reprinting article from the Carbon County Journal (Rawlins, Wyoming), January 7, 1899); Fort Collins Express-Courier, October 19, 1924 (Dr. Stuver advertisement) and September 20, 1925 (Emanuel Stuver obituary); Fort Collins Coloradoan, July 1, 1937 (demolition of the house), April 12, 1948 (interview with Hannah Stuver) and November 11, 1951 (obituary of Mrs. Stuver); Ancestry.com, US Census of Population, manuscript returns, 1870-1940, draft registration records, family trees, and other databases; Larimer County Assessor, appraisal cards, November 1948 and March 18, 1969, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado; Mike Jording, “The Birth of the Wyoming Medical Society,” Wyoming Medicine, August 2012, 16-17; Tom Sherlock, Colorado’s Healthcare Heritage, vol. 1, 1800-1899 (Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse, 2013); Community of Christ Church, historic records and architectural drawings, Fort Collins, Colorado (compiled by Gary B. Chatburn). VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ☐ No ☒ Date of designation: N/A Designating authority: N/A 38. Applicable Eligibility Criteria: National Register Fort Collins Register ☐ A. ☐ 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; ☐ B. ☐ 2. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ☐ C. ☐ 3. 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. ☐ 4. 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 criteria Needs additional research under standards: ☐ A/1 ☐ B/2 ☐ C/3 ☐ D/4 39. Area(s) of significance: N/A 40. Period of significance: N/A 41. Level of significance: National ☐ State ☐ Local ☐ 42. Statement of significance: This building near downtown Fort Collins was built in 1906 by Dr. Emanuel Stuver to house his medical practice. Stuver and his family relocated from Rawlins, Wyoming, to Fort Collins in 1899 and he practiced here until his death in 1925, playing a significant role in the Colorado-Wyoming medical community, helping found the Fort Collins hospital, teaching in its nursing school, and being involved ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street in local public education. His widow lived here from about 1927 until 1949 and rented out the large Stuver home to the east (demolished 1937). The building has housed a variety of businesses from 1949 to the present, including the Larimer County Farm Bureau (1949-69), Rocky Mountain Office Equipment Company (1963-69), The Antique Broker (1976-83), and Northern Colorado Real Estate Brokers (2008-present), as well as housing a rear apartment. The building’s original appearance with red brick walls, rock-faced window sills, and a corbelled brick front cornice was obscured by the application of exterior stucco at some point between 1949 and 1969, thus diminishing its ability to convey architectural significance as an example of an early 20th Century Commercial building. This also negatively impacts the building’s ability to convey its early (1906-25) association with Dr. Emanuel Stuver as his medical office. The building is assessed as an unlikely candidate for listing in the National or State Register or as a Fort Collins landmark. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The brick building received exterior stucco at some point between 1949 and 1969, as well as door and window changes/replacement noted in the construction history, impacting the integrity of the building and its ability to represent its original function, design, materials, and style as an early twentieth century physician’s office. VII. National and Fort Collins Register Eligibility Assessment 44. Eligibility field assessment: National: Eligible ☐ Not Eligible ☒ Need Data ☐ Fort Collins: Eligible ☐ Not Eligible ☒ Need Data ☐ 45. Is there district potential? Yes ☐ No ☐ Discuss: This project consisted of a survey of two related properties. Insufficient information exists to assess district potential, however the immediate area contains a wide mix of building types and periods of construction. If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing ☐ 46. If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ☐ Noncontributing ☐ VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: 01 through 09 (digital images) Negatives filed at: City of Fort Collins 48. Report title: N/A 49. Date(s): Field surveyed November 8, 2021; form completed November 23, 2021 50. Recorder(s): Thomas H. Simmons and R. Laurie Simmons 51. Organization: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street 52. Address: 3635 W 46th Avenue, Denver, CO 80211 53. Phone number(s): 303-477-7597, frraden@msn.com, www.frhistory.com NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 151 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Historic Photos/Drawings Figure 1. This recent oblique aerial view northwest shows the buildings at 216 and 220 East Oak Streets labeled with the construction dates of their component parts. Oak Street is to the left and Mathews Street to the right. SOURCE: Google Earth. Figure 2. Noted physician Dr. Emanuel Stuver (left) erected this building as his medical office in 1906. His widow, Hannah, later lived here from about 1927 to 1949. SOURCE: Wyoming Medicine, August 2012, 17 and Fort Collins Coloradoan, April 12, 1948. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 152 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Figure 3. The 1909 Sanborn fire insurance map showed Dr. Stuver’s house in the eastern section of the parcel and his office in the southwest corner. A one-and-a-half-story barn stood at the northwest corner. Oak Street extends across the bottom of the image and Mathews Street along the right. SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance map of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1909, Western History and Genealogy Department, Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado. Figure 4. This view north shows the front of the building in 1948, when its red brick, corbelled cornice, and stone foundation were still visible. SOURCE: Larimer County Assessor, appraisal card photograph, November 1948, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 153 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Figure 5. The building had been stuccoed and an addition added at its northwest corner by the time of this 1969 appraisal card photograph. SOURCE: Larimer County Assessor, appraisal card photograph, March 18, 1969, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 154 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Site Photos and Maps Sketch Map 216 E. Oak Street (the subject of this form) is to the left and 220 E. Oak Street is to the right. North is to the top. Years are the date of each building part. Base map Google Earth, November 8, 2019. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 155 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street USGS Location Map. Surveyed resource is denoted by crosshair symbol. North is to the top and 1”=2,000’. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 156 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Current Photos (Date: November 8, 2021 by T.H. Simmons, photographer) Photograph 1. Overview of the property from the intersection of Oak and Mathews Streets, with 216 to the left and 220 to the right. View northwest. Photograph 2. Front of the building. View north. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 157 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Photograph 3. The front and west wall. View northeast. Photograph 4. The west wall. View east-northeast. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 158 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Photograph 5. The rear and west wall. part of the building View southeast. Photograph 6. The rear (north wall). View south. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 159 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Photograph 7. The east wall. View west. Photograph 8. The stairwell to the basement on the east wall. View northwest. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 160 Resource Number: 5LR.15020 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 216 E. Oak Street Photograph 9. The front and east wall. View northwest. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 161 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street 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 Field Evaluation of Fort Collins Landmark Eligibility ☐ Individually Eligible ☐ Contributing to District ☒ Not Eligible ☐ Likely Eligible for State/National Register General Recommendations: No further action. A large post-2000 addition has diminished the historic integrity of this building. I. Identification 1. Resource number: 5LR.15019 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 6. Current building name: Community of Christ Church 7. Building address: 220 E. Oak Street ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street 8. Owner name and address: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, c/o Elizabeth Jones, 2007 Devonshire Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69 SE ¼ of SW ¼ of NW ¼ of SW ¼ of section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 493705 mE 4492790 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, Colorado Year: 2019 Map scale: 7.5' ☒ 15' ☐ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 23-25 (part) Block: 131 Addition: Fort Collins Original Town Year of Addition: 1867 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The boundary includes the area of the parcel associated with this property. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): L-shaped 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 143 x Width 88 16. Number of stories: 1, 2 17. Primary external wall material(s): Brick, Concrete/Concrete Block, Stucco 18. Roof configuration: Complex 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt/Composition 20. Special features: Chimney, Fence, Glass Block, Porch, Stained Glass, Stoop, Tower 21. General architectural description: The church is the only building recorded on this form; 216 E. Oak Street to the west is recorded on a separate survey form (5LR15020). The roughly L-shaped corner church contains 8,135 square feet, and consists of four episodes of building, extending from 1941-42 to 2004 and including: an original one-story rectangular brick building (1942); a one-story concrete block education west wing attached to the north and west walls of the original church (1962); a one-story split-faced concrete block entrance with “tower” attached to the south wall of the original church (1964); and a two-story, stucco and concrete block activity center (2004), abutting the north and east walls of the education wing (see Figure 1). All doors and windows are flat-headed. The description begins at the main entrance on the west wall and proceeds in a clockwise direction around the building. Front (West Wall). The front (west wall) contains the main entrance to the building at the south end (in the 1964 entrance addition). This portion of the building has a side gable roof and features walls ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street of stacked split (or rough)-faced painted concrete block (4” high x 16” wide). The entrance contains double aluminum glazed doors and is located at the base of a two-sided tower composed of smooth-faced concrete blocks ornamented with three stepped decorative lights and two vertical inset ribbons of square concrete breeze blocks in a starburst design (a plus-sign overlaid on a X). The “tower” has walls on its west and south sides, but not on the north and east. Sheltering the entrance is a porch with a flat roof with rounded edges and metal pole supports. North of the entrance, the wall of the 1964 addition is unfenestrated. The wall then steps in and its narrow north wall contains an eight-light colored glass wood window. To the north, the west wall of the original 1942 church is visible, composed of cinder block walls clad with painted wire-drawn brick walls and a raised foundation containing three two-part sliding windows. The first story holds three sets of paired, eight-light, wood windows with colored glass. All windows feature soldier course lintels, slanted rowlock brick sills, and aluminum storm windows. A plaque on the wall commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Fort Collins Community of Christ Church (1916-2016). Education Wing. The 1962 education wing projects westward. It is one-story with smooth painted concrete block walls, a hipped roof clad with asphalt composition shingles and a center deck with a parapet, and a wide concrete block chimney at the east end adjacent to the original church. The south wall has a deeply inset entrance holding a flush wood door with three square vertical lights, wide single-light sidelights with kickplates, and a three-light transom. A flush door is present in the east wall of the porch and its west wall consists of stacked painted split-face concrete blocks. The porch deck is covered with outdoor carpeting. West of the porch the roof is widely overhanging and shelters three tall two-over-two-light windows with panels below. The west wall is unfenestrated and composed of painted smooth concrete block. The wall then steps in and the narrow north wall is stuccoed and holds a flush wood door in a raised stucco surround. Activity Center. The two-story 2004 activity center abuts the north and east walls of the education wing and appears to have a flat roof. The second story of the south wall of the activity center is visible above the education wing; it is stuccoed and holds two horizontal glass block windows to the west and two blank stucco panels to the east, all with raised stucco surrounds. The west wall of the activity center is stuccoed with corbelled soldier and rowlock brick courses (tan/variegated) at the top of each story. The first story contains double flush metal doors with rectangular lights at the south end; the remainder of the first story is unfenestrated. The second story holds four tall, single- light windows with stucco surrounds at its center. The brick bands continue onto the north wall, which is also stuccoed. The first story is unfenestrated and the second story features eight stucco panels with raised stucco surrounds. The two-story portion of the activity center’s east wall is symmetrical with a center raised arched parapet and mostly stucco walls. Vertical ribbons of red, split-face concrete block flank the entrance bay which contains a blind arch defined by slightly projecting border of tan/variegated brick; the top of part of this arch holds an oval shield holding a depiction of a lion, a lamb, and a child with the word “Peace” below. The first story entrance holds double metal doors with tall rectangular lights. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 164 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Flanking the entrance bay, each story contains a glass block window and a stucco panel, each with raised stucco surrounds. A corbelled brick band (described on the west wall) is present at the top of each story. A continuous single brick rowlock sillcourse is present below the first story windows; below the sillcourse, the wall is composed of split-face red concrete block. To the south is the one-story, flat roof part of the education wing. It features a corbelled cornice, stucco walls, a rowlock brick sill course, and split-face red concrete block lower wall. Two stucco panels with raised stucco surrounds are present on the east wall. The wall steps in and the south wall of this section is unfenestrated. East Wall. To the south is the east wall of the original 1942 church, consisting of painted wire-drawn brick and a raised brick foundation. At the north end of the wall is an entrance with a wood flush door opening onto a concrete stoop and steps with brick walls. South of the porch the basement level holds three sets of two-part sliding windows followed by a single-light vinyl window, while the first story holds a single eight-light wood window, followed by three sets of paired eight-light wood windows with colored glass and a single eight-light window. All windows feature soldier course lintels, slanted rowlock brick sills, and aluminum storm windows. The south wall of the original church is visible above the 1964 addition; it is brick with a rectangular louvered vent at the gable apex. South of original church, the east wall continues. The south end of the building, added in 1964, consists of painted, stacked, split-face concrete block walls and holds two single eight-light wood windows (possibly moved from the front of the original church) with slanted brick sills and storm windows. At the south end of the wall is an entrance holding a single aluminum glazed door; it opens onto a porch with a flat roof with rounded corners, metal pole supports, and a concrete deck. South Wall. The south 1964 entrance addition displays a gable roof with a shallower pitch than the 1942 church. The wall is composed of painted, stacked, split-face concrete block and is unfenestrated except for a center full-height ribbon window, holding colored and clear glass and a stained glass panel near the top depicting the lion, lamb, and child symbol of the denomination. A cornerstone at the east end of the wall reads “Community of Christ 1942.” This appears to be a plastic panel installed over an original gray granite cornerstone, likely necessitated by the change of the church’s name. At the west end, the south wall of the tower holds a single ribbon of inset starburst concrete breeze blocks flanked by smooth concrete blocks. 22. Architectural style/building type: Modern Movement 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The level rectangular survey area (an L-shaped area of the assessor parcel) covers 0.36 acres and is set back from and is slightly elevated above the concrete public sidewalk to the south and east. Within the property, sidewalks at the south end of the building access entrances on the east and west walls; a long sidewalk extends to the education wing from the public sidewalk with a branch accessing the paved parking area at the northwest corner of the property. The area within the L ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 165 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street formed by the original church and the education wing is in grass with shrubs north of the main church entrance and a gravel area adjacent to the 1942 section holding HVAC equipment and a peace pole. Shrubs are also present along the south wall of the education wing between the foundation and sidewalk. At the south end of the church, the area between the building and the public sidewalk is filled with gravel and several shrubs. A sign for the church is located near the building’s southeast corners in an area filled with low-lying shrubs. On the east, the area between the building and the public sidewalk is in grass with shrubs along the foundation. The parking lawn (treelawn) is in grass with several deciduous trees; there is on-street diagonal parking along both streets. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Peace Pole. A “peace pole” (post-1983) stands near the west wall of the original church. The roughly 7’-tall object is six-sided wood cylinder mounted on a metal pole; the pole is surmounted by a wood carving of a dove. Each side contains the message “May peace prevail on earth” in English and five other languages. According to the World Peace organization: “A Peace Pole is an internationally-recognized symbol of the hopes and dreams of the entire human family, standing vigil in silent prayer for peace on earth.” The movement began in Japan in 1955 and the first poles elsewhere were installed in 1983. More than a quarter-million poles are estimated to have been installed. Sign. Near the southeast corner of the church is a freestanding sign with its long axis oriented southeast-northwest. The object is about 3’ tall, 5’ wide, and 2’ deep and is composed of rock-faced tan sandstone. The stepped base is wider than the superstructure, which holds plastic sign panels on its southwest and northeast faces, each displaying: “Community of Christ;” the lion, lamb, and child symbol; a rainbow flag; and an image of an open door flanked by “WCN” (the Welcoming Community Network). The sign has a sandstone slab for a cap. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1941-42 (original church) Source of information: Fort Collins building permits, #6830, November 4, 1941 26. Architect: Magerfleisch and Burnham (1962 wing and possibly 1964 entrance); M. Torgerson and Associates (2004 activity center) Source of information: Fort Collins Coloradoan, June 1, 1962 and RLDS Church building records 27. Builder/Contractor: R.C. Heath Construction Source of information: Building permit and RLDS Church building records 28. Original owner: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Source of information: Fort Collins building permit ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 166 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The roughly L-shaped corner church contains 8,135 square feet, and consists of four episodes of building, extending from 1941-42 to 2004 (see Figure 1 and Sketch Map) and including: an original one-story rectangular brick building (1942); a one-story concrete block education west wing attached to the north and west walls of the original church (1962); a one-story rough-faced concrete block entrance with “tower” attached to the south wall of the original church (1964); and a two-story, stucco and concrete block activity center (2004), abutting the north and east walls of the education wing. Changes (dates unknown) include replacement basement windows and installation of exterior storm windows on the 1942 section. The architectural drawing for the educational wing shows it with a flat roof; it now has a hipped roof (this may be a later change or the concept may have changed prior to construction). The porch at the front southeast corner may have been added circa 1985 (a zoning variance of the setback from Mathews Street was requested in September of that year). 30. Original location ☒ Moved ☐ Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Religion/Religious Facility/Church 32. Intermediate use(s): Religion/Religious Facility/Church 33. Current use(s): Religion/Religious Facility/Church 34. Site type(s): Corner church building 35. Historical background: The property has served as the home of a branch of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (renamed the Community of Christ circa 2000) since completion of the original church building in 1942 to the present day. Over the years the church has been expanded at least three times, as discussed in the construction history and description. The denomination was established in 1860 as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by Joseph Smith III and others, who traced its origins to the 1830 Church of Christ established by Joseph Smith in upstate New York. The new group rejected the leadership of Brigham Young, who led the rival Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the Salt Lake Valley of Utah, and opposed that church’s doctrine of plural marriage. To differentiate itself, the denomination adopted the name Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) in 1872. The RLDS is described as more liberal than its Salt Lake rival, emphasizing its peace and justice ministry, welcoming women to the priesthood in 1984, and extending a “Covenant of Welcome” (as posted on the church’s website): “We welcome ALL to our congregation and uphold the dignity and worth of all persons. We extend the love of Jesus Christ to everyone including those who are marginalized for any reason such as: age, race, gender, education, marital status, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, political viewpoint, immigration status, gender identity, disability, national origin, or religious belief.” ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street The Fort Collins branch of the RLDS was established in 1916 with Wilbur Savage serving as the first pastor. Subsequent pastors through 1966 included George F. Bullard, K. Glenn Brolliar, W.E. Connell, Kevin Gurwell, and Dr. Franklin Graybill. The congregation used a building at Edwards and Paterson in Fort Collins from 1925 until this building was completed in 1942. Construction of the Original Church. A one-and-a-half-story frame house that likely dated to the 1870s stood on the eastern portion of this parcel. Thomas A. Gage was the owner in 1899, when Dr. Emanuel Stuver purchased the property. In 1906 Dr. Stuver also built the building at 216 E. Oak St. as his office and practiced there until his death in 1925 (see the survey form for 5LR15019 for more background on the Stuvers). His wife, Hannah, lived at 216 until 1949. Mrs. Stuver appears to have encountered problems paying taxes on the 220 E. Oak St. property in the 1930s, and B.F. Hottel acquired it in about 1936. The Stuver house was demolished in 1937 for its materials. In June 1940 the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) acquired the property from the estate of B.F. Hottel; Hannah Stuver also provided a quitclaim deed to the church. Under the leadership of longtime pastor Kenneth Glenn Brolliar (1893-1986), the RLDS Church took out a building permit for the original part of this church building in November 1941. The one-story church had cinderblock walls faced with brick and measured 30’ x 48’, with the first story holding an auditorium with seating for 150 persons and a basement with a kitchen and an auditorium for classes and social gatherings. A newspaper article estimated the cost for the building as $8,000, although the building permit was issued for $5,200. Plans for the building do not list an architect. To fund the construction, the congregation collected donations for several years. Construction began in November 1941 with much of the labor donated by members of the church. By March 1942, the building was sufficiently complete as to allow services to be conducted (see Figures 2 through 5). Expansion of the Church in the 1960s. Beginning in the early 1960s the congregation expanded the church with a series of additions. In 1961 the Fort Collins architectural firm of Magerfleisch and Burnham prepared plans for an education wing (see Figure 6). Virgil Magerfleisch (1927-97) was a graduate of Cornell University, who lived in Fort Collins by 1952 and initially worked for a local real estate firm. In 1958 he opened his own architectural practice in the city. Robert H. Burnham received his architectural license in 1959, and they formed the firm of Magerfleisch and Burnham that year. The firm prepared plans for such Fort Collins projects as the Prospector Shopping Center (1960), the Lemay Medical Center (1961), and expansions of St. John’s Lutheran Church (1963) and the First National Bank (1964). In 1968 Magerfleisch bought out Burnham’s interest. Burnham served as the facilities and planning director at Colorado State University. Magerfleisch remained in Fort Collins until 1977, when he became chief architect of Cole Associates in South Bend, Indiana. Groundbreaking for the concrete block educational wing, built onto the north and west sides of the original church, occurred in June 1962 and was completed later that year. W.E. Connell was the pastor of the church and Dr. Franklin Graybill and K.G. Brolliar, assistant pastors. The expansion ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 168 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street cost $38,500, with much of the labor volunteered by the congregation. The new space included six educational rooms, a social room and the junior chapel. South Addition. According to the church, a south entrance addition was constructed in 1964. The work included a foyer, nursery cry room, and a new entrance. This eliminated the original outside stairs and permitted additional seating rows in the rear of the sanctuary. No drawings for this work could be located. The architects may have been Magerfleisch and Burnham. Gymnasium (no longer extant) and Activity Center. In 1968 a gymnasium was erected abutting the north wall of the educational wing. A 2003 snowstorm collapsed the roof and structurally damaged the building. The current activity center (including a gymnasium) with the same footprint as the old gymnasium was completed in 2004. M. Torgerson Architects designed the $550.000 activity center and R.C. Heath Construction was the general contractor; both were Fort Colins firms. David C. Simons was a co-pastor at the time of this project. 36. Sources of information: Larimer County Assessor, real estate information, Fort Collins, Colorado; Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, deeds and ownership transactions, Fort Collins, Colorado; City of Fort Collins, building permits, number 4811, June 10, 1937 (tear down house), number 6830, November 4, 1941 (construction of original church building), number B0403785, August 20, 2004 (gymnasium construction); Larimer County Assessor, 220 E. Oak St., appraisal card with photograph, March 1949, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado; Fort Collins city directories, 1938-90; Fort Collins Express-Courier, July 1, 1937 (Stuver house demolished), November 7, 1941 (RLDS plans new church), November 10, 1941 (building permit issued for church), February 13, 1942 (church nearing completion); Meg Dunn, “The Mormon Trail Through Fort Collins History,” January 6, 2015, www.northerncolorado history.org (accessed November 16, 2021); Fort Collins Coloradoan, June 1, 1962 (education wing groundbreaking), May 15, 1963 (church consecration), October 7, 1966 (fiftieth anniversary of church); Glenn Brolliar (longtime church pastor), oral history interview by Jonathan Anderson, July 18, 1974, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado; Joyce Jordeth, comp., The History of the Ft. Collins, Colorado RLDS Branch (Fort Collins, Colorado: Forest Collins RLDS Church, 1992); Ancestry.com, US Census of Population, manuscript returns, 1870-1940, draft registration records, family trees, and other databases; World Peace, “Peace Pole Project,” www.worldpeace.org (accessed November 21, 2021). VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ☐ No ☒ Date of designation: N/A Designating authority: N/A 38. Applicable Eligibility Criteria: ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street National Register Fort Collins Register ☐ A. ☐ 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; ☐ B. ☐ 2. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ☐ C. ☐ 3. 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. ☐ 4. 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 criteria Needs additional research under standards: ☐ A/1 ☐ B/2 ☐ C/3 ☐ D/4 39. Area(s) of significance: N/A 40. Period of significance: N/A 41. Level of significance: National ☐ State ☐ Local ☐ 42. Statement of significance: The Community of Christ Church (previously the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) erected the nucleus of this large corner church in 1942. The building has been expanded three times, with an education wing (1962), a south entrance addition (ca. 1964), and the current activity center (2004, replacing a 1968 gymnasium). This history represents the evolution and expansion of a small church to meet a growing congregation with new functional and programmatic needs. The additions of the 1960s resulted in a church facility with a compatible scale and overall design coherence. The 2004 activity center overwhelms the historic components of the church and negatively impacts the overall integrity of the building. Therefore the church is assessed as an unlikely candidate for listing in the National Register or as a local landmark. The integration of the 2004 addition directly abutting the older church without a physical break (such as an atrium or hyphen) makes it an unlikely property for listing in the State Register, which can list a portion of a building under certain circumstances. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The addition of the 2004 activity center differs from the earlier portions of the church in terms of height (two-stories vs. one), scale (close to doubling the footprint), and materials (stucco, glass block, and nonhistoric red, split-face concrete block). The activity center footprint is approximately 89 percent of the area of the footprint of the original church (calculated form Google Earth). Other changes include replacement of basement windows and installation of exterior storm windows in the original 1942 component. VII. National and Fort Collins Register Eligibility Assessment 44. Eligibility field assessment: ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street National: Eligible ☐ Not Eligible ☒ Need Data ☐ Fort Collins: Eligible ☐ Not Eligible ☒ Need Data ☐ 45. Is there district potential? Yes ☐ No ☐ Discuss: This project consisted of a survey of two related properties. Insufficient information exists to assess district potential, however the immediate area contains a wide mix of building types and periods of construction. If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing ☐ 46. If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ☐ Noncontributing ☒ VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: 01 through 19 (digital images) Negatives filed at: City of Fort Collins 48. Report title: N/A 49. Date(s): Field surveyed November 8, 2021; form completed November 23, 2021 50. Recorder(s): Thomas H. Simmons and R. Laurie Simmons 51. Organization: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. 52. Address: 3635 W 46th Avenue, Denver, CO 80211 53. Phone number(s): 303-477-7597, frraden@msn.com, www.frhistory.com NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 ,7(0$77$&+0(17    3DFNHW3J Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Historic Photos/Drawings Figure 1. This recent oblique aerial view northwest shows the buildings at 216 and 220 East Oak Streets labeled with the construction dates of their component parts. Oak Street is to the left and Mathews Street to the right. SOURCE: Google Earth. Figure 2. The nearly completed church is shown in this February 1942 view northwest. SOURCE: Fort Collins Coloradoan, February 13, 1942, 3. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 172 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Figure 3. This view north- northwest shows the front of the church in March 1949. SOURCE: Larimer County Assessor, appraisal card photograph, March 1949, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado. Figure 4. This undated (perhaps 1950s) view northwest shows the front and east walls of the church. SOURCE: Meg Dunn, “The Mormon Trail Through Fort Collins History,” January 6, 2015, www.northern coloradohistory.org. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 173 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Figure 5. This 1943 Sanborn fire insurance map shows the original 1942 church building to the east and the former office of Dr. Stuver to the west, occupied as a dwelling at this time by his widow, Hannah. Oak Street extends across the bottom of the image and Mathews Street along the right. SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, Fort Collins, Colorado, fire insurance map, 1926-43, Western History and Genealogy Department, Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado. Figure 6. This 1961 architectural rendering by Magerfleisch and Burnham shows the proposed education wing. Note the flat roof, second story, and two- story component east of the entrance. SOURCE: RLDS church records, Magerfleisch and Burnham, June 14, 1961 (revised January 28, 1962). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 174 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Site Photos and Maps 220 E. Oak Street (the subject of this form) is to the right and 216 E. Oak Street is to the right. North is to the top. Years are the date of each building part. Base map Google Earth, November 8, 2019. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 175 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street USGS Location Map. Surveyed resource is denoted by crosshair symbol. North is to the top and 1”=2,000’. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 176 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Current Photos (Date: November 8, 2021 by T.H. Simmons, photographer) Photograph 1. Overview of the property from the intersection of E. Oak and South Mathews Streets, with 216 E. Oak to the left and 220 E. Oak to the right. View northwest. Photograph 2. Front (left) and south wall. View northeast. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 177 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 3. Front (west) wall with the south wall of the education wing to the left. View east- northeast. Photograph 4. Front (west) wall. View east. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 178 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 5. South and west walls of the education wing (left) with the front (west) wall to the right. View north- northeast. Photograph 6. South wall of the education wing. View north. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 179 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 7. South and west walls of the education wing with the two-story activity center beyond. View northeast. Photograph 8. The west wall of the education wing with the activity center to the left. View southeast. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 180 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 9. The west walls of the education wing (right) and the activity center (left). View east. Photograph 10. The west wall of the activity center with the north wall of the education wing to the right. View east- southeast. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 181 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 11. The north wall of the activity center. View east- southeast. Photograph 12. The north wall of the activity center. View west- southwest. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 182 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 13. The east (front) and north walls of the activity center. View southwest. Photograph 14. The east and south walls of the activity center. View northwest. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 183 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 15. The east wall, with the 1942 section to the right and the 1964 part to the left. View west- northwest. Photograph 16. The activity center is to the right and the 1964 addition to the left with the original 1942 church in the center. View northwest. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 184 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 17. The south wall of the 1964 addition. View north. Photograph 18. The sign for the church at its southeast corner. View west. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 185 Resource Number: 5LR.15019 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 220 E. Oak Street Photograph 19. The “May Peace Prevail on Earth” peace pole that stands west of the 1942 section. View east. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 186 Headline Copy Goes Here Senior Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini East Oak Townhomes: Development Review March 20, 2024 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 HPC Role •Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 3.4.7 •Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (P&Z Commission) regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the land use code. 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 17 Headline Copy Goes HereProject Summary 3 •Attached Single-Family ‒ 3-4 stories ‒ 24 up to 44 ft ‒ 15 townhome units Headline Copy Goes HereSite 4 Historic Area of Adjacency (200ft) 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 1 Headline Copy Goes HereHistoric Survey – 216 & 220 E Oak 5 • Both surveyed in advance of this application, issued December 9, 2021 • Both existing properties Not Eligible • 216 E Oak St, Emanuel Stuver Medical Office • Built 1906 • Stuver helped found the Fort Collins Hospital (301 E. Magnolia St., now apts) • Former residence was on corner where church (220 E Oak) is; demolished in 1937 • Some historical significance, but modifications including stucco between 1949-1969 diminish historic integrity • 220 E. Oak, Reorganized LDS Church • Built 1941 (w additions in 1962, 1964, & 2004) • Some historical significance, but modifications in 2004 disrupt historic integrity Headline Copy Goes Here137 Mathews – McIntyre House – Historic Significance 6 • Limited Historic Survey record • Recon, 2021 • Likely significance? • Standard 2, Persons/Groups •Women’s Suffrage/Lucy McIntyre • Standard 3, Design/Construction •Victorian era architecture w/ Italianate elements • Key features • Brick walls • Italianate-style windows (originally wood, now replaced) • Gable ell form • Distinctive canted bay window 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 1 Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Site Plan 7 Headline Copy Goes HereLUC 3.4.7(E) Item #1, Width & Massing – Staff Analysis 8 • Proposed bldg. – Approx 140ft wide (Mathews) • Staff Analysis • Adequate articulation between units; porch insets & ground floor solid-to-void similar (inverted) as McIntyre • 137 Mathews. – Approx 40ft wide (Mathews) 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 10 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #2, Stepback – Staff Analysis • Increased 10ft setback (existing 5ft is all that is required) in lieu of stepback (stepback not required due to 3-story construction) • Staff Analysis • Exceeded by 10ft setback Headline Copy Goes Here 10 LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #3, Durable Materials – Staff Analysis • Staff analysis: • Complies through use of brick, metal paneling, and cement fiber siding 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 11 Headline Copy Goes Here 11 LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #4, Dominant Materials – Staff Analysis • Staff analysis: • Could be improved with use of brick above first floor but intent of code requirement met; Complies • If HPC disagrees with staff, could entertain Modification of Standards based on “as good or better than” considering at least 2 requirements are exceeded (Stepbacks/visibility and Fenestration) Headline Copy Goes Here 12 LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #5, Windows/Fenestration – Staff Analysis • Staff Analysis • Only 1 provision needs met; Appears exceeded • Appears all 3 are met to varying degrees •Window proportion (height to width) •Window pattern •Solid-to-void pattern may be easiest to meet. 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 12 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #6, Horizontal Alignment – Staff Analysis • Staff Analysis • Complies Headline Copy Goes Here 14 LUC 3.4.7(E) Item #7, Visibility – Staff Analysis • Primary perspective of concern is from Mathews St. itself; New 10ft setback on N property line would reveal southwall of McIntyre House that is currently obscured by church addition • Staff Analysis • Complies 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 13 Headline Copy Goes Here 15 HPC Role •Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 3.4.7 •Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (P&Z Commission) regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the land use code. Headline Copy Goes Here 15 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHME1T 4 Packet Pg. 14