Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/17/2024 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Chris Conway And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Jeff Gaines Aaron Hull Staff Liaison: Tom Wilson Maren Bzdek David Woodlee Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting April 17, 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 MARCH 20, 2024 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 20, 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 • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). 3. PROPOSED POLICY ADOPTION: EXPANDED ROOFTOP SOLAR OPTIONS FOR PROJECTS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS DESCRIPTION: Potential adoption of a revised rooftop solar policy for projects on historic buildings that would expand the allowable installation types and locations, and reduce the importance of visibility when considering solar installations. STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner 4. 1605 SHEELY DR. (MOYER HOUSE) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final Landmark design review of a proposed solar panel array for the City Landmark at 1605 Sheely Dr., the Moyer House. The owner has waived conceptual Landmark design review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Sarah Fonte & Steven Fonte STAFF: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 3DFNHW3J Page 4 5. 2601 S. COLLEGE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the commercial property at 2601 South College Avenue. On October 17, 2023, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property was Landmark-eligible based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, Landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: DRACOL, LLC STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at this time. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY APRIL 17, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20, 2024 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 20, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1.HPC March 20, 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 March 20, 2024 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose, David Woodlee ABSENT: Tom Wilson STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Jones stated there were no changes to the published agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J Page 2 • 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 20, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. SF DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 700 E ELIZABETH The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 700 E Elizabeth. Commissioner Carlock asked if the entire house is planned for demolition. Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, replied the plan is to demolish the entire residence as shown in the submitted building permit plans. Vice Chair Gibson? made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, to approve the consent agenda for the March 20, 2024 meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, 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 survey for the Frank T. Ulrich property at 309 Scott Avenue, which found the property to be both landmark eligible and National Register of Historic Places eligible, and a training provided by Rebecca Shields, Historic Survey Specialist, in conjunction with Historic Larimer County, that entailed interactive information on historic significance and integrity. Ms. Jones also provided a reminder about the Historic Preservation newsletter. 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 ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J Page 3 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 Staff Presentation Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager, stated this item is meant to provide notice to the Commission of the plans to stabilize and repair the Johnson Barn, which is a contributing structure of the City landmark on East Drake Road, following the order to demolish the structure which was issued on March 7, 2024, because the barn sustained severe damage during high winds the week of February26, 2024, and the subsequent evaluation by a structural engineer 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. Ms. Bzdek noted the demolition 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, and the applicant is pursuing stabilization, repair, and reconstruction as the immediate course of action. Additionally, Ms. Bzdek noted 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. Ms. Bzdek showed photos of the property and noted the barn is a City landmark which was designated in 2013 in recognition of its architectural and historical significance for its contributions to our community’s agricultural history, it’s association with early farming families, as a representation of vernacular farmhouses, and a rare local example of a bank barn built into grade. Ms. Bzdek showed photos of the recent wind damage to the barn and noted the process for stabilization is being driven by guidance from the structural engineer that was originally consulted. Ms. Bzdek discussed the original plans for adaptive reuse of the barn and other farmstead buildings and outlined the requests staff received for additional information, including questions as to what measures, if any, has the property owner taken to conform to maintenance provisions since the landmarking of the property over a decade ago, to provide a description of the stabilization work to date, information as to the timeline for future reconstruction and adaptive reuse for the farmstead, and information regarding the condition of the two residences on the property and plans to ensure their maintenance and stability. Owner Presentation Ian Shuff, alm2s Architects, showed renderings of the plans for adaptive reuse of the barn and showed photos of the current state of the site, including the wind damage. He stated stabilization has occurred and braces have been placed on all the walls and roof elements. Additionally, he noted reconstruction drawings are being completed as quickly as possible with a target of late next week to submit for permits. Mr. Shuff provided detailed information on the reconstruction plans and stated the goal is to make the structure weather tight. He noted much of the work is being done in preparation for the adaptive reuse. Regarding the two farmhouses on the site, Mr. Shuff stated some holes were found in the roofs which have since been repaired by Bellissimo Construction. Gino Campana, property owner, thanked the Commission and staff for their work. He commented on the adaptive reuse at the Jessup Farm property and stated there are plans to use the Johson barn in the future, but acknowledged adaptive reuse is not always a financially lucrative venture and stated the market continues to change. He stated the goal of this reconstruction is to get to an interim, weather- proof, and vandal-proof state and he commented on the emergency repair work that likely salvaged the building. Public Input Meg Dunn commended the Jessup Farm adaptive reuse. She noted there are emergency grants available through History Colorado and immediate needs grants through Larimer County. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 Page 4 Commission Questions/Discussion Commissioner Nelsen asked about the possibility of a lack of maintenance. Mr. Shuff replied the barn’s condition in 2012 was not largely different in terms of the amount of missing roofing; however, water intrusion and wind impacts have occurred. Additionally, he stated there have been varying opinions on whether to let the building breath in its current condition and not trap moisture; however, the approach moving forward with the reconstruction is to make the building weather- and water-tight. Mr. Campana provided additional detail on the failure of some horizontal braces. He stated maintenance inspections with the City occurred prior to this. He commented on restoration aspects that will be needed for the adaptive reuse to meet the Energy Code. Commissioner Nelsen asked if the City needs to expedite the review process to get the stabilization work done. Mr. Campana replied the process is being expedited, though there could be some areas under which the Chief Building Official could be given more leeway in allowing an emergency repair to take place. Commissioner Nelsen asked Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official, if he has any thoughts on the stabilization efforts thus far. Mr. Coldiron replied the improvements are moving in a positive direction and it was important to consider the life safety component as the number one priority, which is why it was important to establish two separate permits, one to remove the imminently dangerous designation and one for reconstruction to get the building to a structurally secure and weather-proof state. He stated both permits were directed to be expedited as much as possible given the unique situation. Chair Rose stated the hope would be that the proposal being made for the barn roof may also apply to the other two buildings given this is a multiple-building landmark. He noted the first part of a building to fail is the roof, and when the roof begins to deteriorate, other parts of the building then begin to fail. He questioned if there are roofing strategies to be considered for the other two buildings. Mr. Shuff replied they have not discussed those options but noted the other two roofs are primarily intact. Mr. Campana stated the other roofs do have shingles and issues are being addressed as they come up. He noted the houses are much newer than the barn. Chair Rose stated it would not take much rolled roofing for the houses to help keep the interiors from deteriorating and suggested it may be worth the investment to help keep those interiors intact. Mr. Campana stated none of the many grants and tax credits for which he applied for the Jessup Farm project were successful. He stated adaptive reuse does not get the same attention as preservation of historic structures. Commissioner Nelsen asked if there are plans for material salvage for the materials that cannot be reused. Mr. Campana replied there are some rotten materials, but anything that can be deconstructed and reused will be. Commissioner Nelsen commended the assembled team. Chair Rose concurred and expressed gratitude to the team for its hard work to salvage the barn. 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 (**Secretary’s Note: Commissioner Nelsen withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 Page 5 Staff Presentation Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated the role of the Commission is to pass a resolution providing a recommendation to the project decision maker, which in this case is the Planning and Zoning Commission, regarding whether the project meets the Cultural Resource Section of the Land Use Code, 3.4.7. He noted the Commission considered a conceptual review of this project at its October 2023 meeting. Mr. Bertolini outlined the proposed project of 15 3- and 4-story townhome units and discussed the property and historic area of adjacency. He stated the applicant has been advised to primarily consider the historic resources that directly abut the site, which in this case is 137 Mathews, the former McIntyre House. Mr. Bertolini noted there are two buildings on the development site that would be demolished as part of the project, both of which received official historic survey findings in 2021 of ineligibility. Mr. Bertolini discussed the historic significance of the McIntyre House, stating staff is fairly certain it would be eligible under standards 2 and 3, standard 2 for association with the Women’s Suffrage Movement in Colorado and Fort Collins. He discussed the key features of the home that are important for design compatibility, including the red brick walls, Italianate-style windows, and distinctive canted bay window. Mr. Bertolini discussed the proposed site plan, particularly the setback on the north property line which would provide a full ten feet between the buildings. He reviewed the compatibility requirements that are part of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 noting all seven of the requirements do need to be met when a historic resource directly abuts the development site. The first requirement for similar width and massing was found by staff to be met when looking at each townhome unit on its own. The second requirement relates to a step back at or one story above the historic resource, and staff considers this to be exceeded based on having a full ten-foot step back from the historic resource which provides it more visibility than exists now. The third requirement relates to the use of durable materials which is met with the proposal. The fourth requirement relates to using the dominant material on the historic resource to influence the primary materials on the new construction, and staff noted this could be improved by the use of brick above the first floor, though staff does find the requirement to be met with the use of brick on the first floor. The fifth requirement relates to having some compatibility on the windows or fenestration between the historic building and new construction, and in this case, staff finds the requirement met with similar window proportions, patterns, and pairings. The sixth requirement relates to horizontal or vertical alignment between the new construction and features on the historic building, and in this case that alignment is being met by the inset porch on the first floor. The final requirement relates to visibility of the historic structure, and in this case, visibility is actually being gained. Mr. Bertolini stated the overall recommendation from staff is that the Code requirements appear to be met. Applicant Presentation Laurie Davis, Davis Davis Architects, commented on the desire to construct the best buildings possible from both a design and performance perspective. She also discussed her focus on net zero energy construction and commented on the importance of the relationship between history and the future. Ms. Davis stated this project will be an emissions-free all electric building solely powered from renewable sources and stated the project will help meet the City’s 15-minute city goals. Ms. Davis outlined the plan for deconstruction of the existing buildings which will aim to divert, recycle, and reuse as much of the building materials as possible. She noted discussions have occurred with the owners of the McIntyre House and they have asked for two site trees to be preserved, which will occur. Ms. Davis discussed the proposed building elevations and materials and also discussed the ways in which the building relates to the Zoric Cleaners building. Ms. Davis outlined the standards in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 and discussed the ways in which the project meets the requirements, including the use of similar doors and windows, massing, step backs, materials, and the visibility of the historic resource. She further detailed the proposed materials. Public Input ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 Page 6 Meg Dunn asked about the building on the other side of the alley from Zoric Cleaners and questioned the parking situation. Ms. Davis replied the sister project to this requested and received a modification for parking that allowed for a shared electric car on site that counted for five parking spaces. Additionally, four parking spaces are reserved in the Old Town garage. She stated this project does have garages for all units except three, and those will receive parking garage spaces. Robert Davis, Davis Davis Architects, noted the garages have been designed to be converted to another use. Mr. Bertolini stated the building referenced by Ms. Dunn was determined to not have enough historic integrity to make it landmark eligible. Commission Questions/Discussion Commissioner Carlock commended the applicant for doing so much in the styling of the building to make it compatible with the McIntyre House and the neighborhood. Commissioner Carlock made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Commission, 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. Commissioner Woodlee seconded the motion. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson, Woodlee and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Rose thanked Commissioner Nelsen for her contributions to the Commission. Commissioner Nelsen commended the staff. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 17, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING MARCH 7 TO APRIL 3) 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. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 Education & Outreach Activities Part of the mission of the Historic Preservation Services division is to educate the public about local, place- based history, historic preservation, and preservation best practices. Below are highlights from the last month in this area. Program Title Sponsor-Audience- Partner Description # of Attendees Date of Event/Activity Local Black History Profiles: Jennie Goodall and Mattie Lyle Cargill Fort Collins Black history month presentation to employees 25 2/19/2024 Civil Rights History Walking Tour CSU Green and Gold Class (Professor Amy Young) Walking tour of sites related to civil rights history in Fort Collins in the Old Town area About 20 3/19/2024 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 215 E. Elizabeth St. (Fred Weitzel House) In-kind reroofing. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved March 11, 2024 419 Mathews St. (H.W. Schroeder Property) Gable-end decoration based on historic photograph. City Landmark and Historic Property on State and National Registers. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved March 14, 2024 123 N. College Ave. (Opera House Block) Reroofing. Property on State/National Register of Historic Places. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV and Land Use Code Sec. 3.4.7. Approved March 20, 2024 211-213 Jefferson St. (Jefferson Block) Mural on stucco side of building. Contributing property to Old Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved March 20, 2024 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 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. Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized 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 None Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3) Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower’s installation. These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers. This report section will summarize activities in this area. Within this period, staff processed a total of 0 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 0 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 14 Headline Copy Goes Here April 17, 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 Design Review Highlight 211-217 Jefferson St. (Jefferson Block, Old Town Historic District) Stucco repair and mural on NW side of building (near Jefferson & Pine). Fort Collins Mural Project is working with the Fort Collins Creative District, building owners, 12 Fort Collins-based artists, and local volunteers for this project. 1 2 ,TE0 2, ATTACH0ENT 1 3acket 3g. 1 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Education/Outreach Highlight Civil Rights History Tour Yani Jones provided a walking tour of sites related to Fort Collins civil rights history in the Old Town area for a class of CSU students in mid-March. Learn more about the history of civil rights in Fort Collins by reading the related historic context project, available at the QR code to the right, or at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/civilrights! 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 2, ATTACH0ENT 1 3acket 3g. 1 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 17, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME PROPOSED POLICY ADOPTION: EXPANDED ROOFTOP SOLAR OPTIONS FOR PROJECTS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Potential adoption of a revised rooftop solar policy for projects on historic buildings that would expand the allowable installation types and locations, and reduce the importance of visibility when considering solar installations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the policy COMMISSION’S ROLE: City staff are consulting with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on this revised policy and seeking adoption via motion by the HPC. The primary reason for seeking an HPC motion adopting the policy is due to the proposed additional flexibility beyond what the federal guidelines adopted by the City currently advise, and because the HPC retains authority to approve or deny modifications to designated historic properties falling under its jurisdiction as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 14. Additionally, the HPC’s 2024 work plan has identified as a priority methods for improving the energy performance of historic buildings. In this case, staff is seeking flexibility both in City policy, and it what City staff may approve without referring to the HPC, although reporting to the HPC via the Staff Activity Report would continue as with all project reviews on historic properties. BACKGROUND: As noted in the policy document being considered for adoption, the City of Fort Collins (the City) prioritizes climate action and climate resiliency through its adopted plans and policies, including the Our Climate Future plan adopted by City Council in 2021 and consistently current adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) along with other building codes. In relation to historic and cultural resources, the City recognizes that: 1. Climate change represents an existential threat to cultural resources across the globe, including here in Fort Collins, and; Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 2. Renewable energy sources are a critical component of reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses that cause climate change, and; 3. Renewable energy technologies such as solar collection can typically be incorporated into historic properties without causing harm to the cultural resources on those properties. The City has adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the basis for approving or denying projects on properties that qualify as historic resources under Municipal Code 14-3 “Historic resources” (Adopted under Municipal Code 14-53). The National Park Service has issued guidance under the Rehabilitation treatment method related to installing solar technology on historic buildings. That documentation includes: - Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 52: “Incorporating Solar Panels in a Rehabilitation Project,” https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-52-incorporating-solar-panels.pdf - “Solar Panels on Historic Properties,” https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/solar-panels-on-historic- properties.htm The City has also adopted rigorous energy performance standards for both new and existing buildings as part of the City’s climate action plan, Our Climate Future, adopted by City Council on March 16, 2021, and adoption of current iterations of the IECC. Among the supporting actions are various tools, programs, and regulations to support an expansion of solar energy collection on private property. In October 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission held a retreat to identify core initiatives that would increase relevance of the Commission’s work to Council and community priorities in multiple areas. As a result, the 2023 and 2024 work plans identify “strengthen connection to climate resilience work” as one of four primary initiatives. Among other ideas, the work plan specifically calls for methods for maintaining and improving ongoing energy performance of historic buildings. Why the Request? Context on Climate Action & Historic Resources This request to expand the circumstances in which rooftop solar can be approved on historic resources, and to de-center visibility of solar technology as a priority in project approvals for historic properties, is being submitted to the HPC for approval based on recent evolutions in best practices in historic preservation. While the federal guidelines from the National Park Service have not yet been updated, several local governments, sustainability advocates in historic preservation, and other government agencies that implement federal historic preservation policy, have noted the need for greater flexibility for historic properties where Rehabilitation is the appropriate/selected treatment under the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In general, those preservation partners have noted the following: 1. Preserving historic buildings is, by itself, a significant contribution to climate action by reusing existing buildings, avoiding the need to extract, process, transport, and assemble new building materials, this does not excuse the need to make our existing buildings more energy efficient. All buildings have both embodied energy (from their construction) and operational energy (expended over the life of the building). This policy would seek to help reduce the operational energy consumption of historic buildings in Fort Collins; 2. Providing greater flexibility for on-site power generation in historic buildings selected for Rehabilitation is an important factor in meeting local, state, federal, and global climate action goals by promoting more energy/carbon offsets and energy neutral buildings; 3. Aesthetic concerns related to visibility of solar panels often do not have as significant of an effect on historic character as previously assumed; Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 4. Failure to allow sustainable power generation on historic buildings can represent a barrier to equity goals, in part, because the negative effects of climate change have been, are, and are likely to continue to affect communities with a higher percentage of historically-marginalized people, many of whom live in historically significant sections of our communities. Using existing policy documents and design standards/guidelines from other municipalities, mostly notably the local governments of Lincoln, Nebraska, Portland, Oregon, and Montgomery County, Maryland, and consulting with other City staff who implement energy conservation policy in Fort Collins, the City’s Preservation staff have developed the proposed new policy. It seeks to continue to preserve key historic features of historic properties, while reducing the role of visibility in approving solar projects on historic buildings. While the policy still privileges and encourages projects that meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards or Rehabilitation (the Standards), it includes specific provisions that extend beyond the guidelines that accompany the Standards. Some key elements that extend beyond the specific federal guidance include: 1. Distinguishing Between Pre- and Post-1950 Properties – Building technologies and historic character changed dramatically after the Second World War, especially by about 1950. In these cases, roofing types and technologies, and what became available solar technology by the 1970s, makes the effects of solar on historic character for buildings from this era much less of a concern. The policy generally allows for visible, flush-mounted solar installations of all kinds (photovoltaic, tiles, etc.), including on street-facing roof slopes, on properties dating after 1950. 2. Allowing for Visible, Street-facing Solar Panels – Subject to certain conditions, including on properties built prior to 1950, the policy includes a process for approving visible solar panels on street-facing elevations, provided the owner/applicant can demonstrate that preservation-preferred alternatives are not viable. 3. Allowing for Sloped Panels on Flat Roof Types – Subject to certain conditions, including increased setbacks related to the increased slope of the solar panels, the policy allows solar panels to be visible above a historic wall parapet, or be installed with a slope up to five (5) feet above the roof height without any screening. Since the HPC is granted decision-making authority over exterior projects on designated City Landmarks, the policy is being routed to the HPC for approval. By establishing a clear process for approval by City staff, the proposed policy also attempts to provide a clear, objective, and responsive process for approving solar installations on historic buildings. If adopted as written, staff would continue to refer projects that don’t meet the requirements of the proposed policy to the HPC for a decision, and may refer potentially controversial items to the HPC even if they are consistent with the policy. However, unless the HPC would prefer to retain decision- making authority over certain scenarios, this proposed policy would generally remove solar project approvals on historic resources from the HPC’s docket. More Information This staff request, including the policy memorandum for adoption, and this staff report, referenced several existing policies and documents, including: - Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Report and Recommendations on the Application and Interpretation of Federal Historic Preservation Standards, March 1, 2024, https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/StandardsReportWithAppendices.pdf, accessed March 27, 2024. - City of Lincoln, NE, “Historic Preservation Design Guidelines – Mechanical, Utility, Energy Generation,” https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/City/Departments/Planning-Department/Long-Range-Planning/Historic- Preservation/Design-Guidelines/Mechanical-Utility-Energy-Generation, accessed March 27, 2024. Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 - City of Portland (OR), “Title 33, Planning and Zoning Code, Section 33.445, Historic Resource Overlay Zone,” https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/code/445-historic.pdf, accessed March 27, 2024. - Montgomery County (MD), “Policy Guidance #20-01: Solar Technology,” Summer 2021, https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Solar-Panel-Interactive.pdf, accessed March 27, 2024. o Note: Other local standards and guidelines were also consulted, including the City & County of Denver (CO) and City of Minneapolis (MN), and Montgomery County (MD). The three linked above were a primary reference point for the recommended policy for adoption for the City of Fort Collins as they specifically address scenarios where street-facing solar panels can be approved in those jurisdictions. SAMPLE MOTIONS Sample Motion for Adoption: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the proposed policy regarding installation of solar technology on historic resources in Fort Collins, finding that the proposed policy remains reasonably consistent with the intent of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, supports the City’s historic preservation policies and priorities in Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2, and supports the City’s broader sustainability and climate action goals.” 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 Adoption w/ Modifications: adopt the proposed policy regarding installation of solar technology on historic resources in Fort Collins, finding that the proposed policy remains reasonably consistent with the intent of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, supports the City’s historic preservation policies and priorities in Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2, and supports the City’s broader sustainability and climate action goals, subject to the following modifications: - [list modifications to the document] 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, specifically: [insert information needs] ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRAFT Policy Memorandum for Solar Technology on Historic Buildings 2. Public Comment 3. NPS ITS Bulletin 52 – Incorporating Solar Panels 4. NPS Rehabilitation Guidance – Solar Panels 5. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 20 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation 1 Historic Preservation Services MEMORANDUM Date: April 17, 2024 To: Interested Parties Through: Paul Sizemore, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Manager, Historic Preservation Services From: Historic Preservation Commission Subject: Administrative Interpretation of Section 14-53 of the Municipal Code regarding the installation of solar technology on historic resources. BOTTOM LINE This adopted policy expands the circumstances in which owners of designated historic properties can install solar technology when subject to the City of Fort Collins project review requirements in Municipal Code 14-53, pertaining to City Landmarks or other properties that qualify as an “historic resource” as defined in Municipal Code 14-3. While maintaining a grounding in existing guidance from the federal government regarding the installation of solar technology on historic resources, it also seeks to better balance the City’s aggressive climate action goals with historic preservation concerns in a manner that does not damage or detract from the character of the community’s important historic places. BACKGROUND The City of Fort Collins (the City) prioritizes climate action and climate resiliency through its adopted plans and policies, including the Our Climate Future plan adopted by City Council in 2021 and consistently current adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). In relation to historic and cultural resources, the City recognizes that: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 2 1. Climate change represents an existential threat to cultural resources across the globe, including here in Fort Collins, and; 2. Renewable energy sources are a critical component of reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses that cause climate change, and; 3. Renewable energy technologies such as solar collection can typically be incorporated into historic properties without causing harm to the cultural resources on those properties. The City has adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the basis for approving or denying projects on properties that qualify as historic resources under Municipal Code 14-3 “Historic resources” (Adopted under Municipal Code 14-53). The National Park Service has issued guidance under the Rehabilitation treatment method related to installing solar technology on historic buildings. That documentation includes: - Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 52: “Incorporating Solar Panels in a Rehabilitation Project,” https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-52-incorporating-solar-panels.pdf - “Solar Panels on Historic Properties,” https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/solar-panels-on- historic-properties.htm The City has also adopted rigorous energy performance standards for both new and existing buildings as part of the City’s climate action plan, Our Climate Future, adopted by City Council on March 16, 2021, and adoption of current iterations of the IECC. Among the supporting actions are various tools, programs, and regulations to support an expansion of solar energy collection on private property. In October 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted a climate-related work plan initiative that remains in effect in the 2024 work plan. The initiative called for strengthening the connection of preservation work to the community’s climate resilience work, with recognition that a focus on methods for maintaining and improving ongoing energy performance of historic buildings would be necessary. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 3 POLICY STATEMENT As a result of the need for aggressive climate action to mitigate threats to cultural resources, and evolving understandings on the importance of historic integrity as traditionally interpreted, the City of Fort Collins makes the following statements related to solar installations on historic resources: 1. Standards: The federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards), and supporting guidelines for solar technology, will remain a consideration for decision-making on historic resources in city limits or owned by the City of Fort Collins, consistent with Municipal Code 14-53. This policy refers only to historic properties and projects for which Rehabilitation has been selected as the primary treatment method and over which the City of Fort Collins has review authority under its Municipal and Land Use Codes. In cases where Preservation, Restoration, or Reconstruction are the appropriate/selected treatment method for an historic property, solar technology applied to contributing resources on the property will generally remain inappropriate and unlikely to be approved. 2. Staff vs. HPC Review: In general, solar installations that comply with this policy will be reviewed by staff and reported to the HPC via the Staff Activity Report as indicated under each provision below. Staff may still refer solar installations to the HPC for approval in cases where this policy is not clearly met, or other cases consistent with current practice in referring project reviews to the HPC. 3. Character-Defining Features – Character-defining features are those physical features of an historic property that must be present to convey whatever historical or architectural importance has been identified for the property. This will be identified by City staff and may be identified in the property’s historic survey or historic designation nomination form. In relation to solar, this may include landscape elements such as historic trees. In general, the removal of historic trees to improve solar collection potential will not be ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 4 approved under this policy due to both the historic and environmental value of a mature urban forest. 4. Sloped Roof Solar Installations - Photovoltaic: In general, for sloped roofs, flush- mounted rooftop photovoltaic solar panels will be allowed on all non-street-facing roof slopes of historic buildings or structures, provided that any character-defining features of the property are not removed, damaged, or obscured by such an installation. a. To be approved administratively by City staff, installations on sloped roofs must: i. Be on a non-street-facing elevation of a primary building (rear or non- street-facing side) or on an accessory structure; and ii. Be flush-mounted, with the plane of the solar collection system flush with the roof surface; and iii. Be no more than eight (8) inches from the surface of the roof and set back at least eight (8) inches from the roof edge and ridgeline. b. Street-Facing Roof Slopes – Properties Built Before 1950: In cases where an historic property was constructed prior to 1950, and ideal roof slopes for solar collection face to the street (i.e., a property on the north side of a street with a primary roof slope facing south), solar panels facing public streets may be permitted if it is demonstrated via a solar collection analysis that the property has no viable alternative for solar collection other than the street-facing slope. Such an analysis should demonstrate that preservation-preferred alternatives such as location on an accessory structure, or less visible roof slope on the primary structure, cannot provide sufficient energy to meet current IECC and Solar Tax Credit guidelines for minimum system sizes for new construction of that building type (commercial vs. residential). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 5 Historic Residential (Single-family, Duplex, etc.) - Dwelling of 2000ft2 or less: Allow at least 150ft2 of solar panels on roof, minus code- required exemptions. - Dwelling of more than 2000ft2: Allow at least 300ft2 of solar panels on roof, minus code- required exemptions - Character-defining features remain protected. Historic Commercial (commercial, office, apartments, houses of worship, etc.) - Allow at least 40% roof coverage, minus code- required exemptions. - Character-defining features remain protected. Approval of visible solar installations in these cases would remain subject to the condition that any character-defining features of the property are not removed, damaged, or obscured by such an installation. For example, in rare cases where the roofing material itself is a character-defining feature (typically wood shingle or clay tile), solar may not be an appropriate treatment to overlay that slope, at least on publicly-visible roof slopes. Approval that meets the guidelines in this provision will generally be approved administratively by City staff. c. Street-Facing Roof Slopes – Properties Built 1950 or later: In cases where an historic property was constructed after 1950, and ideal roof slopes for solar collection face to the street (i.e., a property on the north side of a street with a primary roof slope facing south), flush-mounted solar panels facing public streets are permitted and will generally be approved administratively by City staff. Approval of visible solar collection systems in these cases would remain subject to the following conditions: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 6 i. Any character-defining features of the property are not removed, damaged, or obscured by such an installation. ii. Be flush-mounted, with the plane of the solar collection system flush with the roof surface; and iii. Be no more than eight (8) inches from the surface of the roof and set back at least eight (8) inches from the roof edge and ridgeline. 5. Flat, Mansard, and Parapeted Roofs: In general, for flat roofs, with or without a parapet, or for flat portions of mansard roofs, solar installations will be allowed even if visible, provided that: a. When solar systems are mounted flush with (or parallel to) the flat roof slope, installations: i. Must be set back from the roof edge or mansard hip by at least eight (8) inches and extend no more than eight (8) inches above the roof; and ii. Will not be required to provide any screening via a parapet, etc. b. When rooftop solar is not flush-mounted, installations: i. Will extend no more than five (5) feet above the top of the highest point of the roof (regardless of any parapet); and ii. Setting the solar energy system back from the roof edges facing the street two (2) feet for each foot of solar energy system height above the roof surface or a parapet, whichever is higher. Flush mounting and/or screening behind an existing parapet (if present) remains encouraged in all contexts. Solar installations on flat-roofed buildings meeting this policy can be approved administratively by City staff. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 7 6. Solar Tiles: In general, solar roof tiles (i.e., solar collection devices that mimic roof shingles) will be permitted on historic resources constructed in 1950 or later as acceptable partial or complete substitute material for asphalt shingle roofing (or similar historic roofing material such as rolled asphalt, or non-historic roofing materials such as stone-coated metal, synthetic, etc.) and can be approved administratively by City staff if consistent with this policy provision. a. Solar tiles may also be approved on properties dating from prior to 1950 as a partial substitute on rear or side (non-street-facing) elevations. b. Approval of solar tiles on pre-1950 buildings on street-facing elevations will be subject to the approval process outlined in item 4a above, but will generally be approved administratively by City staff. c. It should be noted that available solar tile products on the market at the time of this policy document’s drafting typically only produce approximately 30% of the power of equivalently-sized photovoltaic systems. 7. Batteries: Solar installations will often be coupled with household/commercial battery installations. In general, these will be acceptable when placed on the interior (garage, etc.) where Historic Preservation review does not apply. A primary concern for exterior installations is the potential for batteries flush-mounted over brick, wood, or stucco siding to damage, or create damaging conditions for, historic material (i.e., trapping moisture, creating condensation, etc.). In general, exterior-mounted batteries should be located on non-historic building elevations (i.e., on a non-historic addition, non-historic structure, etc.) and can be approved by City staff in those circumstances. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 8 AVAILABLE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES In most cases, solar installations on historic properties (both solar collection and batteries) will not qualify for historic preservation incentives such as the Colorado Historic Tax Credit or the Federal Historic Tax Credit. However, property owners may be interested in installing solar as part of a rehabilitation project for which they are seeking support from those historic tax credit programs. In that event, solar installations will be required to meet the preservation standards for those programs, and may be subject to greater restrictions than are outlined in this City policy memo. Please consult with City Historic Preservation staff and/or the staff of those state/federal programs before beginning a project if intending to leverage these preservation incentives at the same time as a solar installation. The City of Fort Collins also offers several incentives through Utilities for all property owners, including those with historic properties. Those include solar and battery storage rebates for residential and commercial properties. For more information, see the links below: - Solar & Battery Storage Rebates (see the Incentives tab): https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/renewables/solar-rebates/ - Residential Battery Storage Program: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential-battery- storage-program ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 From:Carol Cochran To:Historic Preservation Cc:Mr. Timothy Cochran Subject:[EXTERNAL] Solar panel restriction revisions for historic properties in Fort Collins Date:Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:05:28 AM For inclusion in the HPC read-before packet for April 17 meeting. To Whom it May Concern: We would like to add our voices to those of citizens asking the Historic Preservation Commission to ease restrictions on the addition of solar panels to historically designated properties. We feel there is no more wonderful expression of how Fort Collins progresses while preserving the past than by marrying the values of honoring history and environmental sustainability efforts. Panels on the most appropriate roofs (meaning: sunniest) on historic homes, *particularly* those that are visible to passers-by, send an important (and awesome) message about the role historic buildings can continue to play in a forward-thinking community. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Carol & Tim Cochran 630 Peterson Street (Addie R. Diebolt House) Fort Collins ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ITS Interpreting UMBER The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for RehabilitationN 52 Issue: Enhancing the energy efficiency of a historic building is important. To that end, it is often possible to install features such as solar panels and photovoltaic cells provided they are installed in a sensitive manner. Because these elements must be positioned to take advantage of unobstructed sunlight, the roof of a historic structure is an obvious location. The roofline of a historic building is often a distinctive feature. Therefore, the installation of solar panels should conform to guidance regarding rooftop additions, i.e. that they be minimally visible, to avoid altering the historic character of the building. Historic buildings with a flat roof or parapet can usually accommodate solar panels because the panels will be hidden, while properties with a hipped or gabled roof are generally not good candidates for a rooftop solar installation. Solar panels on historic buildings should not be visible from the public right of way such as nearby streets, sidewalks or other public spaces. In circumstances where solar collectors are not placed on rooftops, they should only be positioned in limited or no-visibility locations in secondary areas of the property. Vegetation or a compatible screen may also be an option to further reduce the impact of these features on a historic property. For some historic buildings, it may not be possible to incorporate solar panels and meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Application 1 (Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this mid-nineteenth century mill incorporated a large, roof- mounted photovoltaic installation. Although the historic building does not have a parapet wall at the roofline, the height of the building and the arrangement of the panels render the entire installation invisible from the ground. It is important to note that the panels are placed horizontally. Had the panels been installed with a vertical tilt, the angle required to maximize efficiency would have caused the panels to extend significantly higher above the roof. Simply changing the direction in which the panels are tilted can affect their visibility and reduce their impact on the character of the historic property. Solar panels installed on the flat roof. Because of the size of this historic mill, a large array of solar panels could be installed on the flat roof without being seen from the ground. Subject: Incorporating Solar Panels in a Rehabilitation Project Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 9. Compatible Additions/Exterior Alterations By placing the panels horizontally, the overall height of the installation and its visibility is reduced. solar panels ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 30 These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Jenny Parker, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service Application 3 (Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this historic post office incorporated solar panels as dual-function features: generation of electricity and shading for south-facing windows. In this instance, the southern elevation of the building is also a secondary elevation with limited visibility from the public right of way. Additionally, because this area of the building is immediately next to the post office’s loading dock, it has a more utilitarian character than the primary facades and, therefore, can better accommodate solar panels. Because the panels are in a suitable location at the rear of the property and are appropriately sized to serve as awnings, they do not affect the overall historic character of the property. Additionally, a screen of tall plantings shields the solar panels from view from the front of the building, further limiting their visibility. August 2009, ITS Number 52 Application 2 (Incompatible treatment): During the rehabilitation of this late-nineteenth century commercial building, a conspicuous rooftop monitor with prominent solar panels and skylights was constructed on the one-story structure. The size and finish of this rooftop addition are incompatible with the historic character of the building. However, the building could have accommodated both skylights and solar panels if they had been installed differently. An alternative design that could have met the Standards would have included low-profile skylights and solar panels concealed behind the parapet wall. Above: Shown from the rear of the property, these solar panels serve a secondary function as awnings to shade south-facing windows. Because of their location at the back of the building immediately adjacent to a loading dock, the installation of these panels does not affect the historic character of the property. Left: The solar panels are not visible from the front of the building. Additionally, even if the vegetation were removed, the installation would only be minimally visible along an alley at the rear of a secondary side elevation. The addition of a large rooftop monitor featuring skylights on the front slope and solar panels on the rear slope is not compatible with the historic character of this small, one-story commercial building. Tall plantings shield solar panels from view from the front of the building. ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 31 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 32 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 33 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 35 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 36 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 37 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 38 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 39 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 43 Headline Copy Goes Here Senior Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini Proposed Policy Adoption: Expanded Rooftop Solar Options for Projects on Historic Buildings April 17, 2024 Headline Copy Goes HereWhy the Proposed Modification to Policy? 2 • Climate change is an existential threat to cultural resources everywhere, including Fort Collins • Growing body of policy documents and public officials calling for modification of Rehabilitation standards related to climate action • This includes the chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation • Consistent with new City policies and goals: • Our Climate Future • HPC 2024 work plan initiative: “strengthen connection to climate resilience work” • City Preservation staff research on Fort Collins-specific climate change scenarios re: roofing • Provide broad and equitable access to residents for independent & renewable power generation • While not code-required (IECC), aiming to support IECC goals 1 2 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Sustainability - Definitions • “Triple bottom line” approach • Social • Connect people with history • Consider owner/resident needs (rehabilitation) • Consider local knowledge & craftsmanship • Economic • Boosts to local job growth • Small business incubation •Environmental •Embodied energy •Reduce, reuse, recycle (in that order) (National Park Service) Headline Copy Goes HereEmbodied Energy 4 4 Buildings have two significant energy costs 1. Construction 2. Operations (lighting, heating, etc.) Embodied energy includes full supply chain Costs of raw material extraction Costs of material manufacture/processing Costs of transportation Costs of physical construction Best practice to consider demolition energy costs as well Materials - Architectural 50% Materials - Utilities 20% Fuel & Transport 17% Business Services 11% Furnishings 1% Machinery 1% Typical Embodied Energy Distribution U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Use for Building Construction. 3 4 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Headline Copy Goes HereEnergy – Embodied vs. Operating 5 • Ratio of embodied energy vs. annual operating energy varies depending on building • 5:1 up to 30:1 • Historic buildings (especially pre-1950) often have bulkier, more durable materials in larger volumes (higher ratio). • A holistic approach can often result in a greater net environmental benefit than high-efficiency new construction. • Sensitive improvements can have a significant environmental benefit. • Best to target building envelope & utilities. • Improvements focused on material preservation can be cost-effective. MIT Energy Initiative Headline Copy Goes Here • Pass a motion to adopt the policy expanding rooftop solar options for historic properties in Fort Collins • Pass as proposed; OR • Pass with modifications; OR • Do not take up a motion (if the HPC disagrees with the policy) 6 Role of the HPC 5 6 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Headline Copy Goes HereExisting Solar Policy: SOI Standards 7 • SOI Guidelines • Rehabilitation Standards – specifically address solar installation • ITS Bulletin 52 – Incorporating Solar Panels • (Added as Attachments 3 and 4) • Recommend limited or no visibility from public view, especially primary viewpoints Headline Copy Goes HereWhat Would the Proposed Policy Do? 8 • Significantly expand scenarios where rooftop solar collection could be approved on historic buildings in Fort Collins • Reduce (although not eliminate) the role of visibility in approving rooftop solar projects on historic buildings • Establish City staff as the approving authority on most solar installations on historic buildings Photos: 221-227 Jefferson – solar completely screened by parapet 7 8 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Montgomery County, MD Headline Copy Goes HereKey Policy Changes Proposed 10 • Allows most solar technologies in most places on post-1950 buildings • Clarifies specific requirements for all installs • 8” setback from roof edge and ridge for all installs and 8” maximum height from sloped roofs • Flat roofs (pre-1950 construction) • Privileges parapet-screened or flush-mounted installs (consistent with current SOI Standards) • Allows sloped panels up to 5ft above the roof or parapet if meeting setback requirements • Sloped Roofs (pre-1950 construction) • Privileges non-street facing, flush mounted installs or installs on accessory structures (consistent with current SOI Standards) • Allows street-facing installs where no viable alternative exists (documentation required) 1645 Sheely Dr. – rear install; City Landmark District 637 Peterson St. – side/south install; NRHP District 605 S College Ave. – rooftop install (partially screened); City Landmark 9 10 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Headline Copy Goes Here Example: 605 S. College Ave. – Beebe Clinic • Solar installed 2020 • 11” parapet meant racked solar had to be pitched almost flush, reducing collection efficiency • Proposed policy would have allowed pitch up to 5ft above the roof to optimize collection efficiency Headline Copy Goes HereFor Variances needing Documentation – What Documentation? 12 • IECC expectations on energy neutrality exempt existing buildings • Aiming to support anyway • Residential (for new builds) • When roof is at least 600ft 2 •Dwelling of 2000ft2 or less: Must have solar ready zone of 150ft2 or more •Dwelling of more than 2000ft2: must have 300ft2 or more • Commercial (for new builds) • Solar Tax Credit - .25w of power generation per square foot of conditions space • IECC – 40% of roof area minus roof decks, green roofs, mandatory access, skylights, etc. • Historic Commercial • Will use New Construction IECC metrics as basis • If owner cannot reasonably provide 40% coverage (minus IECC exemptions) in preservation-preferred manner, a variance can be issued. • Remains subject to protections on character defining features (including mature trees). • Historic residential • Will use New Construction IECC metrics as basis • If owner cannot reasonably provide at least 150ft2 or 300ft2 depending on building(s) square footage in preservation-preferred manner, a variance can be issued. • Remains subject to protections on character defining features (including mature trees). 11 12 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Headline Copy Goes HereWhat would this policy NOT do? 13 • Allow solar installs that obscure, destroy, or damage character-defining features of a property; for example: • Installation of solar panels on a c.1900 Queen Ann turret/tower roof would remain prohibited • Installation of solar panels that covered/extended over an eave/roof edge would remain prohibited • Installation of a rooftop solar panels or tiles that replaced an historically-significant roof material (clay tile, etc.) would remain prohibited. • Removal of mature/historic trees would remain generally prohibited due to their holistic environmental value, including with energy reduction from shading out roofing and siding during the summer. Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Questions for the HPC • Any general concerns with the proposed policy? • Are there specific scenarios where the HPC would prefer to retain decision-making authority for solar installs on historic buildings rather than allowing staff to approve? Staff is particularly interested in these scenarios: • Approving PV solar on street-facing roof slopes • Approving sloped PV solar on flat roofs that is visible/unscreened/above a parapet wall • Does the HPC have concerns about a general acceptance of visible solar panels (flush-mounted) in all 1950 or later contexts without a need for a variance? 13 14 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Headline Copy Goes Here 15 Role of the HPC • Pass a motion to adopt the policy expanding rooftop solar options for historic properties in Fort Collins • Pass as proposed; OR • Pass with modifications; OR • Do not take up a motion (if the HPC disagrees with the policy) 15 ITEM , ATTACHMENT PacNet Pg. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 17, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1605 SHEELY DR. (MOYER HOUSE) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVEIW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final Landmark design review of a proposed solar panel array for the City Landmark at 1605 Sheely Dr., the Moyer House. The owner has waived conceptual Landmark design review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sarah Fonte & Steven Fonte RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the commission consider granting a Waiver of Conditions (Municipal Code Sec. 14-5) to permit this alteration because although the solar panels are proposed to be located toward the front side of the house, the location is related to the effectiveness of the solar system, and so such a Waiver would be “the minimum necessary to accommodate exceptional physical conditions . . . unique to the affected property.” Additionally, the shallowness of the house’s roof pitch reduces the visual impact of the proposed panel location, so the alteration would “not diverge from the conditions and requirements of [Chapter 14] except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance the purposes of [Chapter 14].” COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). In this hearing, the Commission shall conduct a final review of proposed plans based on the provided information from the 2007 Landmark nomination, the applicant’s design review application, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the Municipal Code 14, Article IV and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards) for its final review. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Date of Landmark designation: February 14, 2000 (Sheely Drive Landmark District) • Built 1954 for Gerald and LaVila Moyer • Proposed work includes the installation of a roof-mounted solar array of 18 flush-mounted panels ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The 2000 nomination provides the following description (amended): The Moyer House at 1605 Sheely Drive. is significant as an excellent example of high style Ranch architecture in Fort Collins. Built to take advantage of the natural topography of the area, the house was constructed on a slope; the front of the house faces east toward Sheely Drive and is a single story, while the back of the house, with its 3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 "daylight basement,” is two stories tall. One fascinating feature of the Moyer House is the remains of a bomb or fallout shelter, a highly significant 1950s attribute. The Moyer House demonstrates many of the design elements associated with the Ranch architectural style. The home possesses a low-profile, low-pitched roof with wide overhanging eaves, boxed underneath with plywood. The southern third of the front of the house has a brick veneer on the lower half, with aluminum siding above (this aluminum siding has since been removed and the underlying stucco restored – See History of Design Review). The middle third is brick veneer from grade to eave-line. The northern third has an aluminum sided garage addition that extends eastward along the facade. The minimalist entry, which is very much in keeping with the International Style, is inset under an overhang of the low-pitched roof and features multiple light fixtures along the roof eaves. The entry separates the two different brick veneered sections. The front door contains three vertical windows, and a large ringed brass plate around the handle. On the rear elevation, sliding glass doors open onto the large backyard, providing a spectacular view of the mountains. The original design featured a carport, since enclosed into a garage. Other stylistic influences evident in the house include the Prairie Style low overhanging eaves and the louvers on the patio wall on the south side. The International Style can be seen in the large sliding glass doors, the use of glass block, the grooved and grid-patterned concrete, and the boxed fascia and eaves. The railing along the upper patio suggests western motifs, as does the large fireplace/chimney. The use of plywood, as with the boxed eaves, is significant as an example of the technological advances available to builders at the time. The small sight wall extending off the southeast corner is often called a Wright Wall, as Frank Lloyd Wright inspired the design. 1954 Tax Assessor Photo Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 1968 Tax Assessor Photo EXTERIOR ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property to date include: • 1957 – Change doors and build cabinets • 1969 – Replace soffits and gutter • 1998 – Sprinkler system • 2012 – Deck/landing with 4 stairs and handrail at back door • 2014 – Re-roof (membrane) • Unknown Date after 1968– Conversion of carport to garage HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: • 2011 – Replacement of non-original windows with similar style • 2012 – Removal of non-original aluminum siding, repair of stucco • 2012 – Deck/landing with 4 stairs and handrail at back door • 2014 – Re-roof HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: None DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant has waived Conceptual Design Review, as permitted under Municipal Code Sec. 14-54, and is requesting a Final Design Review for a 18-panel, flush roof-mounted, 7.29 kW photovoltaic system. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: • Description of reasoning behind selected location on the roof, toward the front of the house o Matt Scherer with solar contractor REenergizeCO responded 3/26/2024 via email: “Location of the panels is based off of maximizing solar production. Any other location on the roof results in a decrease in system production and/or an increase in expenses." During the April 10, 2024 HPC Work Session, Commissioner Gibson requested Staff add sample motion 3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 options to the staff report accounting for the possibility of the Commission approving the solar policy also being considered during the April 17, 2024 regular HPC meeting. Such options have been added to the Sample Motions section of this report. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. This solar project will not change the residential use of the property. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. No distinctive materials will be removed for this proposed solar panel project. But, because the proposed location of the solar panels is toward the front of the house, there is an impact to the historic character of the property. However, the low pitch of the roof would help minimize this visual impact, and the placement of the panels on this part of the roof is necessary for solar efficiency, according to the applicant’s solar contractor. The Historic Preservation Commission could consider granting a Waiver of Conditions for these reasons. TBD SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. The proposed solar panel system is clearly a modern feature, which avoids creating a false sense of historical development. This Standard is considered met. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. N/A SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Because the proposed solar panels could easily be removed, and because their physical impact is limited to the roof, the distinctive materials, features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of craftsmanship characteristic of this property will be preserved, and so this Standard is considered met. Y SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the N/A Packet Pg. 55 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The installation of roof-mounted solar panels would not destroy historic roof material and would clearly be a modern addition. For those reasons, this Standard is met. Y SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The solar panels could be removed in the future without impacting the integrity of the historic home and its environment, and so this Standard is met. Y INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY None FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the proposed rehabilitation of 1605 Sheely Dr. under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The Moyer House is a City Landmark, designated by City Council on February 14, 2000 as part of the Sheely Drive Landmark District. • Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is required to allow exterior alterations to Landmark properties, as described in Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. • The proposed solar panel project at 1605 Sheely Dr. appears to meet all of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation except for Standard #2, due to the location of the proposed panels toward the front of the house. • Municipal Code Sec. 14-5 empowers the Commission to waive conditions and requirements set forth under Chapter 14, provided that “the spirit and purpose of the Chapter are not substantially eroded” and that one or more of the following criteria are met: (1) The requested waiver is the minimum necessary to accommodate exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the affected property, which may include, but are not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, and such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; and/or (2) The requested waiver as submitted will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of this Chapter except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance the purposes of this Chapter. RECOMMENDATION: Packet Pg. 56 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposal through the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by granting a Waiver of Conditions, as allowed under Municipal Code Sec. 14-5. Because the low pitch of the roof reduces the visual impact of the proposed solar panels on the historic character of the house, because an existing physical condition, solar efficiency, has influenced the proposed location of the panels on the roof, and because the roof material is not a character-defining feature of this house, the conditions for granting such a Waiver appear to be met. SAMPLE MOTIONS Sample Motions under Existing Standards and Policies: SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Dr., as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Dr., as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF A WAIVER OF CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve a Waiver of Conditions under Municipal Code Sec. 14-5, permitting the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Dr., as presented, finding that, although the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the project does meet the criteria for a Waiver of Conditions. Specifically, the request meets criteria 14-5(a)(1) because it is the minimum necessary to accommodate an exceptional physical condition that affects the property that was not caused by an act or omission from the applicant, the solar energy potential within the site, and the request also meets criteria 14-5(a)(2) because it does not diverge from the conditions and requirements of Chapter 14 except in nominal and inconsequential ways and will continue to advance its purposes, due to the low pitch of the house’s roof minimizing the impact of the proposed solar panels to the house’s historic character. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Dr., as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTION FOR 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] Sample Motions under Existing Standards and 2024 Solar Policy (if approved by HPC as presented at the April 17 meeting): SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Dr., as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation under the Commission’s adopted solar policy. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Dr., as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation under the Commission’s adopted solar policy, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the proposal to install a solar panel system at the Moyer House, 1605 Sheely Dr., as 3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 7 presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation under the Commission’s adopted solar policy. SAMPLE MOTION FOR 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. Design Review Application Form 2. Proposed Plans 3. 2000 Landmark Nomination Form (excerpt from Sheely Drive Landmark District nomination) 4. Photos 5. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 58 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 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). I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 PacNet Pg. 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. I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 PacNet Pg. 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 Date I7(M 4, A77AC+M(17 1 PacNet Pg. 1 PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOF MOUNT AND ENERGY SYSTEM 18 MODULES - SYSTEM SIZE STC (7.290 kW DC / 6.282 kW AC) 1605 SHEELY DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80526, USA (40.5664710, -105.0922078) SYSTEM SUMMARY STC (7.290 kW DC / 6.282 kW AC) STC DC: (18) 405W = 7.290 kW STC AC: (18) 349W = 6.282 kW STORAGE: (3) 3.84kW 5.0kWh = 11.52kW 15.0kWh ●(18) REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W) MODULES ●(18) ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ8A-72-2-US 240V MICROINVERTERS ●(3) ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ BATTERY 5P ●2x BRANCHES OF 9 CONNECTED IN PARALLEL GOVERNING CODES ●2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE ●2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ●2021 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE ●2023 NFPA 70 - NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE GENERAL NOTES 1) ALL PANELS, SWITCHES, ETC. SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT GUTTER SPACE AND LUGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH UL REQUIREMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE CONDUCTORS SHOWN. 2) THIS SYSTEM WILL NOT BE INTERCONNECTED UNTIL APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND UTILITY IS OBTAINED. 3) ALL EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT INCLUDING THOSE THAT ARE EXPOSED TO OUTSIDE ENVIRONMENT SHALL BE WEATHERPROOF AND SHALL BE LISTED BY 'UL' FOR THE TYPE OF APPLICATION AND 'UL' LABEL SHALL APPEAR ON ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. 4) WIRING METHOD SHALL BE EMT ABOVE GROUND MOUNTED IN CONCEALED SPACES (UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE) AND SCHEDULE-40 PVC FOR BELOW GROUND INSTALLATIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 5) AN OSHA APPROVED LADDER PROVIDING ACCESS TO ALL PORTIONS OF THE ARRAY SHALL BE SECURED IN PRIOR TO REQUESTING INSPECTION. 6) IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSTALL A SUPPLEMENTAL GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR IF NECESSARY. 7) IQ BATTERY UNITS SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED IN DIRECT SUNLIGHT. ARRAY LOCATION(S) PROJECT SITE # 1 1 4 3 ' 1 " 79' 8 " 152' 8" 47'-1 " 2 0 ' 70'-9 " 1 0 ' - 8 " J B MSP UMLC SD BAT BAT BAT 40 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 2'-11" 64 ' - 0 1 / 2 " AC REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-1 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL COVER PAGE CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A LE G E N D NEW PV MODULE FIRE SETBACK OPTIMIZER MICRO-INVERTER DIMENSIONS PROPERTY LINE CONDUIT DRIVEWAY FENCE GATE JB JUNCTION BOX (NEW) LC AC COMBINER PANEL (NEW) AC AC DISCONNECT UNFUSED (NEW) MSP MAIN SERVICE PANEL (NEW, 200A) UM UTILITY METER (EXISTING) SCALE: 1/24" = 1'-0"SITE PLAN HOUSE PHOTOSCALE: NTS VICINITY MAPSCALE: NTS SHEET INDEX PV-1 COVER PAGE PV-2 ROOF PLAN WITH MODULES PV-3 ATTACHMENT DETAIL PV-3.1 EQUIPMENT ELEVATION PV-4 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM PV-5 WIRING CALCULATION PV-6 PLACARDS PV-7+ EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION AHJ: FORT COLLINS (CITY OF), COLORADO UTILITY: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES OBSTRUCTION SD SERVICE DISCONNECT (EXISTING) BAT BATTERY (NEW) F R O N T O F H O U S E S H E E L Y D R I V E ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J MODULE AREA & WEIGHT CALCULATIONS PANEL TYPES (COUNT, AREA, WEIGHT): ●(18x) REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W) (71.7" x 40.0", 45.2 LB) MICRO-INVERTER TYPES (COUNT, WEIGHT): ●(18x) ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ8A-72-2-US 240V (2.38 LB) ATTACHMENT COUNT: 42 MOUNTING SYSTEM WEIGHT/MODULE: 1.5 LBTOTAL ROOF AREA: 3615 SF NEW PANELS: ●TOTAL AREA: (18) 71.7" x 40.0" = 358 SF ●TOTAL WEIGHT: (18) 45.2 + (18) 2.4 + (18) 1.5 = 883 LB ●WEIGHT PER CONNECTION: 883 LB / 42 = 21.02 LB ●DISTRIBUTED LOAD: 883 LB / 358 SF = 2.46 PSF ●ROOF AREA COVERED: 358 SF / 3615 SF = 9.9% BILL OF MATERIALS EQUIPMENT QTY DESCRIPTION SOLAR PV MODULES 18 REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W) MICRO INVERTERS 18 ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ8A-72-2-US 240V BATTERY 1 ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ BATTERY 5P JUNCTION BOX (AC)1 JUNCTION BOX 600V, NEMA 3R UL LISTEDCOMBINER PANEL (AC)1 ENPHASE IQ COMBINER 5C AC DISCONNECT 1 PV VISIBLE LOCKABLELABELED DISCONNECT (60A UNFUSED 1PH 240VAC) ATTACHMENTS 42 UNIRAC - FLASHLOC RM RAIL 9 UNIRAC - SOLARMOUNT LIGHT RAIL SPLICES 2 RAIL SPLICES MID CLAMPS 26 MID CLAMPS END CLAMPS 20 END CLAMPS GROUNDING LUG 5 GROUNDING LUG ROOF DESCRIPTION TABLE ROOF PLANE ROOF PITCH ROOF AZIMUTH ROOF TYPE TRUSS SIZE TRUSS SPACING ATTACHMENT SPACING MODULES (PITCH) #1 7° 53° MEMBRANE 2" x 4" 24" O.C. 48" O.C.18 (7°) ROOF ACCESS POINT ●SHALL BE LOCATED IN AREAS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE THE PLACEMENT OF GROUND LADDERS OVER OPENINGS SUCH AS WINDOWS OR DOORS, AND LOCATED AT STRONG POINTS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN LOCATIONS WHERETHE ACCESS POINT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS TREE LIMBS, WIRES OR SIGNS. DESIGN CRITERIA ●EXPOSURE CATEGORY = B ●WIND SPEED = 140 MPH ●SNOW LOAD = 35 PSF 1 8 " F I R E S E T B A C K # 1 36" F I R E S E T B A C K 1 8 " F I R E S E T B A C K 1 8 " F I R E S E T B A C K 3 6 " F I R E S E T B A C K 1 8 " F I R E S E T B A C K 18" F I R E S E T B A C K 1 8 " F I R E S E T B A C K 18" F I R E S E T B A C K 1' - 4 " M A X . C A N T I L E V E R 9" 3 0 ' - 3 " 5' - 4 " 1'-9" 16'-2 " 3'-6" J B MSP UMLC SD BAT BAT BAT AC REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-2 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL ROOF PLAN WITH MODULES CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"ROOF PLAN WITH MODULES ROOF ATTACHMENT ROOF ACCESS POINT RAFTER/TRUSS RAILLE G E N D NEW PV MODULE FIRE SETBACK MICRO-INVERTER DIMENSIONS PROPERTY LINE CONDUIT JB JUNCTION BOX (NEW) LC AC COMBINER PANEL (NEW) AC AC DISCONNECT UNFUSED (NEW) MSP MAIN SERVICE PANEL (NEW, 200A) UM UTILITY METER (EXISTING) OBSTRUCTION SD SERVICE DISCONNECT (EXISTING) BAT BATTERY (NEW) F R O N T O F H O U S E S H E E L Y D R I V E ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J ATTACHMENT DETAIL SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT DETAIL (ENLARGED SECTION VIEW) SCALE: NTS (E) MEMBRANE 2"X4" TRUSS @24"O.C. ~6 " SEE ENLARGED VIEW PV MODULE END/MID CLAMP 2"X4" TRUSS @24"O.C. PV MODULES UNIRAC - SOLARMOUNT LIGHT RAIL ALUMN. "L" BRACKET W/3/8" SS BOLT & NUT (E) MEMBRANE 4 #12 SCREWS, LENGTH 2" THREAD PENETRATION SEALED WITH MANUFACTURER SUPPLIED SEALANT UNIRAC FLASHLOC RM ATTACHMENT L-FOOT REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-3 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL ATTACHMENT DETAIL CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 M (E) UTILITY METER WITH SERVICE DISCONNECT OUTSIDE GROUND LEVEL FROM ROOF TOP (N) ENPHASE IQ COMBINER 5C ENPHASE ENPHASEENPHASE (N) IQ BATTERY 5P (N) IQ BATTERY 5P (N) MAIN SERVICE PANEL FROM UTILITY METER WITH SERVICE DISCONNECT 6" M I N INSIDE 3"ENPHASE (N) IQ BATTERY 5P 6" M I N 6" M I N 3" 6" TO MSP TO AC DISCONNECT TO BATTERIES FROM MSP (N) AC DISCONNECT FROM MSP REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-3.1 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL ATTACHMENT DETAIL CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 SYSTEM SUMMARY STC (7.290 kW DC / 6.282 kW AC) STC DC: (18) 405W = 7.290 kW STC AC: (18) 349W = 6.282 kW STORAGE: (3) 3.84kW 5.0kWh = 11.52kW 15.0kWh ●(18) REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W) MODULES ●(18) ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ8A-72-2-US 240V MICROINVERTERS ●(3) ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ BATTERY 5P ●2x BRANCHES OF 9 CONNECTED IN PARALLEL 211 9 MOD: REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W) INV: ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ8A-72-2-US 240V (1 BRANCH X 9 MICRO-INV) 211 9 MOD: REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W) INV: ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ8A-72-2-US 240V (1 BRANCH X 9 MICRO-INV) JUNCTION BOX 600V, NEMA 3R UL LISTED TO CONSUMPTION CTs GATEWAY CT CELL MODEM TO SYSTEM CONTROLLER CTRL CABLE TO BATTERIES (IF PRESENT) - - 20A(N) 20A(N) ENPHASE IQ COMBINER 5C ON OFF PV VISIBLE LOCKABLE LABELED DISCONNECT (60A UNFUSED 1PH 240VAC) TO UTILITY GRIDM MAIN SERVICE PANEL (NEW, BOTTOM-FED) BUS RATING: 200A 12 AWG Q-CABLE 06 AWG Cu BARE G (BOND RACKING) 12 AWG Q-CABLE 06 AWG Cu BARE G (BOND RACKING) GROUND ROD CT MS-01 MS-01 MCB-01 MCB-01 LC-01 LC-01 AC wire details Wire Min Ampacity Live Neutral Ground Min EMT Min PVC Min RMC MS-01 16.31A 12 AWG (Q-Cable)-06 AWG BARE (NOT IN CONDUIT)--- MCB-01 16.31A (2) 10 AWG THWN-2 - 10 AWG THWN-2 1/2 in 1/2 in 1/2 in LC-01 32.63A (2) 08 AWG THWN-2 08 AWG THWN-2 10 AWG THWN-2 3/4 in 3/4 in 3/4 in MD-01 100A (2) 03 AWG THWN-2 03 AWG THWN-2 08 AWG THWN-2 1 in 1 in 1 in BT01 60A (OCPD) (2) 06 AWG THWN-2 - 10 AWG THWN-2 3/4 in 3/4 in 3/4 in UTILITY FEED + TOTAL BACKFEED 100A + 100A = 200A LESS OR EQUAL TO BUS RATING x 120% 200A x 120% = 240A INTERCONNECTION 120% RULE (MAIN PANEL) CALCULATION ENSURES BUS IS SAFE REGARDLESS OF LOADS Isc(25°C) = 10.30A, Tisc = 0.040%/°C Isc(T) = Isc(25°C) x [1 + Tisc x (T-25°C)] Isc(-23°C) = 10.10A, Isc(34°C) = 10.34A Voc(25°C) = 48.90V, Tvoc = -0.240%/°C Voc(T) = Voc(25°C) x [1 + Tvoc x (T-25°C)] Voc(-23°C) = 54.53V, Voc(34°C) = 47.84V EXTREME CASE MODULE OUTPUT (REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W)) ELECTRICAL NOTES 1) ALL GROUNDING TO COMPLY WITH NEC 690.47. 2) ROOFTOP CONDUIT SHALL BE LOCATED MIN. 7/8" ABOVE ROOF SURFACE. 3) ALL TERMINALS SHALL BE MIN. 75°C RATED. 4) IQ GATEWAY BREAKER DETERMINED AT FACTORY BY MANUFACTURER (10A or 15A). 5) FOR IQ GATEWAY: USE SINGLE CT FOR PV PRODUCTION (L1 FROM ALL PV BRANCH CIRCUITS). USE DOUBLE CTs FOR CONSUMPTION (L1 AND L2 FEEDING MSP MAIN BREAKER, SERVICE SIDE). 6) IQ COMBINER 5/5C REQUIRES ENPHASE HOLD DOWN KIT X-IQ-NA-HD-125A. EXISTING MDP IN GARAGE FEED THROUGH LUGS BI-DIRECTIONAL UTILITY METER METER NO: 14583916 UTILITY: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES SERVICE: 240V 60HZ 1PH 100A(E) (3) ENPHASE IQ BATTERY 5P x3 100A(N) BT01 MD-01 HOLD DOWN KIT 40A(N) 60A(N) BATTERY CT TO GATEWAY(L2) CTRL CABLE TO IQ GATEWAY REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-4 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A SCALE: NTSELECTRICAL SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J SYSTEM SUMMARY STC (7.290 kW DC / 6.282 kW AC) STC DC: (18) 405W = 7.290 kW STC AC: (18) 349W = 6.282 kW STORAGE: (3) 3.84kW 5.0kWh = 11.52kW 15.0kWh ●(18) REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W) MODULES ●(18) ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ8A-72-2-US 240V MICROINVERTERS ●(3) ENPHASE ENERGY INC. IQ BATTERY 5P ●2x BRANCHES OF 9 CONNECTED IN PARALLEL AC wire details WireID #Modules Nominal Voltage Backfeed *1.25 /cond. set Min OCPD Total Power Conductor sets ccConductors /conduit Expected max temp Adjusted ampacity (ampacity x temp derate x conduit fill derate)Conductor & neutral size EGC size (Cu)Conductor metal Max length V drop Min EMT size Min PVC size Min RMC size MS-01 9 240 V 16.31 A 20 A 3.1 kW 1234 25 x 0.94 x - = 23.50 A 12 AWG (Q-Cable)06 AWG BARE (NOT IN CONDUIT)Cu 50 ft 0.94 %--- MCB-01 9 240 V 16.31 A 20 A 3.1 kW 1234 35 x 0.94 x 1.00 = 32.90 A 10 AWG THWN-2 10 AWG THWN-2 Cu 50 ft 0.57 % 1/2 in 1/2 in 1/2 in LC-01 18 240 V 32.63 A 40 A 6.3 kW 1234 50 x 0.94 x 1.00 = 47.00 A 08 AWG THWN-2 10 AWG THWN-2 Cu 10 ft 0.15 % 3/4 in 3/4 in 3/4 in INTERCONNECTION 120% RULE (MAIN PANEL) CALCULATION ENSURES BUS IS SAFE REGARDLESS OF LOADS Isc(25°C) = 10.30A, Tisc = 0.040%/°C Isc(T) = Isc(25°C) x [1 + Tisc x (T-25°C)] Isc(-23°C) = 10.10A, Isc(34°C) = 10.34A Voc(25°C) = 48.90V, Tvoc = -0.240%/°C Voc(T) = Voc(25°C) x [1 + Tvoc x (T-25°C)] Voc(-23°C) = 54.53V, Voc(34°C) = 47.84V EXTREME CASE MODULE OUTPUT (REC SOLAR REC405AA PURE (405W)) ELECTRICAL NOTES 1) ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE LISTED BY UL OR OTHER NRTL, AND LABELED FOR ITS APPLICATION. 2) ALL CONDUCTORS SHALL BE COPPER, RATED FOR 600V AND 90°C WET ENVIRONMENT. 3) WIRING, CONDUIT, AND RACEWAYS MOUNTED ON ROOFTOPS SHALL BE ROUTED DIRECTLY TO, AND LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE NEAREST RIDGE, HIP, OR VALLEY. 4) WORKING CLEARANCES AROUND ALL NEW AND EXISTING ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH NEC 110.26. 5) DRAWINGS INDICATE THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF SYSTEMS. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY OUTLETS, SUPPORTS, FITTINGS AND ACCESSORIES TO FULFILL APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS. 6) WHERE SIZES OF JUNCTION BOXES, RACEWAYS, AND CONDUITS ARE NOT SPECIFIED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SIZE THEM ACCORDINGLY. 7) ALL WIRE TERMINATIONS SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY LABELED AND READILY VISIBLE. 8) MODULE GROUNDING CLIPS TO BE INSTALLED BETWEEN MODULE FRAME AND MODULE SUPPORT RAIL, PER THE GROUNDING CLIP MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION. 9) MODULE SUPPORT RAIL TO BE BONDED TO CONTINUOUS COPPER G.E.C.VIA WEEB LUG OR ILSCO GBL-4DBT LAY-IN LUG. 10) PV EQUIPMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEC 690. 11) EXACT LOCATION OF AUXILIARY GROUNDING TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF INSTALL. 12) EXISTING WIRES MUST BE REPLACED IF SMALLER THAN LISTED MINIMUM SIZES PER NEC 310.15(B)(16). 13) IQ GATEWAY BREAKER DETERMINED AT FACTORY BY MANUFACTURER (10A or 15A). 14) FOR IQ GATEWAY: USE SINGLE CT FOR PV PRODUCTION (L1 FROM ALL PV BRANCH CIRCUITS). USE DOUBLE CTs FOR CONSUMPTION (L1 AND L2 FEEDING MSP MAIN BREAKER, SERVICE SIDE). 6) IQ COMBINER 5/5C REQUIRES ENPHASE HOLD DOWN KIT X-IQ-NA-HD-125A. UTILITY FEED + TOTAL BACKFEED 100A + 100A = 200A LESS OR EQUAL TO BUS RATING x 120% 200A x 120% = 240A REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-5 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL WIRING CALCULATIONS CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A SCALE: NTSWIRING CALCULATIONS ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J J B MSPUMLC SD BATBATBAT AC REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-6 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL PLACARDS CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A CAUTION: MULTIPLE SOURCES OF POWER PV ARRAY (N) MAIN SERVICE PANEL (N) AC DISCONNECT (N) JUNCTION BOX (N) (3) ENPHASE IQ BATTERY 5P (N) ENPHASE IQ COMBINER 5C NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS: x SIGNS AND LABELS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEC 2023 ARTICLE 110.21(B), UNLESS SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ARE REQUIRED BY SECTION 690, OR IF REQUESTED BY THE LOCAL AHJ. x SIGNS AND LABELS SHALL ADEQUATELY WARN OF HAZARDS USING EFFECTIVE WORDS, COLORS AND SYMBOLS. x LABELS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY AFFIXED TO THE EQUIPMENT OR WIRING METHOD AND SHALL NOT BE HAND WRITTEN. x LABEL SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT DURABILITY TO WITHSTAND THE ENVIRONMENT INVOLVED. x SIGNS AND LABELS SHALL COMPLY WITH ANSI Z535.4-2011, PRODUCT SAFETY SIGNS AND LABELS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. x DO NOT COVER EXISTING MANUFACTURER LABELS. WARNING! DO NOT RELOCATE THIS OVERCURRENT DEVICE LABEL LOCATION: ADJACENT TO PV BREAKER AND ESS OCPD (IF APPLICABLE). PER CODE(S): NEC 2023: 705.12(B)(2) SOLAR PV SYSTEM EQUIPPED WITH RAPID SHUTDOWN TURN RAPID SHUTDOWN SWITCH TO THE "OFF" POSITION TO SHUTDOWN CONDUCTORS OUTSIDE THE ARRAY. CONDUCTORS WITHIN ARRAY REMAIN ENERGIZED IN SUNLIGHT. SOLAR ELECTRICPV PANELS ! ELECTRICAL SHOCK HAZARD WARNING! LABEL LOCATION: INVERTER(S), AC/DC DISCONNECT(S), AC COMBINER PANEL (IF APPLICABLE). PER CODE(S): NEC 2023: 690.13(B), 705.20(7), 706.15(C) LABEL LOCATION: INSTALLED WITHIN 3' OF RAPID SHUT DOWN SWITCH PER CODE(S): NEC 2023: 690.12(D)(2), IFC 2021: 1204.5.3 THIS EQUIPMENT FED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES. TOTAL RATING OF ALL OVERCURRENT DEVICES EXCLUDING MAIN SUPPLY OVERCURRENT DEVICE SHALL NOT EXCEED AMPACITY OF BUSBAR WARNING! LABEL LOCATION: PV LOAD CENTER (IF APPLICABLE) AND ANY PANEL THAT UTILIZES "THE SUM OF BREAKERS RULE". PER CODE(S): NEC 2023: 705.12 (B)(3) LABEL LOCATION: INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DC CONDUIT EVERY 10 FT, AT EACH TURN, ABOVE AND BELOW PENETRATIONS, ON EVERY JB/PULL BOX CONTAINING DC CIRCUITS. PER CODE(S): NEC 2023: 690.31(D)(2) WARNING! SOURCES: UTILITY GRID AND PV SOLAR ELECTRIC SYSTEM DUAL POWER SUPPLY LABEL LOCATION: UTILITY SERVICE METER AND MAIN SERVICE PANEL. PER CODE(S): NEC 2023: 705.30(C) LABEL LOCATION: AC DISCONNECT(S), PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM POINT OF INTERCONNECTION. PER CODE(S): NEC 2023: 690.13(B) LABEL LOCATION: MSP PER CODE(S): NEC 2023 : 705.10(3) LABEL LOCATION: INTERCONNECTION POINT (MSP OR AC DISCONNECT IF LINE SIDE TAP) CODE REF: NEC 2023: 690.13 LABEL LOCATION: BATTERY S H E E L Y D R I V E PV SYSTEM DISCONNECT 240.0 26.10 (E) SERVICE DISCONNECT (E) UTILITY METER ,7(0$77$&+0(17 3DFNHW3J REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-7 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-8 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-9 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-9.1 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-10 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-11 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 74 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-12 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 75 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-13 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 76 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-14 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 77 REV SHEET NAME SHEET SIZE SHEET NUMBER ANSI B DATEDESCRIPTION REVISIONS PV-15 HOMEOWNER INFO 11" X 17" SIGNATURE & SEAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION CONTRACTOR: WWW.REENERGIZECO.COM ADDRESS: 1805 E. 58TH AVE UNIT K DENVER CO 80216,USA PHONE: 9709885682 EMAIL: mscherer@reenergizeco.com LICENSE #: EC 0102500 ELECTRICAL LICENSE #: ME-3001100, EC-0102500 - REEnergizeCO SA R A H & S T E V E N FO N T E 16 0 5 S H E E L Y D R I V E , FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 6 , U S A AP N : 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 P H O N E : N / A EM A I L : N / A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 78 i •. The neighborhood layout is designed to take advantage of the natural topography of the area. The winding streets in the area makes it one of the first neighborhoods in fort Collins to have broken out of the traditional compass oriented grid for streets. Sheely Drive is a curved street that responds to the natural ridge in the area. This reduces traffic speed and flow. The street is fifry feet wide and has no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Lawns flow together. The homes do not always sit parallel to the street. Although the free form street discourages traffic. the houses reflect the importance of the auto after World War II. Driveways are large and many are circular or curved. Garages or carports have moved forward becoming integral to the overall design. The houses are designed to fit within the natural terrain of the area. The houses on the west side of Sheely Drive have walkout lower levels. They are long and low Ranch style homes that were built on top of the ridge rather than grading the site flat to accommodate the building. The homes are oriented to take advantage of the views. Many of the homes have decks and large windows. This is unlike traditional houses of the l 940's and l 950's where the windows are small and the houses orient on grids with no consideration of views. It is also the earliest known solar designed neighborhood in Fort Collins. Many of the homes are oriented for solar exposure and have sunscreen devices. The home designs on Sheely Drive do not borrow from traditional revival styles. but instead are based on contemporary ideas. The world changed after World \Var II. fort Collins was no longer unsophisticated. Returning World War II veterans brought back new ideas. Leisure travel broadens views and experiences. There were new social philosophies, such as Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy that design is dictated by function and site considerations and his philosophy of the Usonian home which included low density communities, economic construction using new materials and energy efficiency. There was also a prevailing sense of optimism. The war was over. Technology will solve all problems. The homes in the neighborhood are architect or owner designed and represent the true custom Ranch style. The Ranch style is defined as ground hugging, one story with a low roof :ind deep eaves. Building mate1ials include the use of wood, stucco. brick, stone and glass. They are generally one room deep and shaped like an Lor U to surround a patio or landscape features. Large expanses of glass are featured. They have gardens or yards in the back. The development of the true Ranch house is based on design principles developed by architects of the International. Prairie and Usonian styles. The International Style is based on the expressions of structure and modern materials. Concrete, steel. glass and glass blocks are the most used materials. Decoraiion is not used. Design relies on the expression of material connections, finishes and relationships. Designs are asymmetrical rather than symmetrical. Bands of windows and solid planes create a horizontal feeling. Windows are ofren mitered together to create glass corners. Cantilever eaves and overhangs are commonly used. ~ ..... .... . Superlative examples are the Glass House created by Philip Johnson in 1949 in New Cannon, Connecticut. and the Farnsworth House created by Mies van der Rohe in 1945-1950 in Plano, Illinois. The Prairie Style is based on the satisfaction of the physical and psychological needs of the D:\OOCRLE\DESIGNAT.ION\SHEEL Y.DES Pag:e 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 83 inhabitants. The design uses an open floor plan rather than the traditional concept of a house as a box subdivided into smaller interior boxes. Designs are strongly influenced by the site. Hipped roofs have broad eaves and overhangs. Walls and terraces often extend from the main structure emphasizing a horizontal appearance. There may be rows of casement windows. Materials are regional. The design evokes a sense of restfulness. Examples are the Robie House designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1908-09 in Chicago. Illinois and Falling Water also designed by Wright in 1936 in Bear Run, Pennsylvania. The Usonian Style is a basic residential style. The term "Usonian" is derived from United States of North America and means smaller and more economical homes constructed of nawral materials such as wood, stone and concrete block. There may be simple, geometric ornaments. Roofs are low pitched with deep and cantilevered eaves. Designs may include balconies. V/indows are geometric compositions. Examples are Frank Lloyd Wright's 1954 Bachman- Wilson House in Millstone, New Jersey and the 1940-41 Pope-Leighey House in Mount Vernon, Virginia. Design elements of each of these styles were incorporated into the homes of the Sheely Drive neighborhood. These elements include: I. 7 3. 4. The fireplace as a central organizational element is typical of Frank Lloyd Wright's concept of the hearth as the heart of the home. Long, low, ground hugging design responding to and integrating into the natural surroundings. Long and low partial height exterior walls extending from the house. Large. overhanging eaves that emphasize horizontal lines and help control climate. 5. Sunscreens such as louvers or lattice control climate. 6. Decks reinforce the design theory of inside/outside. This is typical of Wright's designs that defined space whose perimeters are no longer absolute. 7. Interior planters -Inside/outside design elements a.re no longer confined to traditional locations. Reinforces Wright's theory of no absolute perimeters of space. 8. Large expanses of windows sometimes form entire walls and create a seamless flow from inside to outside. This responds to site orientation and is associated with solar energy. 9. Open floor plans. Master bedrooms and master baths appear. Spaces are more universal in use and become more entertainment oriented. People are more optimistic after the war and have more free time. New materials that were developed by World War II technology were used in the construction of the homes. Some were used as design elements and take on decorative qualities. Tastes in design changed after the war to a more worldlv view on design. color and materials. Trade and --J ~ . entertainment magazines broadened views and introduced new material applications to the general public. Commercial materials were adapted to residential construction. These new materials helped reduce costs and construction time. D:\DOCFILE\DESIGNAT .ION\SHEEL Y .DES ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 84 )ne of the new materials was resin glue that made possible an exterior grade plywood and hardboard board sheets. suitable for siding and sheathing. Sheet paneling was used as interior decorative material. replacing traditional board paneling. Concrete block that had traditionally been used only in commercial applications became available in new patterns and was used as a structural and decorative material in residential construction. Glass block. previously used exclusively as a commercial mareriaL was now used in decorative applications in bathrooms and room dividers. Cast artificial stone was used with natural stone to create site walls and veneer wainscot bases on many homes in the neighborhood. Commercial design steel frame casement and fixed windows, seen in the International Style. were now accepted in residential construction. This allowed for the use of large window and door openings. Traditional wood window sills were replaced with ceramic tile that introduced color and was easier to maintain. Built up ballasted roofs were now used to create flat residential roofs. Wood shakes. rather than wood shingles, were used to create texture. Gypsum wall board replaced plaster. Plastic laminate replaced wood and linoleum countertops. Pressed cork, used as a finished floor material. replaced traditional strip wood flooring. Cork was also employed as a wall finish. Stone was used on floor surfaces as a decorative material. New colors became available in wall tiles. with matching color bathroom fixtures. Neon lighting, once used strictly for signage. was now used as interior accent lighting. HISTORY OFTHESHEELY NEIGHBORHOOD LOCAL LANDMARK DISTRICTPROPERTIES: In 1951. Arthur C. Sheely bought 40 acres of farm land south of Prospect Road and east of Shields· Street, from Carl W. and Pauline E. Birky. Sheely paid the Birkys approximately S20,000 for the acreage and water rights. Two years later, Sheely sold this land to the Ofds and Redd Consuuction Co., a co-pannership consisting of Ben Olds and E.G. Redd, for approximately $27.000. On July 13, 1953, before the area was even snbdivided and platted, Olds and Redd sold 4.901 acres to K.S. and Annette L. Mittry. The Olds and Redd Construction Co. then filed for the Arthur C. Sheely First Subdivision on August 26. l 953, creating six lots on the west side of Sheely Drive. A pan of the remaining parcel was subdivided June 11. 1954 into an additional twelve !ors. five large lots located on the east side of Sheely Drive, three on-West Prospect Road, and four on Prospect Lane. The Ben Olds House. 1600 Sheely Drive -The Ben Olds House. at 1600 Sheely Drive. is significant because it represents the Ranch style of residential housing, so popular in America during the 1950s and 1960s. Constructed in l 960. the layout, construction, materials. design, and stylistic features of the Ben Olds House all exemplify the Ranch style. The house has additional significance in that it was the personal residence of Ben Olds. A well-known Fort Collins developer. Mr. Olds was a co-owner of Olds & Redd Construction in Fort Collins. He was involved in the Circle Drive housing development for the Columbia Savings and Loan of · Denver. and was the developer of the Mantz Addition. In addition to this home, the Olds & Redd Construction CompanY built many of the Sheely Addition homes. The home is an elongated. single storv structure built on a concrete slab. The very low pitched, ---intersecting gable roof. typical of the Ranch, is a ballasted roof. built up and finished with gravel. D:\DOCFILE\DESJGNAT.10!\\SHEEL Y .DES Page 7 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 85 ten years. 1604 SheeJ,· Drive is a single story st.ab on grade Ranch style house. The floor plan is in the form of an ·"L .. shape. The structure is frame construction with wood lap siding. Vertical elements of nonstandard green tinted brick occur at the centered fireplace and at the north and south end w·all extensions. The shallov., sloped ballasted roof is pitched longitudinally toward a center ridge. A horizontal sun shading device runs above the window on the south half of the front elevation. The shading device continues above the entry to create a sheltered porch overhang. The south half of the front elevation contains a smaller casement window while the north portion is a full height glass wall. This wall has vertically framed divisions with horizontal transom framing. The carport is located on the south side of the house. It is open on two sides, with a low. horizontal lap siding panel running along the front elevation with the entry at the south. The carport's rear elevation is a full height wall with storage incorporated into the design. The carport roof is pitched longitudinally toward a centered ridge. Horizontal lap siding continues around to the rear elevation. Two full height glass and steel sliding doors and sidelights are present at the inside angle of the "L" shaped plan. Smaller steel casement windows are also used. An uncovered concrete patio is located at the inside angle of the "L" shaped plan. The overall massing of the house emphasizes horizontaJness. 1604 Sheely Drive contributes to the overall historic importance of the neighborhood by exhibiting the same philosophical design criteria and architectural vocabulary typical of the neighborhood. The Sherwood House is representative of how the new social ideas and design elements were incorporated into all of the Ranch style homes in the Sheely subdivision. In itself. this house is highly significant for its architecture. but when seen as part of an overall neighborhood displaying the same social. economic and design theories. the house becomes part of a unique example of affluent development and social animdes in post-WV/IT Fort Collins. The Moyer House. 1605 Sheely Drive -Lot 2. Sheely First Addition. was sold to Gerald and La Vila Moyer on September 18. 1953. Dr. Moyer, a dentist. and his wife had their home built on this lot in l 9:53-54. The Moyers did not remain at this location for long. In 1957, the couple sold their property to Robert V. and Marilyn Parke. Dr. Parke was a botany professor at Colorado State University. and was associated with the development of Parkwood Estates. The Parkes resided here until approximately the mid 1960' s. The current owners, Kenneth G. and Eleanor G. Diehl purchased the home on January 7, 1981. The Moyer House, at 1605 Sheely Drive. is significant as an excellent example of high style Ranch architecture in Fort Collins. Built to take advantage of the natural topography of the area. the house was constructed on a slope, so that the front of the house. facing east toward Sheely Drive, is a single story. while the back of the house, with its "daylight basement.·· is two stories tall. One fascinating feature of the Moyer House is the remains of a bomb or fall out shelter, a highly significant l 950's attribute. The Moyer House demonstrates many of the design elements associated with the Ranch architectural style. The home possesses a low-profile. low-pitched roof with wide overhanging eaves, boxed underneath with plywood. The southern third of the front of the house has a pink D:\DOCFILE\DESIGNAT.ION\SHEEL Y.DES Page JO t / ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 86 sandstone-colored brick veneer on the lower half, with aluminum siding above. The middle third is brick veneer from grade to eave-line. The northern third has an aluminum sided srara2:e ---addition that extends eastward along the facade. The minimalist entry, which is ver,· much in keeping with the International Style. is inset under an overhang of the !ow-pitched roof and features multiple light fixtures along the roof eaves. The entry separates the two different brick veneered sections. The front door contains three vertical windows, and a large ringed brass plate around the handle. On the rear elen:tion, sliding glass doors open onto the large backyard, providing a spectacular ,·iew of the mountains. The original design featured a carpon. since enclosed into a garage. Other stylistic influences evident in the house include the Prairie Style low overhanging eaves and the louvers on the patio wall on the south side. The International Style can be seen in the large sliding glass doors, the use of glass block, the grooved and grid-patterned concrete, and the boxed fascia and eaves. The railing along the upper patio suggests western motifs, as does the large fireplace/chimney. The use of plywood. as with the boxed eaves, is significant as an example of the technological advances available to builders at the time. The small sight wall extending off of the southeast corner is often called a Wright Wall. as Frank Lloyd Wright inspired the design. The Sheely House, 1608 Sheely Drive -Constructed in 1955, the Sheely House at 1608 Sheely Drive is significant for its Ranch architecture, and embodies many of the distinctive characteristics of this style. The property also contributes to the significance of the Sheely Drive Local Landmark District due to its association.with Arthur Sheely, for whom the neighborhood is named. The original owner of this residence. Sheely was a prominent businessman. as well as a local and state civic leader. Mr. Sheely was a partner in the Sheely-Andrews Motor Co. He was also active in the Republican party. serving as the Colorado Republican chairman from 1941-47. In 1952 he was a co-chairman for the Eisenhower for President campaign in Colorado. and was a national committeeman for the Republican parry in 1956-1960. Sheely visited with Eisenhower frequently at the home of his mother-in-law in Denver. 1608 Sheely Drive is a one story structure, built on a concrete slab foundation. and constructed in an L-shaped plan. The lo"· pitched shake roof has exposed rafters. and lap siding with scalloped bottom edges in the gable ends. The walls are red sandstone blocks. below lap siding. The nearly symmetrical facade features a prominent chimney, made of red sandstone blocks, and located in the center of the house. To the left of the chimney is the front entry door with an open concrete-slab porch extending beyond the overhanging eaves, with a red sandstone block planter immediately in front. To the right is a coiner wall and the garage. Typical of the Ranch style. this property incorporates Colonial decorative elements. in the use of shutters and diamond-shaped panes of glass in the front door. This motif is picked up again in the porch light fixture and in the bathroom window. The prominent garage, large plate windows. sliding glass door, and use of new technological advancements of the time, such as plywood, all make this home a good example of the Ranch style. A small non-functional red sandstone wall extends past the end of the house to the north. Often called a Wright Wall, its design was inspired by Frank Lloyd ,,--right. Scalloped siding in the gable ends is another typical feature of D:\DOCFILE\DESIGNAT.ION\SHEEL 1·.DES Page JI ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 87 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 88 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 89 1605 Sheely Dr. – Solar Panel Array – Final Landmark Design Review April 17, 2024 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 2Aerial Map – 1605 Sheely Dr. / Moyer House 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHME1T 5 Packet Pg. 90 3Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed addition • Do the project plans meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation? • If this project is inconsistent with the Standard, is it eligible for a Waiver of Conditions, under Municipal Code Sec. 14-5? • Issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV Property Background • City Landmark • Moyer House, designated February 14, 2000 • Example of the Ranch building type with International and Prairie style influences • House constructed 1953-1954 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHME1T 5 Packet Pg. 91 Installation of a 7.29 kW solar system with 18 flush-mounted roof panels 5 Proposed Project 6Attachment Detail 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHME1T 5 Packet Pg. 92 Staff Analysis Project is generally consistent with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation, except for Standard #2, due to the location of the solar panels toward the front of the house. A Waiver of Conditions may be approved if one or both of these criteria are met: 1) The requested waiver is the minimum necessary to accommodate exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the affected property . . . [that] are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; and/or 2) The requested waiver as submitted will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of this Chapter except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance the purposes of Chapter 14. 7 8Work Session Requests for Additional Information • Commissioner Gibson requested that sample motions be added to the Staff Report for this item that account for the possibility that the Commission may approve the solar policy being considered during the April 17, 2024 HPC meeting. • Such sample motions have been added to Staff Report. 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHME1T 5 Packet Pg. 93 9Staff Recommendation • Approve the proposal by granting a Waiver of Conditions and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness 10Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed addition • Do the project plans meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation? • If this project is inconsistent with the Standard, is it eligible for a Waiver of Conditions, under Municipal Code Sec. 14-5? • Issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHME1T 5 Packet Pg. 94 1605 Sheely Dr. – Solar Panel Array – Final Landmark Design Review April 17, 2024 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 11 ITEM 4, ATTACHME1T 5 Packet Pg. 95 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 17, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 2601 S. COLLEGE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the commercial property at 2601 South College Avenue. On October 17, 2023, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property was Landmark-eligible based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, Landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: DRACOL, LLC HPC’S ROLE: Section 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code establishes that “any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City.” In this hearing, the Commission shall consider an appeal of the determination of eligibility for 2601 S. College Avenue, based on the provided evidence from the initial determination (Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory 1403 form) and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks in Section 14-22 of the municipal code to make its own determination of eligibility. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Section 14-9). BACKGROUND On October 17, 2023, City staff determined the property at 2601 S. College to be Eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark, thus meeting the definition of an “historic resource” under Municipal Code 14-3, in response to a preliminary development review (PDR) application received on July 19, 2023. Per the requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, adaptive reuse of historic resources on development sites in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation is required, subject to the potential for a Modification of Standards under Land Use Code 2.8. Staff decisions regarding eligibility for historic status are subject to appeal to the Historic Preservation Commission within 14 days of the determination issue date, per Sec. 14-23(b) of the code. The property owner appealed the staff Packet Pg. 96 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 determination on October 23, 2023. The HPC meeting was scheduled for April 17, 2024, to accommodate the appellant’s need to consult with their own historic preservation consultant and legal counsel. Property History This section is largely reproduced and adapted from Attachment 1, the staff-produced historic survey form for the property. This site is the Ghent Automobile Dealership, constructed in 1966. It consists of three features: an irregular plan showroom and service center (Feature 1), a rectangular plan building constructed for use as a used car office (Feature 2), and a set of detached concrete stairs (Feature 3) belonging to the W. A. Drake farm which occupied the site prior to the dealership. Frank Ghent began selling cars in 1926 and continued to work in the automotive industry through the 1980s. In 1940, Ghent took over the Ford Automobile dealership at 205 N. College. With the help of his sons, Eldon and Dwight, the Ghents opened a used car dealership across the street and a service and parts store several blocks away. The business relocated to this site in 1966 and combined all aspects of their dealership on one property. The site is significant under Fort Collins Significance Standards 1, 2, and 3 for its association with the post- war movement of businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city, for its association with the Ghent family, as an excellent representation of mid-century automobile dealership design, and as a representation of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. Automobiles in Fort Collins Invented in the late nineteenth-century, the automobile has transformed American life and space. Early automobiles were a luxury of the wealthy, as most Americans traveled by foot, horsepower, or railroad. The first automobile appeared in Fort Collins in 1902, driven by County Judge J. Mack Mills. Ownership grew slowly, and it was more than a year later before the next automobile came to town. By 1909, the city clerk reported 140 vehicles registered to Fort Collins residents. With a population of approximately 8,000 in 1910, it is apparent that automobile ownership continued to be a recreational expense only for the elite of Fort Collins. Introduction of enclosed cabs, easy starters, and the innovation of mass production techniques by Henry Ford in the 1910s significantly reduced the cost of construction and made automobiles more attractive to middle-class Americans. Ownership rose drastically in the 1920s, buoyed by economic prosperity and the easy availability of credit. By 1927, more than 50% of Americans owned a car, shifting car culture from a luxury expense of the wealthy to a requirement of life in the United States. As the United States entered the post-war era, car manufacturers quickly shifted back to producing automobiles. Many Americans had put off buying a new vehicle during the previous decades of depression and war and consumer demand for new cars rose to a new high in 1949. Car purchases increased through the 1950s, fueled by fears that involvement in the Korean War would again restrict automobile manufacturing. Although automobile designs in the late 1940s appeared very similar to pre- war vehicles, car manufacturers were soon debuting new sleek, streamlined, modern designs; frequently changing features and body styles encouraged the purchase of a new, updated automobile. Post war prosperity coupled with easily available credit and the connection of consumerism to patriotism drove the emergence of a uniquely American car culture. Families moved away from the city center into newly developed suburbs where daily tasks, like running errands and going to work, required use of an automobile. For local Fort Collins residents, the dominance of individual automobile transportation was secured when the city’s streetcar system, established in 1907, closed in 1951. In Fort Collins, the thriving postwar economy drove a building boom that lasted into the 1970s. As automobile use became the norm, businesses accommodated drivers with easy access, free parking, and drive-up services. Even Fort Collins’ new City Hall, constructed in 1958, included a drive-up window for utility payments. Although the city’s wide streets and availability of parking allowed merchants to remain profitable downtown for longer than other cities, by the 1960s, several of the main retail establishments were beginning to relocate away from downtown. J.C. Penny constructed a new store on South College Avenue in 1963 and Montgomery Ward relocated to the new University Shopping Center that same year. Downtown automobile vendors were a significant part of this trend as well. Packet Pg. 97 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 The Ghent Dealership In 1936, Art Sheely constructed a new Moderne style showroom at 330 S. College. The building occupied a corner lot along the main thoroughfare and was located slightly farther away from downtown than earlier dealerships; several residences had to be demolished prior to construction.22 The building was asymmetrical with large front windows, a stepped parapet with horizontal lines, and a large Chrysler- Plymouth neon sign over the primary entrance.23 Dreiling Motors also constructed a new dealership in 1943 at 230 S. College. The stucco-clad building supported banks of large, plate glass windows, an inset corner entrance with gasoline pumps, and a large lighted, curved sign which advertised GMC Trucks and Buick. Few dealerships were constructed during WWII, but pent-up consumer demand and a shift towards car culture led to a proliferation of new auto dealers and showrooms postwar. With heightened competition, dealers needed to set themselves apart and capture the interest of their increasingly mobile customers. Car manufacturers began to print informational booklets for dealers which provided advice on planning new dealerships and shared the results of dealership design competitions. Planning Automobile Dealer Properties, produced in 1948 by General Motors Corporation, provided guidance for business owners looking to construct a new dealership. The book’s first eighteen pages detail the importance of the showroom, which acted as a continuous advertisement for the cars located within. The guide noted that showrooms should be sited in the most prominent location, “so that it is seen- by the largest amount of traffic, for the longest period of time, and at the most frequent intervals”; this was essential as traffic, “is the raw material from which all customers are derived.” The book considered such details as proper viewing distance from automobile traffic, shape and angle of store windows, the importance of natural lighting, canopies, roof supports, and display backgrounds. Dealerships also utilized other features to further catch the eye of potential customers including large colorful signs that moved or blinked and using dramatic exaggeration of the building’s structural elements like folded-plate roofs and asymmetrical massing. The number of Fort Collins automobile dealerships increased significantly following WWII. The 1936 city directory lists eleven automobile sellers and by 1960, the number had increased to nineteen. A 1953 promotional publication from the Securities Investment Corporation entitled, The Counselor, described the auto industry as “vital” to the Fort Collins economy. “With 893 people dependent directly upon the automotive industry…with a total volume of $6,802,086.89 in new car sales and service during the last year, and with a combined payroll of $893,877.95… this industry represents a very vital part in the general economy of the community.” As the city’s population skyrocketed and new cars increased in size, dealers looked towards the outskirts of town for expansion. Several dealerships moved north along College Avenue and new dealerships emerged at 742, 910, 1110, 1006, and 1827 North College by 1960. Fewer dealerships looked to the south; it wasn’t until 1964 that the first automobile dealership moved past the 400 block of South College. That year, Rauch Motors constructed a new dealership at 2000 S. College. The business was short-lived, closing in 1972, but lead the way for others moving in that direction including Ghent Motors at 2601 S. College in 1966, Ferd Markley to 3401 S. College in 1973, and Dick Dellenbach to 3111 S. College in 1971. Ghent Dealership By 1964, Ghent Motors was considering a move away from their downtown location. In a 1987 edition of Business World, local competitor Gene Markley of Markley Motors remembers the move, “Ghent was the first to go south… We all thought he was a little crazy for moving out into the country”. The new 5-acre location at the corner of Drake Road and College Avenue had been a part of the W. A. Drake Farm and was first developed only as an additional car lot. An advertisement for the South College Sales Lot’s grand opening located the dealership’s expansion squarely within the context of Fort Collins’ mid-century growth and the subsequent movement of commercial properties away from the city center. The South College lot was, “Expanding with Growing Fort Collins” and the ad noted, “Now as our city grows we add a modern, well lighted car lot to serve Fort Collins even better”. Packet Pg. 98 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 In February of 1966, the new dealership complex was announced. A good deal of research was conducted prior to its development, a 1966 Coloradoan article noted the Ghents, “traveled to several states, looking at new dealer buildings and gathering ideas the last five years before the original new design was reached”. The new complex boasted a five-car, glass-fronted showroom, 32 service stalls, doubled body shop space, and a drive-up window for parts purchasing; two acres of the site were reserved for customer parking while the remaining three acres housed the vehicle inventory and buildings. Denver architects Moore, Combs, and Burch designed the buildings with modern materials and features including air conditioning, laminated wood beams, and a pre-stressed concrete roof. A separate building housed the used car office (Feature 2). Site History A car wash was added to the site in 1972. The building was located at the northwest corner of the site and was removed between 1983-1999. In 1976, chain link fencing was added around the rear parking area and prefabricated buildings were installed, although their exact location is unknown. The roof of the west portion was replaced in 1997 with EPDM roofing (synthetic rubber). In 1998, the east portion roof was replaced with 18-inch standing seam metal panels. Other alterations since the time of construction include the replacement of at least 14 overhead service doors with modern counterparts; the exact date of this change is unknown. Previous documentation for this site posited that the canopy on the east-northeast elevation was added after the building’s original construction date of 1966. Although there are several construction images that show the building without the canopy, a 1966 photo in the Coloradoan provides evidence that it was constructed at the same time as the remainder of the dealership. In addition, an artist sketch of the building’s design printed in February of that year depicts the canopy, indicating it was an integral part of the building from the design stage. The previous documentation also notes the two shed-roofed additions to the west elevation were added in 2004 as documented by plans held at the Fort Collins Permit Office. These plans could not be relocated during this project and historic aerial images indicate the additions were added between 1983- 1999. 2018 DOE and Development Review History: On October 16, 2017, a development applicant first contacted Historic Preservation Services to complete an historic review of the property at 2601 S. College Avenue. Under a previous code process that did not require completion of an intensive-level historic survey as the basis for a determination of eligibility, on October 26, the CDNS Director and the Chair of the LPC (Landmark Preservation Commission, now the HPC) determined the property was an historic resource based on landmark eligibility. The applicant appealed that decision, which was heard by the LPC on February 21, 2018. After discussion, the LPC determined the property Eligible as an historic resource. The appellant appealed the LPC decision to City Council, which heard the matter on April 3 and determined the property Not Eligible for landmark designation. Determinations of eligibility are valid for five years per Sec. 14-23(a). City Council’s 2018 determination expired five years following the decision on April 3, 2023 (see LUC 3.4.7, C, 1). At the HPC’s request, this process record has been added as Attachment 5, for reference. August 16, 2023 – Preliminary Development Review: The property in question is part of a redevelopment proposal submitted by Norris Design. At their preliminary development review hearing with City staff on August 16, Preservation staff identified the need for historic survey of 2601 S. College Avenue, 2627 S College Avenue, and 132 W Thunderbird Drive, because all three properties lacked official determinations of eligibility completed within the last five years. August 23, 2023 – Survey Ordered: On August 23, 2023 payment was received from the applicant for historic survey of the three properties. Preservation staff completed the survey. October 17, 2023 – Survey Completed and Transmitted: On October 17, 2023, staff transmitted the results of the survey to the developers and the owners of record for both properties. Staff found that 2601 S. College Avenue is Eligible, based on its significance under Standards 1, 2, and 3. Staff also Packet Pg. 99 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 determined that 2627 S College Avenue and 132 W Thunderbird Drive are Not Eligible under any applicable criteria. October 27, 2023 – Appeal Received – On October 27, staff received an appeal of the finding of Eligible for 2601 S. College from Kriss Spradley on behalf of the owner, DRACOL LLC. Per the appellant’s request, staff scheduled the hearing for April 2024 HPC meeting. RELEVANT CODES AND PROCESSES FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Sec. 14-22. - Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as landmarks or landmark districts. A determination of eligibility for landmark designation typically applies to the entire lot, lots, or area of property upon which the landmark is located and may include structures, objects, or landscape features not eligible for landmark designation located on such lot, lots, or area of property. In order for a district to be eligible for landmark district designation, at least fifty (50) percent of the properties contained within the proposed landmark district must qualify as contributing to the district. Resources eligible for landmark designation or eligible to contribute to a landmark district must possess both significance and integrity as follows: (a) Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object, or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how resources are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. The criteria for determining significance are as follows: (1) Events. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events: a. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. (2) Persons/Groups. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. (3) Design/Construction. Resources may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of resources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A resource can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. (4) Information potential. Resources may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (b) Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities Packet Pg. 100 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 do not need to be present for a site, structure, object, or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. The criteria for determining integrity are as follows: (1) Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. (2) Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. (3) Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. (4) Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. (5) Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. (6) Feeling is a resource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. (7) Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource's historic or prehistoric character. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) Sec. 14-23. - Process for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts. (a) Application. [Omitted – this code section applies to applications for formal Landmark designation, and not to determinations of eligibility for development review purposes under Land Use Code 3.4.7]. (b) Appeal of determination. Any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. The appeal shall include an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form for each resource that is subject to appeal, prepared by an expert in historic preservation acceptable to the Director and the appellant, with the completion cost of such intensive-level survey to be paid by the appellant. Such survey need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Director shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. Not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing, the Director shall: (1) Provide the appellant and any owner of any resource at issue with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal by first class mail; (2) Publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and (3) Cause a sign readable from a public point of access to be posted on or near the property containing the resource under review stating how additional information may be obtained. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) ELIGIBILITY SUMMARY From the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form (1403) for 2601 S. College Avenue, Preservation staff found the property Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark and subject to the provisions for historic resources in Land Use Code 3.4.7. Staff made that finding based on the 2023 research process, applicable standards, and best practice guidance. Since the City’s eligibility standards are based heavily on the Criteria used by the federal government to administer the National Register of Historic Places, federal guidance, Packet Pg. 101 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 7 including National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, with some additional flexibility to allow for the recognition of properties significant to community history that may not otherwise qualify for a program like the National Register. Generally, this means that staff and/or an engaged third-party historian completes historic survey for a property with the following steps: 1. Historical research on the property, including historic photos, archival records, historic newspaper records, available secondary sources (published histories, historic context reports, historic survey reports, etc.); 2. Establishment of, and often writing of, appropriate historic and/or architectural contexts, including local, state, and national, in which the property should be evaluated; 3. Comparison of the property with other, similar properties (if available/extant) within the appropriate context; 4. Determination of whether the property is historically, architecturally, or culturally significant based on the above process and measured against the City’s Standards in Municipal Code 14-22. 5. (Only if the property is determined significant) determination of whether the property retains enough of its essential features from the established historic period to adequately convey that significance. Put differently, a determination of whether the property is still able to “tell its story” with its surviving features. 6. If a property is found to be both significant, and then retain enough historic integrity to adequately convey that significance, than it is determined Eligible for Landmark designation. The research completed by staff includes the following statement regarding significance: This site has previously been documented by the City of Fort Collins and Robert and Kristen Autobee in 2017-2018. It was determined not eligible for listing as a local landmark by Fort Collins City Council in April 2018. In October 2017, Historic Preservation staff received an application for Historic Review associated with a potential development proposal that would impact this site. The property was reviewed by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Land Use Code section 3.4.7(c). They found the property eligible for listing as a local landmark under Significance Standards A, B, and C for its association with the growth of the automobile industry, association with the Ghent family, and as a property that embodies the distinctive original characteristics of a mid-century automobile dealership. The reviewers noted that the roof materials and several garage doors had been altered, but that the property retained a preponderance of its architectural integrity. This finding was appealed to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) in February 2018. With this appeal, the appellant submitted a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by independent historians, Robert and Kirsten Autobee who found the site not eligible for listing as a local landmark and not eligible for listing on the State and National Registers. The Autobee’s determined the property not eligible under local Standard 1 as, “Mr. Ghent had started and established his business at another location”, not eligible under local Standard 2 due to the property’s lack of association with the significant period of Mr. Ghent’s life, and not eligible under Standard 3 as the building did not possess distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The LPC examined the integrity, context, and standards of eligibility for the site and upheld the finding of individually eligible for listing as a local landmark under Standards A and C. The Commission noted additional information was needed before determining the site eligible under Standard B. This finding was appealed to City Council. On April 3, 2018, City Council overturned the LPC decision as it, “failed to property interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code”. Packet Pg. 102 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 8 The site was revisited for this survey in 2023 and additional research was conducted leading to a reevaluation of the site’s significance. In addition, the City of Fort Collins’ Land Use Code 3.4.7(c) dealing with historic and cultural resources was repealed in its entirety on March 5, 2019. This site has been evaluated against the updated City of Fort Collins’ Significance Standards. Under Standard 1, the site is strongly associated with the post-war movement of Fort Collins businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city. As the city’s population grew after WWII, many commercial enterprises relocated from the space-constrained downtown to the open areas near the outskirts of town. Thomas and Harris note in their postwar development context, “As automobile use increased, business owners found ways to cater to drivers who wanted easy access to services and plenty of parking spaces.”0F1 The 1966 Ghent dealership exemplifies this historic trend and is an excellent example of a mid-century business relocating to better meet the needs of their automobile-driving customers. The new dealership location had two acres of parking, entrances on both College Avenue and Drake Road with “360-degree access to the building”, and a drive-thru window for auto part sales.1F2 Autobee’s assertion that, “Because, Mr. Ghent had started and established his business at another location, 5LR.14283 would not qualify under Fort Collins Local Landmark Criteria 1” is erroneous. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-22(a)(1) does not disqualify businesses that existed in a previous location; in fact, the relocation of the business at that specific point in time is what makes this site significant and qualifies it for individual landmarking under Standard 1. Feature 3 would not contribute to the significance of the site under this Standard. The site is significant under Standard 2 for its association with Frank and Dwight Ghent. The previous documentation in 2017 determined the site not eligible under this standard as, “Mr. Ghent’s activities in the development of Larimer County and Fort Collins primary took place before the move to 2601 S. College Avenue in 1966”. In 2018, the LPC noted additional information was needed to provide an evaluation of the site’s association with the Ghent family. Additional research conducted for this project found Dwight and Frank Ghent influential and important members of the Fort Collins business community. The Ghent’s were active in various veteran organizations, provided vehicles for community needs, served on local and local commissions including the Chamber of Commerce Board, State Highway Commission, Fort Collins Water Board, and First National Bank Board. In addition, the Ghent’s were active members of local, state, and national automobile dealer associations. The Ghent family has made a recognizable contribution to the history of Fort Collins and the site is eligible under Standard 2 for its association with the family. Although Dwight’s home at 1612 Sheely Drive is locally landmarked as part of the Sheely Historic District and Frank’s home at 638 Whedbee is included in the National Register Laurel School Historic District and was individually landmarked in 1996, Fort Collins city code does not prohibit landmarking multiple properties associated with the same individuals. Feature 3 would not contribute to the significance of the site under this Standard. Under Standard 3, the site is significant as an excellent and rare remaining example of mid-century automobile dealership design and as an example of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. In 2018, Autobee and Autobee recommended the site not eligible under Standard C as the building had undergone alterations over the past five years and did not possess distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Additional research and consideration of character defining features other than the roof and overhead doors reveals the site to retain sufficient integrity and convey a Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. Feature 3 would not contribute to the significance of the site under this Standard. The site is a good example of the Modern Movements / Contemporary architectural style. Character defining features include large plate glass windows, long and low massing, low- pitched gable roof, asymmetrical plan, widely overhanging eaves, exposed rafter beams, 1 Thomas and Harris, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S”, 62. 2 “New Ghent Motors Garage Set for August Opening.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966. Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 9 stretches of uninterrupted wall cladding, obscured entry, and use of natural materials. Contemporary and Modern Movement architectural styles expressed the economic prosperity and belief in modern technology of the mid-century period.2F3 Glossy brushed metals, expanses of plate glass, and use of newly invented materials like laminated wood beam or plastics, “represented America’s unwavering belief in new technology” and excitement for the space age of the future.3F4 Use of modern materials and a modern design also indicated to prospective customers that the business and its products were modern and up to date. Modern Movement buildings express an important aspect of Fort Collins and United States history – a time of economic prosperity, belief in new technology and materials, and the changing nature of consumer culture.4F5 Fort Collins has several prominent buildings that express the wide variety of architectural forms included under the Modern Movement umbrella, but only one other known Contemporary style commercial building. Descended from the architectural tradition of Frank Lloyd Wright, Contemporary style buildings were designed to feature geometric shapes, natural materials and the interplay of interior and exterior spaces. A spate of commercial buildings constructed near downtown in the late 1950s through the 1970s convey the International, Googie, Usonian, and Brutalist styles. These buildings include Rocky Mountain Bank (1966) at 315 W Oak, First National Bank Tower (1968) at 215 W. Oak, Poudre Valley National Bank (1966-1967) at 401 S. College, and Safeway, now Lucky’s (1966), at 425 S. College. Further from downtown, the Faith Realty building at 1630 S. College (1964) and the Key Bank (1970), located just northeast of the Ghent dealership, express the Modern Movement architectural styles with their flat roofs, wide metal cornices, overhanging eaves, and horizontal massing. The strip mall at 1101 W. Elizabeth (1964) has not been previously documented by city’s Historic Preservation Services, but it expresses Modern Movement characteristics with its iconic folded plate roof and exaggerated structural supports. Although not currently within city limits (but within the city’s Growth Management Area), the only known Contemporary style building is Supermarket Liquors at 1300 E. Mulberry. As discussed above, automobile dealerships emerged as a building type, separate from other retail establishments, in the 1920s. By the 1940s, automobile manufacturers were encouraging dealers to modernize their buildings through publications like General Motor’s Planning Automobile Dealer Properties and Ford’s Plans for New and Modernized Sales and Service Buildings. The Ghent’s were active members of the Ford Motor Company Dealer’s Association and frequently attended training sessions in Detroit, MI. A 1966 Coloradoan article notes the Ghent’s planned the site, “with the help of the Ford Motor Company” after visiting many auto dealerships throughout the country.5F6 This site exhibits the design principles of mid-century automobile dealerships which reflect a period of American car culture that no longer exists today. The site’s orientation along two arterial streets, increased access to service bays, and drive-thru part sales window illustrate the centrality of automobiles to Fort Collins residents, while the showroom’s elevation above street level, oblique orientation toward the intersection of Drake Road and College Avenue, and window walls reflect the values of mid-century consumer culture, where advertisements for new cars were made to those already driving automobiles. In addition, this site is one of the few remaining mid-century automobile dealerships within Fort Collins that retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic associations. During the 2018 City Commission meeting, several local examples of post-WWII automobile dealerships were noted. Those dealerships, along with others identified during the course of this survey, are listed below with a description of their current status. 3 Carol J. Dyson, “Midcentury Commercial Design Evaluation and Preservation: An Opportunity for Commissions.” The Alliance Review (Spring 2017), 4. 4 Dyson, “Evaluation and Preservation.” 5 Carol Dyson, “Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials.” In Proceedings of the Mid-Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation Symposium, St. Louis, MO, April 2015. 6 “History of Fort Dealers in Fort Collins.” Coloradoan, October 26, 1966. Packet Pg. 104 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 10 • Poudre Valley Motors constructed a new dealership at 303 N. College in 1951 and operated at that location through 1971.6F7 The building was demolished in 2022. • Michael Rambler Jeep constructed a new dealership with a folded plate roof at 331 N. College in 1965-1966.7F8 The building was demolished in 2022. • The Ed Carroll Volkswagen dealership, built in 1968 at 3003 S. College, has been heavily altered with several additions to the west elevation in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s and a remodel of the façade in 2017. • Banwell Motors at 142 Remington was constructed in 1955 and has been determined eligible for local landmark status under Standards A and C for its early association with the automotive repair business and as a good commercial example of the Modern Movements style. • Watts Auto Sales at 1101 N. College was constructed in 1946 and demolished prior to 1970. • Oakes Motors (later Fort Collins Motors) at 354 Walnut was constructed in 1946 and demolished during the construction of The Elizabeth Hotel. • Rauch Motor Company was one of the first dealerships to relocate to South College in 1964.8F9 Historic aerial images indicate it was demolished between 1971-1978. • Continental Sports Ltd. (later Colorado Import Motors) at 1113 N. College was constructed in 1964. Since the 1960s, the roof style has been changed from flat to wood shingle-clad mansard and all of the automobile accessible openings have been closed. • Markley Motors, constructed in 1940 at 246 N College, has been remodeled several times since its original construction and is now part of The Exchange. This site no longer retains sufficient integrity. • Dreiling Motors was constructed in 1943 at 230 S. College. Since that time, the corner entrance has been infilled, the plate glass windows removed, and portions of the exterior have been re-clad with brick. The building no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic associations. The site is unlikely to yield important information in reference to research questions under Standard 4 and is not eligible under this standard. This site has also been evaluated for eligibility against the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria. Requirements for listing properties on the NRHP are set by the National Park Service and differ from those used to evaluate significance and eligibility at the local level; a property may be eligible under one set of criteria and not the other. Although the site is representative of Fort Collins’ post-war economic expansion, the site’s significance to this historic trend does not rise to the level required by the NRHP for individual nomination. Under Criterion B, the NRHP stipulates that the site be associated with a person’s productive life, and that multiple eligible properties be representative of different aspects of the person’s life. Frank Ghent’s personal residence (638 Whedbee) is already listed on the NRHP as a contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District and the site most associated with his productive life is 205 N. College, where he sold automobiles for more than 20 years. Dwight Ghent’s significance in the Fort Collins business community does not rise to the level required by the NRHP. For these reasons, the site is not eligible for individual listing on the NRHP under Criterion B. Under Criterion C, the site is representative of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style and as an example of mid-century automobile dealership design. Although the site does embody the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of construction, its architectural significance is not sufficient to qualify for individual listing on the NRHP. The site 7 “All Eyes are Focused on the Opening of…” Coloradoan, April 25, 1951. 8 “A New Business for Fort Collins.” Coloradoan, December 5, 1965. 9 “Apartment House, Business Permits Issued at City Hall” Coloradoan, February 24, 1964. 3DFNHW3J Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 11 is unlikely to yield important information in reference to research questions under Criterion D. The site is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The form provides the following information regarding historic integrity: This site is significant for its association with the post-war movement of businesses to the outer edges of the city and as an excellent representation of mid-century automobile dealership design and contemporary architecture. As an example of the contemporary architectural style essential elements of physical integrity include its long and low massing, asymmetrical plan, exposed roof beams, broad expanses of uninterrupted wall surfaces, obscured entries, window wall with fixed windows filling gable ends, trapezoidal windows, and broadly overhanging eaves. As an example of mid-century automobile dealership design, essential physical elements include: siting and orientation of the building toward the street, visibility of the interior showroom, asymmetrical plan, and cohesive inclusion of sales, parts, and service departments. As an example of the post-war movement of businesses essential portions of physical integrity include its auto-centric design elements like ample parking, easy street access, and accommodations for drive-thru customers. Location, Setting, and Workmanship The site retains integrity of location. The dealership remains in the location where it was originally constructed in 1966. Integrity of setting has been slightly impacted by the construction of additional commercial buildings and demolition of 1960s commercial buildings to the north, south, and east. Although the surrounding buildings have changed over the last fifty years, the general commercial character of the setting is retained. The site continues to be located along two arterial streets and spatial relationships between the buildings and the street remain as originally oriented. The site retains integrity of workmanship which is visible in the application of the exterior stone cladding. Materials Integrity of materials has been impacted by the addition of metal cladding to the roofs of Features 1 and 2 and replacement of many original overhead doors in the service bays. As noted by Autobee and Autobee in 2018, only four of the original overhead doors remain and the replacement doors have significantly fewer inset windows. The Autobee’s remarked that the service bay doors, specifically the glass components, are a character defining feature of the building, and their loss, coupled with the replacement of the roof material, “greatly detracts from the historic nature of the building”. While these materials have been lost and do detract from the historic integrity, other significant character defining materials remain intact, including the laminated roof beams, fixed glass window walls, and broad expanses of uninterrupted exterior cladding composed of concrete block, stucco, and stone. Design Integrity of design has been slightly impacted by two small additions to the west elevation, added between 1983-1999, and the infill of some windows on the east elevation. Although Autobee and Autobee described the canopy on the east elevation as, “the largest addition” to the building, further research has determined that the canopy was in place by October 1966 and therefore does not detract from the integrity of the site. In addition, an artist’s sketch of the building’s design published in the Coloradoan in February 1966 includes the canopy, indicating it was part of the original design. Other aspects of the dealership’s design remain intact, including its long and low massing, asymmetrical plan, low-pitched gable roof, broadly overhanging eaves, fixed window walls, obscured entries, exposed rafter beams, and broad expanses of uninterrupted wall surfaces. In addition, the site retains all aspects of its mid-century automobile dealership design, including the drive-thru parts window, cohesive incorporation of parts, sales, and service departments, orientation of the showroom toward a busy intersection, surrounding asphalt parking lots, and easy automobile access to the site and service center. Feeling and Association The site retains integrity of feeling and association. Although the roof has been replaced with a material not available in the 1960s and many overhead doors have been replaced, the site retains its historic sense of the mid-century period. The building’s exterior cladding, Packet Pg. 106 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 12 massing, window walls, asymmetrical plan, low-pitched roof, and exposed rafter beams continue to convey the architectural aesthetics of the Modern Movement of the 1960s and the building is easily readable as of mid-century construction. The site retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic associations. Based on the above evidence, staff finds the property Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPELLANT MATERIALS ANALYSIS The appellant has submitted a memorandum with an accompanying historic survey form and appendix documenting their position that the property is Not Eligible. Staff has the following analysis of the appellant material relative to staff’s own findings about the property. It should be noted that Municipal Code 14-22 outlines the eligibility requirements for any City Landmark in 14-22, noting that to be Eligible, a property must possess both significance and historic integrity (i.e., a measure of how well a property still reflects its significance through its physical features and setting). Related specifically to Significance, Municipal Code 14-22(a) states: “Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object, or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation [emphasis added]. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how resources are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential.” Standards for Significance Standard 1 – Events. “Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events: a) A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b) A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation.” Staff Conclusion Appellant Conclusion ELIGIBLE – Pattern of Events - Community: strongly associated with the post-war movement of Fort Collins businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history. INELIGIBLE - Community: Assertion that car dealerships cannot individually contribute to patterns of urban development. - State: See above - Nation: Not significant to national history Staff note: Typically, for both National Register of Historic Places designation, and for Fort Collins Landmark eligibility, a property does not need to demonstrate national significance – importance to the local community is sufficient for both programs, provided the importance is clearly documented. Packet Pg. 107 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 13 The Appellant asserts that Under Criterion A [presumably City Landmark Standard 1], that “it is extremely rare for a car dealership to individually contribute significantly to urban development. For this reason, car dealerships across the US are rarely designated at any level. Those dealerships that are designated are typically directly related to the major car companies in Detroit.” Staff would note this is factually inaccurate. Car dealerships can and have been designated at the local, state, and federal level across the United States. As part of the research for this staff report, staff discovered at least 29 properties across the United States listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places including at least two in Colorado (staff did not have the time to create an exhaustive list of auto dealerships listed individually in the NRHP, nor did staff have time to secure information about auto dealerships designated locally by city or county governments). In their cover memo, the Appellant goes on to state that “although the history of the City was affected by the shift toward automobile usage by the public, there is no evidence to show that the City was unique in this regard. Therefore, this criterion is not met.” The requirement that an event or trend be unique to Fort Collins is not a requirement stated in Standard 1. The City has regularly designated properties as eligible for Landmark designation for being particularly reflective and/or significant local examples of regional or national history. Standard 2 - Persons/Groups. “Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented.” Staff Conclusion Appellant Conclusion ELIGIBLE - Community: associated with Frank & Dwight Ghent as significant business and social leaders. Acknowledge residences of both Ghents are already Landmarked. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history. INELIGIBLE - Community: Note that best years in sales were at other sites in Fort Collins, and that Ghent social contributions were not directly related to the dealership property. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history The appellant makes some reasonable assertions regarding the significance of the property under Standard 2, including that this was the third of three different business properties associated with the Ghents, and that their residential properties are both already Landmarked by the City of Fort Collins. However, staff would note that the two previous Ghent-associated business properties have been heavily altered and have been previously determined as Not Eligible for historic designation due to those alterations. Standard 3 – Design/Construction. “Resources may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of resources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A resource can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values.” Staff Conclusion Appellant Conclusion ELIGIBLE INELIGIBLE Packet Pg. 108 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 14 - Community: significant as an excellent and rare remaining example of mid-century automobile dealership design and as an example of the Modern Movement/Contemporary architectural style. Comparative analysis with other resources in Fort Collins demonstrates this is a significant local example of Modern commercial architecture. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history. - Community: While there are specific elements that represent the style of the period, the design and details are very common, and is in no way remarkable for the period. On a scale of 1-10 for mid-century design value, 10 being the highest, this example is 1-1.5.. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history Staff would note that from our collective professional experience working with the both the National Register of Historic Places and the City Landmark program, there is no ranking system that is regularly deployed to “score” the architectural rating of any historic property. Based on federal and local guidelines and precedent, a property is considered architecturally significant when it is a significant or noteworthy example of a particular style, type, or method of construction in a local, state, or federal context. In the Appellant’s appendix, most of the examples provided are internationally significant examples of Modern architecture. In neither the National Register of Historic Places or the Fort Collins City Landmark program are examples of architecture required to be significant at the national or international level. As established in the relevant federal and local guidance, properties with importance in their local context can be, and regularly are, designated as historic. Standard 4 – Information Potential. “Resources may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Neither City staff nor the appellant considered this Standard applicable to the 2601 S. College Avenue property. Historic Integrity. “Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object, or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident.” (MC 14-22(b)) Aspect of Integrity Staff Conclusion Appellant Conclusion Location - the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. Retained – the dealership remains in its original location. Not Retained – “…according to the Survey, the area as a whole has lost significant Integrity for the mid‐century period and does not qualify for a national or historic district. All other existing buildings from the period of significance are widely dispersed, do not have the concentration needed for a historic district, and are not related to the automobile industry. Further, as demonstrated by the Survey, the Packet Pg. 109 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 15 Property itself has not played a significant role in this location, nor has a historic event taken place at this Property. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met.” Design - the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. Retained – Impacted by the two small additions on the west elevation and some window infill. However, overall design elements such as long and low massing, asymmetrical plan, low- pitched gable roof, broadly overhanging eaves, fixed window walls, obscured entries, exposed rafter beams, and broad uninterrupted wall surfaces remain. Not Retained – “…while the Property shows elements that are the style of the period, such as a gable roof with exposed rafters and large areas of glass, these elements are “very common” for the time period and represent an outdated building, not a historically significant structure.” Setting - the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. Retained – although the surrounding buildings have changed over the last fifty years, the general commercial character of the setting is retained. Not Retained – “The Property is not related to the location or to any formally recognized attribute of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the vision for the neighborhood set forth in the Structure Plan, which calls for a transition away from auto‐oriented uses and toward vertical, high density, mixed‐ use development in this area, demonstrates clearly that the surrounding community has changed and is expected to change further, which means that the Integrity of setting has been lost. The Survey shows that although there are several blocks with additional car dealerships, all other dealerships have kept up to date with dealership requirements for modification. This caused the area to lose any correlation to the mid‐century period. All other existing buildings from the mid‐ century period are widely dispersed, do not have the concentration needed for a historic district, and are not related to the automobile industry. The area has lost significant Integrity for the mid‐century period and does not qualify for a national or local historic district.” Materials - the physical elements that form a resource. Retained – Some detractions including the replacement of the roof with standing-seam metal and replacement of the overhead garage doors in the service bays. However, other key character- defining materials remain including the laminated, exposed roof beams, fixed glass window walls, and broad expanses of Not Retained – “The Owners are unable to continue to use the Property in any meaningful way because any changes that need to be made to encourage any dealership to operate here require changes to the building’s façade, landscaping, and glass. The Survey indicates that the Property and original materials can no longer be used as a car dealership, as modern dealerships Packet Pg. 110 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 16 uninterrupted exterior cladding of concrete block, stucco, and stone. require remodeling that would make all aspects current and contemporary. Because the Property cannot be used as a car dealership, the Property further loses its Integrity. Further, as noted in the Survey, many elements show “significant deterioration”—not due to lack of maintenance, but because the materials are nearing the end of life cycle, as the original materials were inexpensive and made to be replaced often. For example, all portions of the building with the showroom and service bays are made of concrete slab‐on‐ grade foundation. As the Survey states, these are not materials that were made to preserve buildings. Other issues with the structure and materials of the Property noted in the Survey as related to Integrity include problems with deterioration of drainage and surfaces, necessitating the removal of asphalt for the purposes of regrading and fixing the foundations. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met.” Workmanship - the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. Retained – important features of the Modern construction techniques, including stone veneer over concrete construction, remain. Not Retained - “The Survey found that this Property does not represent the work of a master, nor does the Property have high artistic value. According to the Survey, while there are specific elements that represent the style of the mid‐century period, the design and details are “very common,” and the Property is “in no way remarkable” for the period. Further, the back of the building with the garage doors is highly inefficient because the doors require constant maintenance and have large gaps that increase energy costs in the winter. The Owners have explored the idea of remodeling numerous times, but every time the analysis proved that tearing the building down was the most economically viable option, especially given the fact that no other dealership is willing to occupy the Property due to the Property’s non‐compliance with dealerships’ strict standards and regulations.” Feeling - a resource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results Retained – Maintains overall sense as a 1960s/mid-century auto dealership. Not Retained – “As noted in the Survey, the design and details of the improvements are “very common” and “in no way remarkable” for the mid‐ century period. Therefore, they cannot Packet Pg. 111 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 17 from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. successfully convey the feeling of the mid‐century period. Additionally, the improvements do not successfully convey the historic character of the post‐ war era because, as the Survey states, automobile dealerships generally do not individually contribute significantly to urban development. According to the Survey, automobile dealerships can be designated, but they are typically directly related to the major car companies in Detroit. Additionally, as noted above, all other dealerships in the area have kept up to date with dealership requirements for modification, meaning that the character and feeling of this post‐war era is no longer present in this area.” Association - the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource's historic or prehistoric character. Retained – building’s exterior cladding, massing, window walls, asymmetrical plan, low-pitched roof, and exposed rafter beams make association with the mid- 20th century apparent. Not Retained – “As noted above, this Property is the Ghents’ third location and is not associated with the Ghents’ best years in sales. Further, as noted above, the Property is not strongly associated with the mid‐century period due to its “common” design that is “in no way remarkable,” as noted in the Survey. It is also not well associated with the Post‐ War period, other than that it is an automobile dealership with an outdated design, and that existed at a time when all communities were becoming more auto‐oriented.” Regularly in both the Appellant’s survey form and in the cover memo, the Appellant references adaptive reuse potential as a factor in the property’s historic integrity. Staff would reiterate that historic integrity is a measure of how well or not well a property reflects its important historic period. Historic integrity is not a measure of adaptive reuse potential, which is a topic considered in the primary development review process and inappropriate as a consideration in an eligibility appeal hearing. The Appellant’s own Appendix showing the current status of the property seems to indicate a high degree of retention of historic materials and design features (which the Appellant argues limits the adaptive reuse potential of the property and/or the ability of the property to continue as an auto dealership) – this evidence, if used in the manner Municipal Code prescribes, supports an argument that the property retains historic integrity to its historic period. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY Staff will provide a final list of contacted organizations to the HPC and appellant prior to the hearing. As of April 11, four (4) public comments have been received regarding this determination of eligibility. One public comment received does not address eligibility specifically, but does recommend allowing for demolition of the site for new development. Three (3) comments support a determination of eligibility and adaptive reuse of the site. Staff will continue to report information about public comments received prior to the hearing to both the HPC and to the appellant and update this staff report as necessary. Packet Pg. 112 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 18 SAMPLE MOTIONS Eligible If the Commission determines that the property is eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Section 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the commercial property at 2601 South College Avenue eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14- 22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the evidence in the staff report, City survey form, and Appellant’s documentation, and based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings of significance] and [insert findings of integrity]. Not Eligible If the Commission finds that a property is not individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Section 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find 2601 South College Avenue not individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark according to the standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the evidence in the staff report, City survey form, and Appellant’s documentation, and based on the following findings of fact [insert findings based on lack of significance and/or integrity].” Note: The Commission may propose other wording for the motion based on its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2601 S College, City Historic Survey Form (2023) 2. 2023, October 27 Appeal Notice from Owner 3. Appellant Materials (Cover Memo, Survey Form, and Appendix) 4. Public Notice letter for this property 5. HPC Request – LPC & City Council Record from 2017-2018 Determination of Eligibility 6. Appellant Requested addition – redlines from 2019 code change to Chapter 14 7. Public Comments 8. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 113 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services OFFICIAL DETERMINATION: FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Historic Building Name: Ghent Motor Company Property Address: 2601 S. College Avenue Determination: ELIGIBLE Issued: October 17, 2023 Expiration: October 17, 2028 DRACOL, LLC 5994 S. Holly St, No 185 Greenwood Village, CO 80111-4221 Dear Property Owner: This letter provides you with confirmation that your property has been evaluated for Fort Collins landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14, Article II of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and has been found eligible for landmark designation. An intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form was completed by an historian on City staff in order to provide the information that serves as the basis for an evaluation of a property’s historic and/or architectural significance and its integrity, both of which are required for landmark eligibility as per Article II, Section 14-22. Staff has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity, and landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached form. Significance The historian made the following conclusions regarding significance: Under Standard 1, the site is strongly associated with the post-war movement of Fort Collins businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city…. The site is significant under Standard 2 for its association with Frank and Dwight Ghent…. Additional research conducted for this project found Dwight and Frank Ghent influential and important members of the Fort Collins business community…. Under Standard 3, the site is significant as an excellent and rare remaining example of mid-century automobile dealership design and as an example of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. Staff has certified the researching historian’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance under City Landmark Standards 1, 2, and 3, based on the following findings. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 114 - 2 - • The property’s statement of significance is supported by a discussion of historical context and a comparative analysis that is appropriate for the property. Relevant context reports have been referenced and cited. • Each significance criterion is addressed in the statement of significance, even if not applicable. • For eligible properties, a period of significance is provided and justified based on the available records. Integrity The staff historian’s evaluation concluded that the property has sufficient historic integrity to convey its significance, including design, location, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. Key detractions include the change of the roof to standing seam, but this was found to not be sufficient to disconnect the property from its historic associations. Staff agrees with the historian’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. • Discussion and conclusion responds directly to previous conclusions and assessments of the property, whether in opposition or in agreement. Statement of Eligibility: The Ghent Motor Company is eligible for listing as a local landmark under Fort Collins Significance Standards 1, 2, and 3 for its association with the post-war movement of businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city, for its association with the Ghent family, as an excellent representation of mid-century automobile dealership design, and as a representation of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. If you have any questions regarding this determination, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at jbertolini@fcgov.com, or 970-416-4250. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner Attachment: Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated October 2023. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 115 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 1 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: The Ghent Motor Company is eligible for listing as a local landmark under Fort Collins Significance Standards 1, 2, and 3 for its association with the post-war movement of businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city, for its association with the Ghent family, as an excellent representation of mid- century automobile dealership design, and as a representation of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. I. Identification 1. Resource number: B111 (City) 5LR.14283 (State) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 116 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 2 2. Temporary resource number: Click here to enter text. 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Ghent Motor Company 6. Current building name: 2Mazda 7. Building address: 2601 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80525 8. Owner name and address: DraCol LLC, 5994 S. Holly Street, #185, Greenwood Village, CO, 80111 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 7N Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 26 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 493402 mE 4489028 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 2022 Map scale: 7.5' ☒ 15' ☐ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 1 Block: # Addition: Ghent Annexation Year of Addition: 1966 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary is the legal boundary for Lot 1 in the Ghent Addition, described by the Larimer County Assessor as, “Lot 1, Ghent, FTC: Less 96030371; Less Por to City Per 20150057258.” III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular Plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 360 x Width 110 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s): Concrete Block, Stone, Stucco, Wood Shingle 18. Roof configuration: Flat, Gable 19. Primary external roof material: Metal, Synthetic 20. Special features: Plate Glass Window, Exposed Rafter Ends, Overhanging Eaves, Fence, Porte Cochere 21. General architectural description: This site is the 2Mazda car dealership, constructed at the corner of Drake Road and College Avenue in 1966. The nearly 4-acre site supports two buildings (Features 1 and 2; ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 117 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 3 formerly Buildings A and B) and a set of historic stairs (Feature 3). Feature 1 is an irregular plan, single-story building that supports vehicle sales at the east end and service at the west end. The west portion of the building is rectangular in plan and is oriented east-west along its long axis; the east portion of the building is L-shape in plan and is offset slightly from the east-west axis with the façade facing east-northeast. East Portion The east portion of Feature 1 is L-shape in plan with a concrete foundation and two gabled roofs. The north gable is symmetrical and the south gable is asymmetrical, both are clad in red raised seam metal panels. The exterior is composed of plate glass windows, rough random rubble stone, wood shingle, and concrete block. East-Northeast Elevation The façade faces east-northeast and is dominated by a gabled canopy that extends approximately 30 feet to the east from the main elevation. The canopy is supported by seven metal posts that connect to the exposed laminated wood outriggers above. Two signs are mounted to the metal posts, one reads, “2Mazda” the other “Mazda”. Below the canopy, the main portion of the façade supports a six-bay window wall; each bay has a two-lite fixed metal window. The window framing extends up, above wall height to the underside of the gable; these trapezoid-shaped lites have been infilled with an unknown material. North-Northwest Elevation The north-northwest elevation has a five-bay window wall at the east end, with fixed metal single-lite windows. The west-most bay supports a metal and glass door. The west end of the elevation is clad in random rubble stone interrupted by an eight-lite, fixed metal window that extends from the foundation to the top of the wall. West-Southwest Elevation The west-southwest elevation is composed of concrete block. A louvered metal vent is in the gable peak and laminated wood outriggers extend out under the overhanging eaves. A metal and glass foyer connects the east off-set portion of the building to the east-west oriented west portion. The foyer supports metal and glass doors on its north and south elevations. South-Southeast Elevation The south-southeast elevation is generally clad in concrete block. Near the west end is a bump-out, likely used as drive-through. The lower half of the bump-out is clad in wood shingle, the upper half is composed of fixed, single-lite metal windows. At the east end of ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 118 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 4 the elevation is a concrete loading dock, metal personnel door, and a metal overhead door. East-Northeast Elevation The south portion of the east-northeast elevation is set back from the main canopied portion to the north. It has no fenestration and is clad in random rubble stone. The gable peak is clad in wood shingle. South-Southeast Elevation The south-southeast elevation of the canopied portion is composed of a four-bay window wall with eight, metal, fixed lite windows. A metal and glass door allows access at the west end. West Portion The west portion of Feature 1 is oriented east-west and supports fifteen service bays with overhead doors. Above the bays are signs that denote the services offered. Bays 9, 10, and 11 are slightly taller than the remainder to accommodate larger vehicles. This west portion of the building is clad in stucco and topped with a flat roof clad in an unknown material. The eaves overhang slightly and are supported from below by decorative cornice. North Elevation At the west end of the north elevation is a bank of three fixed, single-line metal windows. Above is an internally lighted plastic sign reading “Service Parts”. Bays 1-6 are labeled “Full Service – One Stop Shop Covers It All” and bays 7 and 8 are labeled “Express Lube Plus”. These eight bays appear to support metal overhead doors with six inset lites, some of the doors were open at the time of survey. Bays 9-11 are slightly larger than the other bays; the roofline extends above the roofs to the east and west. Bay 9 has a metal overhead door with 24 inset lites, bays 10 and 11 have six inset lites. To the west is a metal and glass personnel door and fixed, metal single-lite window. Above the entrance is an internally lighted sign reading, “Body & Paint”. The west end of the elevation is labled, “Collision Center”. The overhead door of bay 12 has six inset lites; bay 13 has twelve inset lites and bays 14 and 15 have nine inset lites. West Elevation The west elevation has two, shed-roofed additions composed of concrete block that extend to the west from the main portion of the elevation. The shed roofs are clad in raised seam metal panels and there is no visible fenestration. South Elevation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 119 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 5 The south elevation supports the rear exits for the fifteen service bays. Bays 1, 2, 4, and 10 have metal overhead doors with six inset lites. Bays 5-8 have overhead doors with twelve inset lites and bay 9 has twenty-four inset lites. Bays 12-15 were not visible at the time of survey. 22. Architectural style/building type: Modern Movement / Contemporary 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The approximately 4-acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Drake Road and College Avenue. The site is entirely paved with some stone and gravel landscaping along the east elevation of Feature 1 and north elevation of Feature 2. Feature 1, the sales and service building, is set on a small hill, above the level of the road. A stone retaining wall extends in an arc around the east-northeast facing façade. A large deciduous tree shades the southeast corner of the canopy. Feature 3 is at the north end of the retaining wall, near a flagpole. City sidewalks extend along the north and east site boundaries, between the site and the arterial streets. Light poles are scattered throughout the site and line the north and east boundaries. The poles are metal with round concrete bases. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Feature 2 Feature 2 (formerly Building B) is located north of Feature 1 and is also slightly offset, facing east-northeast. The building has a concrete foundation and is clad in a mixture of concrete block and random rubble stone. The roof is an asymmetrical gable clad in raised seam metal panels. Five laminated wood outriggers extend out under the gable ends. The façade faces east-northeast. The primary entrance is at the north end and is composed of a metal and glass personnel door with a side lite and triangular-shaped transom above. To the south are four, fixed single-lite metal windows that extend from the foundation up underneath the roof. The lower two windows are rectangular, the upper two are trapezoid-shaped, following the shape of the gable end. The north-northwest elevation has six, fixed single-lite metal windows at the east end and a random rubble stone clad portion at the west end. The west-southwest elevation is clad in concrete block and supports two vehicle entrances with overhead doors. The doors were open at the time of survey. The south-southeast elevation has a metal personnel entrance at the west end. Feature 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 120 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 6 Feature 3 is a set of detached concrete steps located north of Feature 1 and east of Feature 2. The steps are associated with the farmstead that occupied this location prior to the car dealership and are inscribed with the name “W. A. Drake.” IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: #### Actual: 1966 Source of information: Larimer County Assessor Records 26. Architect: Moore, Combs, and Burch Source of information: “Ground Breaking.” Coloradoan, March 13, 1966 27. Builder/Contractor: Reid Burton Construction Company Source of information: “New Ghent Motors Garage Set for August Opening.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966. 28. Original owner: Frank Ghent Source of information: “New Ghent Motors Garage Set for August Opening.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966. 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): A car wash was added to the site in 1972. The building was located at the northwest corner of the site and was removed between 1983-1999. In 1976, chain link fencing was added around the rear parking area and prefabricated buildings were installed, although their exact location is unknown. The roof of the west portion was replaced in 1997 with EPDM roofing (synthetic rubber). In 1998, the east portion roof was replaced with 18-inch standing seam metal panels. Other alterations since the time of construction include the replacement of at least 14 overhead service doors with modern counterparts; the exact date of this change is unknown. Previous documentation for this site posited that the canopy on the east-northeast elevation was added after the building’s original construction date of 1966. Although there are several construction images that show the building without the canopy, a 1966 photo in the Coloradoan provides evidence that it was constructed at the same time as the remainder of the dealership.1 In addition, an artist sketch of the building’s design printed in February of that year depicts the canopy, indicating it was an integral part of the building from the design stage.2 The previous documentation also notes the two shed-roofed additions to the west elevation were added in 2004 as documented by plans held at the Fort Collins Permit 1 ”Thank You!” Coloradoan, October 26, 1966, page 39. 2 “New Ghent Motors Garage.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966, page 30. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 121 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 7 Office. These plans could not be relocated during this project and historic aerial images indicate the additions were added between 1983-1999. 30. Original location ☒ Moved ☐ Date of move(s): #### V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Commerce / Trade – Auto Showroom 32. Intermediate use(s): Click here to enter text. 33. Current use(s): Commerce / Trade – Auto Showroom 34. Site type(s): Car dealership 35. Historical background: Overview This site is the Ghent Automobile Dealership, constructed in 1966. It consists of three features: an irregular plan showroom and service center (Feature 1), a rectangular plan building constructed for use as a used car office (Feature 2), and a set of detached concrete stairs (Feature 3) belonging to the W. A. Drake farm which occupied the site prior to the dealership. Frank Ghent began selling cars in 1926 and continued to work in the automotive industry through the 1980s. In 1940, Ghent took over the Ford Automobile dealership at 205 N. College. With the help of his sons, Eldon and Dwight, the Ghent’s opened a used car dealership across the street and a service and parts store several blocks away. The business relocated to this site in 1966 and combined all aspects of their dealership on one property. The site is significant under Fort Collins Significance Standards 1, 2, and 3 for its association with the post-war movement of businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city, for its association with the Ghent family, as an excellent representation of mid-century automobile dealership design, and as a representation of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. Automobiles in Fort Collins Invented in the late nineteenth-century, the automobile has transformed American life and space. Early automobiles were a luxury of the wealthy, as most Americans traveled by foot, horsepower, or railroad. The first automobile appeared in Fort Collins in 1902, driven by County Judge J. Mack Mills.3 Ownership grew slowly, and it was more than a year later before the next automobile came to town. By 1909, the city clerk reported 140 vehicles registered to Fort Collins residents.4 With a population of approximately 8,000 in 1910, it is apparent that automobile 3 Malcom McNeill, The Automobile Comes to Fort Collins, (Malcolm E. McNeill: Fort Collins, CO: 2013), 7. 4 Doug Ernest, “Gasoline Service Stations in Fort Collins, 1920-1960: History and Architecture” Unpublished document on-file with City of Fort Collins, Museum of ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 122 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 8 ownership continued to be a recreational expense only for the elite of Fort Collins. Introduction of enclosed cabs, easy starters, and the innovation of mass production techniques by Henry Ford in the 1910s significantly reduced the cost of construction and made automobiles more attractive to middle-class Americans. Ownership rose drastically in the 1920s, buoyed by economic prosperity and the easy availability of credit. By 1927, more than 50% of Americans owned a car, shifting car culture from a luxury expense of the wealthy to a requirement of life in the United States.5 This increase of automobile ownership in the 1920s can be tracked through the Fort Collins city directory listings for automobile related services. In 1919, the directory listed nine categories of auto-related services across Fort Collins, Loveland, and Bellvue; by 1925, the number of categories increased to twenty in Fort Collins alone. Services offered included automobile related painters, parts, batteries, camps, storage, supplies, rentals, electricians, tires, and service stations. Another indication of the shift towards automobile reliance appears in two contrasting images of the intersection of College Avenue and Mountain Avenue taken twenty years apart. As Malcom McNeill documents in The Automobile Comes to Fort Collins, a 1904 image shows pedestrian and horse- powered transit, while a 1922 image depicts paved streets and automobiles, with not a horse in sight.6 Demand for new automobiles slowed significantly during the Great Depression, but Americans did not give up their vehicles. Although production of new cars dropped by 75% between 1929-1933, to its lowest rate since 1918, registrations only dipped by 10%, likely bolstered by the rising used car market.7 By 1935, auto sales had returned near to 1920s numbers.8 The United States’ entry into World War II dramatically affected use and production of automobiles, as gasoline was rationed and essential materials like rubber and metal were diverted in service of the war. Many manufacturers shifted to military production, making airplane engines, tanks, armored cars, and rockets. In Fort Collins, a group of businessmen, including two car dealership owners, established a new manufacturing company during the war known as the Northern Colorado Manufacturing Company. S.D. Hall and Ferd Markley, among others, provided $25,000 in capital stock and acquired a subcontract with the US Navy to produce submarine parts.9 The new manufacturing company employed 58 locals at the Giddings Machine shop; between January and May 1943, the Discovery, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/rb/id/9553/rec/1 5 Ibid. 6 McNeill, The Automobile Comes to Fort Collins, 60-61. 7 Robert Genat, The American Car Dealership, (MBI Publishing: Osceola, WI, 1999), 9. 8 Ernest, “Gasoline Service Stations,” 4. 9 “Plant to Begin Working Soon.” Express-Courier, September 25, 1942. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 123 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 9 shop turned out $55,000 in war materials and contributed $26,000 to the local economy via their monthly payroll.10 As the United States entered the post-war era, car manufacturers quickly shifted back to producing automobiles. Many Americans had put off buying a new vehicle during the previous decades of depression and war and consumer demand for new cars rose to a new high in 1949.11 Car purchases increased through the 1950s, fueled by fears that involvement in the Korean War would again restrict automobile manufacturing. Although automobile designs in the late 1940s appeared very similar to pre-war vehicles, car manufacturers were soon debuting new sleek, streamlined, modern designs; frequently changing features and body styles encouraged the purchase of a new, updated automobile. Post war prosperity coupled with easily available credit and the connection of consumerism to patriotism drove the emergence of a uniquely American car culture.12 Families moved away from the city center into newly developed suburbs where daily tasks, like running errands and going to work, required use of an automobile. For local Fort Collins residents, the dominance of individual automobile transportation was secured when the city’s streetcar system, established in 1907, closed in 1951. In Fort Collins, the thriving postwar economy drove a building boom that lasted into the 1970s. As automobile use became the norm, businesses accommodated drivers with easy access, free parking, and drive-up services. Even Fort Collins’ new City Hall, constructed in 1958, included a drive-up window for utility payments.13 Although the city’s wide streets and availability of parking allowed merchants to remain profitable downtown for longer than other cities by the 1960s, several of the main retail establishments were beginning to relocate away from downtown. J.C. Penny constructed a new store on South College Avenue in 1963 and Montgomery Ward relocated to the new University Shopping Center that same year.14 By the 1970s, American’s relationship to cars was changing. New emissions standards and tighter safety regulations constrained auto makers who, “turned out cars that were uninspired when compared to those of the previous 20 years.”15 The oil embargo imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973 sparked a sudden decline in full-size automobile sales and Americans began to seek out smaller, more gas efficient cars, many of which were 10 “Lest We Forget Fort Collins.” Express-Courier, October 15, 1943. “City’s New War Industry Planned To Continue Into Peaceful Years.” Express- Courier, May 23, 1943. 11 Genat, The American Car Dealership, 10. 12 Ashlen Stump, “An Auto-Biography: The Significance of Mid-Century Automobile Showrooms in Virginia,” (master’s thesis, University of Georgia, 2020), 26 13 Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S: The City’s Postwar Development 1945-1969,” (Denver, CO: Historitecture, 2011), 63. 14 Harris and Thomas, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S,” 66-67. 15 Genat, The American Car Dealership 13 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 124 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 10 imported from Japan and Europe. These changes dramatically impacted automobile dealers and the ways in which the American public sought out and purchased new vehicles.16 Automobile Dealerships Many of the first automobile dealerships were auto repair garages, converted from bicycle sales and wagon repair shops; blacksmiths who built and repaired wagons were familiar with component fabrication and chassis construction, and bicycle repairmen understood early automobile drive mechanisms. As Robert Genat’s states in The American Car Dealership, “it was only natural to promote the auto repair business by selling more cars.”17 The first automobile-related businesses in Fort Collins illustrate this accommodation of auto-related repair and sales into other types of businesses. The 1907 city directory denotes four auto-related businesses, none of which exclusively sold automobiles: H. C. Bradley’s Fix-It Shop at 156 S. College, Fort Collins Auto Garage at E. Mountain and Chestnut, W. A. Hawthorne’s Garage and bicycle repair at 133 E. Oak (later 230 S. College), and the Harris Brothers’ Feed Store and Stable at 250 N. College. Clustered near the central business district of the city, these early shops may have struggled with the limitations of converting an existing building to accommodate automobile sales and service considering the space and access needed to showcase and move vehicles in and out of the building. By the 1920s, automobile dealerships had emerged as a building type in their own right; architectural magazines like The American Architect noted the requirements for automobile showrooms, differentiating these buildings from other types of retail.18 Purpose-built dealerships continued to be located along main streets, but some moved farther away from the central business district seeking larger lots and lower rents.19 New dealerships were often constructed as a single- story building with reinforced concrete for fireproofing and to reduce vibrations, larger entrances which allowed vehicles to be moved in and out of the showroom, and expansive front windows, known as ‘visual front’, to display new merchandise. Exterior design was also important as storefronts needed to catch the eye of potential customers. Upscale dealerships often used popular Art Deco and Streamline Moderne details to draw in pedestrians and project an air of progressiveness and modernity.20 Smaller dealerships drew from a variety of styles to convey their 16 Stump, “Mid-Century Automobile Showrooms, ”90. 17 Genat, The American Car Dealership, 39. 18 Stump, “Mid-Century Automobile Showrooms”, 20. 19 Ibid., 22. 20 Ibid., 32-33. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 125 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 11 modernity and utilized other architectural devices to attract customers’ attention like size, contrast, color, and pattern.21 In 1936, Art Sheely constructed a new Moderne style showroom at 330 S. College. The building occupied a corner lot along the main thoroughfare and was located slightly farther away from downtown than earlier dealerships; several residences had to be demolished prior to construction.22 The building was asymmetrical with large front windows, a stepped parapet with horizontal lines, and a large Chrysler-Plymouth neon sign over the primary entrance.23 Dreiling Motors also constructed a new dealership in 1943 at 230 S. College. The stucco-clad building supported banks of large, plate glass windows, an inset corner entrance with gasoline pumps, and a large lighted, curved sign which advertised GMC Trucks and Buick.24 Few dealerships were constructed during WWII, but pent-up consumer demand and a shift towards car culture led to a proliferation of new auto dealers and showrooms postwar. With heightened competition, dealers needed to set themselves apart and capture the interest of their increasingly mobile customers. Car manufacturers began to print informational booklets for dealers which provided advice on planning new dealerships and shared the results of dealership design competitions. Planning Automobile Dealer Properties, produced in 1948 by General Motors Corporation, provided guidance for business owners looking to construct a new dealership. The book’s first eighteen pages detail the importance of the showroom, which acted as a continuous advertisement for the cars located within. The guide noted that showrooms should be sited in the most prominent location, “so that it is seen- by the largest amount of traffic, for the longest period of time, and at the most frequent intervals”; this was essential as traffic, “is the raw material from which all customers are derived.”25 The book considered such details as proper viewing distance from automobile traffic, shape and angle of store windows, the importance of natural lighting, canopies, roof supports, and display backgrounds. Dealerships also utilized other features to further catch the eye of potential customers including large colorful signs that moved or blinked and using 21 Genat, The American Car Dealerships, 46. Stump, “Mid-Century Automobile Showrooms,” 34. 22 “Sheely Buys Lot, To Build Garage.” Express-Courier, April 28, 1936. 23 “Art C. Sheely Auto Company.” Image #H08799. Photograph on-file with City of Fort Collins, Museum of Discovery, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/14862/rec/10 24 “Dreiling Motors.” Image #H32735. Photograph on-file with City of Fort Collins, Museum of Discovery, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/24947/rec/1. 25 General Motors Corporation, Planning Automobile Dealer Properties, (General Motors Corporation: Detroit, MI, 1948), 3. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 126 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 12 dramatic exaggeration of the building’s structural elements like folded-plate roofs and asymmetrical massing.26 The number of Fort Collins automobile dealerships increased significantly following WWII. The 1936 city directory lists eleven automobile sellers and by 1960, the number had increased to nineteen. A 1953 promotional publication from the Securities Investment Corporation entitled, The Counselor, described the auto industry as “vital” to the Fort Collins economy. “With 893 people dependent directly upon the automotive industry…with a total volume of $6,802,086.89 in new car sales and service during the last year, and with a combined payroll of $893,877.95… this industry represents a very vital part in the general economy of the community.”27 As the city’s population skyrocketed and new cars increased in size, dealers looked towards the outskirts of town for expansion. Several dealerships moved north along College Avenue and new dealerships emerged at 742, 910, 1110, 1006, and 1827 North College by 1960. Fewer dealerships looked to the south; it wasn’t until 1964 that the first automobile dealership moved past the 400 block of South College. That year, Rauch Motors constructed a new dealership at 2000 S. College. The business was short-lived, closing in 1972, but lead the way for others moving in that direction including Ghent Motors at 2601 S. College in 1966, Ferd Markley to 3401 S. College in 1973, and Dick Dellenbach to 3111 S. College in 1971. Frank Ghent Born in 1894 to a South Carolina sharecropper, Frank Ghent opened his first business at the age of 15.28 His bicycle rental operation supported his interest in photography and Frank later made his living as a photographer before he enlisted in the Navy in 1917. Frank served with the Navy during WWI and contracted tuberculosis during his service. He was sent to a Colorado Springs hospital for recovery in 1919; he soon took a leave of absence from the Navy and continued to explore Colorado. Eventually, he landed in Craig, CO where he met his future wife, Vera Nunnmaker.29 Perhaps foreshadowing his future career, Frank took Vera on a countryside drive in his Model T for their first date. The pair married in Boulder in 1919 and relocated to Fort Collins where Frank attended Colorado Agricultural College studying animal husbandry. After his graduation, the young family moved to a homestead tract Frank had claimed near Craig. They 26 Stump, “Mid-Century Automobile Showrooms,” 42. 27 “Auto Industry Vital to Fort Collins,” ed. Fred M. Cook, The Counselor, Vol. 4 No. 18, (December 1953), 22. 28 “90-year-old founder of Ghent Motors dies.” Coloradoan, January 7, 1985. 29 “A true Colorado love story.” Triangle Review, December 16, 1979. Arlene Briggs Ahlbrandt, ed. Memories of War Years: Larimer County, Colorado. (Curtis Media Corporation: Dallas, TX, 1993). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 127 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 13 resided there in a three-room home and raised crops on their acreage. Ultimately, the Ghent’s decided to sell their land and return to Fort Collins in 1925.30 Frank’s long career in the automotive industry launched in 1926 when he began to sell Chevrolet’s for Johnson and Kissock’s Poudre Motors. Concerned about supporting his family with only commissions on his car sales, Frank left the auto business briefly in 1932 to serve as undersheriff of Larimer County.31 He returned to Poudre Chevrolet in 1934 and by 1938 opened an independent car business with Leo Chol.32 The pair sold used cars from “Leo’s Used Car Lot” at 330 Walnut for two years before expanding significantly in 1940 when they bought out the Hall and Thomas Motor firm. With this acquisition, Chol and Ghent obtained the franchise for Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury sales and the Hall and Thomas Motor firm’s facilities at 205 North College.33 In 1945, Leo Chol sold his interest in the company and in 1948, Ghent took on a new partner – Will Bugas, a Ford dealer from Coalinga, California.34 The newly renamed Ghent-Bugas Motors expanded, taking over an empty lot across the street for their used car sales.35 By 1954, Bugas had left the dealership. Frank, and his sons Dwight and Eldon, continued at the 205 N. College location, expanding again in 1957 to include Edsel sales and a service department at 148 W. Oak, formerly the location of the Bader Pontiac Agency.36 The 1950s proved a busy and successful decade for the dealership. A 1958 Coloradoan photo highlighted the importance of the Ghent’s to Fort Collins’ economy: the image depicts Dwight Ghent and Mayor Robert Sears posed with a $2 bill, the caption noted the $30,000 biweekly payroll distributed to Ghent Motors employees.37 The Ghent’s not only operated their multiple dealership locations they also supported a wide variety of community programs and statewide initiatives. Ghent Motors provided a chassis for the library’s bookmobile in 1952, sold school buses and dump trucks to the city, donated a vehicle for driver training classes at Fort Collins High School in 1957, and established a new scholarship at Colorado State University in 1959.38 Frank and Vera were both deeply involved with local veterans’ groups, Frank held state and local offices for both the American Legion and Disabled American 30 “90-year-old founder of Ghent Motors dies.” Coloradoan, January 7, 1985. 31 “A true Colorado love story.” Triangle Review, December 16, 1979. 32 “Ghent’s to Mark Anniversary – Married 50 years.” Coloradoan, December 10, 1969. 33 “Chol and Ghent Take Ford Agency, Opening Saturday on North College.” Express- Courier, May 3, 1940. 34 “Californian Buys Interest in Ghent.” Coloradoan, February 12, 1948. “Ghent’s Take Over Automobile Firm.” Coloradoan, March 5, 1953. 35 “Ghent Adds Car Lot.” Coloradoan, June 6, 1946. 36 “Ghent Opens Edsel Agency.” Coloradoan, September 18, 1957. 37 “Buying Power Shown.” Coloradoan, June 1, 1958. 38 “For Training Drivers.” Coloradoan, December 23, 1957. “New Library Truck to Serve County.” Coloradoan, July 23, 1952. “Ghents will give new scholarship to CSU freshmen.” Coloradoan, February 3, 1959. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 128 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 14 Veterans; meetings for these groups were often held at the Ghent dealership and the company employed more than a dozen WWI and WWII veterans in 1946.39 During WWII, Frank chaired the local Civil Defense organization and fundraised with Community Chest, now United Way. He served on the State Highway Commission for eight years (1956-1964) and chaired the Commission from 1962-1964. During his time on the commission, the organization oversaw the construction of the Eisenhower Tunnel and Frank is personally credited with securing the funds to pave Highway 14 up to Cameron Pass.40 By 1964, Ghent Motors was considering a move away from their downtown location.41 In a 1987 edition of Business World, local competitor Gene Markley of Markley Motors remembers the move, “Ghent was the first to go south… We all thought he was a little crazy for moving out into the country”.42 The new 5-acre location at the corner of Drake Road and College Avenue had been a part of the W. A. Drake Farm and was first developed only as an additional car lot. An advertisement for the South College Sales Lot’s grand opening located the dealership’s expansion squarely within the context of Fort Collins’ mid-century growth and the subsequent movement of commercial properties away from the city center. The South College lot was, “Expanding with Growing Fort Collins” and the ad noted, “Now as our city grows we add a modern, well lighted car lot to serve Fort Collins even better”.43 In February of 1966, the new dealership complex was announced. A good deal of research was conducted prior to its development, a 1966 Coloradoan article noted the Ghent’s, “traveled to several states, looking at new dealer buildings and gathering ideas the last five years before the original new design was reached”.44 The new complex boasted a five-car, glass-fronted showroom, 32 service stalls, doubled body shop space, and a drive-up window for parts purchasing; two acres of the site were reserved for customer parking while the remaining three acres housed the vehicle inventory and buildings.45 Denver architects Moore, Combs, and Burch designed the buildings with modern materials and features including air conditioning, laminated wood beams, and a pre- stressed concrete roof. A separate building housed the used car office (Feature 2). 39 “A true Colorado love story.” Triangle Review, December 16, 1979. “Ghents are hosts.” Coloradoan, September 15, 1946. 40 “Citizen of the Month – Frank Ghent: Service to city is auto-matic.” Coloradoan, April 22, 1984. “Ghent Will Head Board.” Coloradoan, February 19, 1962. 41 “Council Oks Annexation Water Rule.” Coloradoan, November 26, 1964. 42 “Multi-Generation Car Dealers.” Fort Collins Business World, July 1987. 43 “Ghent Motor Co. Announces its Southern Exposure.” Coloradoan, August 11, 1965. 44 “Ghent Motor Co in New Home.” Coloradoan, August 31, 1966. 45 Ibid. “New Ghent Motors Garage Set for August Opening.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 129 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 15 Although Frank Ghent took a less active role in the Ghent Motor Company as he aged, he continued to serve as chairman of the company’s board until his 90s.46 His sons, Dwight and Eldon served as president and vice-president of the company, respectively, and by 1987, the company included the third generation of Ghent’s: Bob, Brad, and Curtis.47 In 1980, Dwight Ghent was awarded a Time magazine Quality Dealer award, one of seventy winners for that year.48 Frank passed in 1985. The Ghent Limited Partnership Association sold the property to Dracol LLC in 2012. 36. Sources of information: Ahlbrandt, Arlene Briggs, ed. Memories of War Years: Larimer County, Colorado. Curtis Media Corporation: Dallas, TX, 1993. “Art C. Sheely Auto Company.” Image #H08799. Photograph on-file with City of Fort Collins, Museum of Discovery, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/14862/rec/10 “Auto Industry Vital to Fort Collins,” ed. Fred M. Cook, The Counselor, Vol. 4 No. 18, December 1953. Coloradoan “90-year-old founder of Ghent Motors dies.” Coloradoan, January 7, 1985. “All Eyes are Focused on the Opening of…” Coloradoan, April 25, 1951. “Apartment House, Business Permits Issued at City Hall” Coloradoan, February 24, 1964. “Buying Power Shown.” Coloradoan, June 1, 1958. “Californian Buys Interest in Ghent.” Coloradoan, February 12, 1948. “Citizen of the Month – Frank Ghent: Service to the city is auto-matic.” Coloradoan, April 22, 1984. “Council Oks Annexation Water Rule.” Coloradoan, November 26, 1964. “For Training Drivers.” Coloradoan, December 23, 1957. “Ghent Adds Car Lot.” Coloradoan, June 6, 1946. “Ghent Motor Co. Announces its Southern Exposure.” Coloradoan, August 11, 1965. “Ghent Motor Co in New Home.” Coloradoan, August 31, 1966. “Ghent Opens Edsel Agency.” Coloradoan, September 18, 1957. “Ghents are hosts.” Coloradoan, September 15, 1946. 46 “Citizen of the Month – Frank Ghent: Service to the city is auto-matic.” Coloradoan, April 22, 1984. 47 “Multi-Generation Car Dealers.” Fort Collins Business World, July 1987. 48 “Ghent wins dealer award.” Coloradoan, March 30, 1980. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 130 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 16 “Ghent’s Take Over Automobile Firm.” Coloradoan, March 5, 1953. “Ghent’s to Mark Anniversary – Married 50 years.” Coloradoan, December 10, 1969. “Ghents will give new scholarship to CSU freshmen.” Coloradoan, February 3, 1959. “Ghent Will Head Board.” Coloradoan, February 19, 1962. “Ghent wins dealer award.” Coloradoan, March 30, 1980. “New Ghent Motors Garage Set for August Opening.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966. “New Library Truck to Serve County.” Coloradoan, July 23, 1952. ”Thank You!” Coloradoan, October 26, 1966, page 39. Dyson, Carol. “Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials.” In Proceedings of the Mid-Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation Symposium. St. Louis, MO, April 2015. --- “Midcentury Commercial Design Evaluation and Preservation: An Opportunity for Commissions.” The Alliance Review. Spring 2017. Ernest, Doug. “Gasoline Service Stations in Fort Collins, 1920-1960: History and Architecture.” Unpublished document on-file with City of Fort Collins, Museum of Discovery, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/rb/id/9553/rec/1 Express-Courier “Chol and Ghent Take Ford Agency, Opening Saturday on North College.” Express-Courier, May 3, 1940. “Lest We Forget Fort Collins.” Express-Courier, October 15, 1943. “City’s New War Industry Planned To Continue Into Peaceful Years.” Express-Courier, May 23, 1943. “Plant to Begin Working Soon.” Express-Courier, September 25, 1942. “Sheely Buys Lot, To Build Garage.” Express-Courier, April 28, 1936. Fort Collins Business World “Multi-Generation Car Dealers.” Fort Collins Business World, July 1987. Genat, Robert. The American Car Dealership. MBI Publishing: Osceola, WI, 1999. General Motors Corporation. Planning Automobile Dealer Properties. General Motors Corporation: Detroit, MI, 1948. Harris, Cindy and Adam Thomas. “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S The City’s Postwar Development 1945-1969.” Denver, CO: Historitecture, 2011. McNeill, Malcom. The Automobile Comes to Fort Collins. Malcolm E. McNeill: Fort Collins, CO, 2013. Stump, Ashlen. “An Auto-Biography: The Significance of Mid-Century Automobile Showrooms in Virginia.” master’s thesis, University of Georgia, 2020 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 131 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 17 Triangle Review “A true Colorado love story.” Triangle Review, December 16, 1979. 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: City Planning and Development, Commerce, Architecture 40. Period of significance: 1966 41. Level of significance: National ☐ State ☐ Local ☒ 42. Statement of significance: This site has previously been documented by the City of Fort Collins and Robert and Kristen Autobee in 2017-2018. It was determined not eligible for listing as a local landmark by Fort Collins City Council in April 2018. In October 2017, Historic Preservation staff received an application for Historic Review associated with a potential development proposal that would impact this site. The property was reviewed by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Land Use Code section 3.4.7(c). They found the property eligible for listing as a local landmark under Significance Standards A, B, and C for its association with the growth of the automobile industry, association with the Ghent family, and as a property that embodies the distinctive original characteristics of a mid-century automobile dealership. The reviewers noted that the roof materials and several garage doors had been altered, but that the property retained a preponderance of its architectural integrity. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 132 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 18 This finding was appealed to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) in February 2018. With this appeal, the appellant submitted a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by independent historians, Robert and Kirsten Autobee who found the site not eligible for listing as a local landmark and not eligible for listing on the State and National Registers. The Autobee’s determined the property not eligible under local Standard 1 as, “Mr. Ghent had started and established his business at another location”, not eligible under local Standard 2 due to the property’s lack of association with the significant period of Mr. Ghent’s life, and not eligible under Standard 3 as the building did not possess distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The LPC examined the integrity, context, and standards of eligibility for the site and upheld the finding of individually eligible for listing as a local landmark under Standards A and C. The Commission noted additional information was needed before determining the site eligible under Standard B. This finding was appealed to City Council. On April 3, 2018, City Council overturned the LPC decision as it, “failed to property interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code”. The site was revisited for this survey in 2023 and additional research was conducted leading to a reevaluation of the site’s significance. In addition, the City of Fort Collins’ Land Use Code 3.4.7(c) dealing with historic and cultural resources was repealed in its entirety on March 5, 2019. This site has been evaluated against the updated City of Fort Collins’ Significance Standards. Under Standard 1, the site is strongly associated with the post-war movement of Fort Collins businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city. As the city’s population grew after WWII, many commercial enterprises relocated from the space-constrained downtown to the open areas near the outskirts of town. Thomas and Harris note in their postwar development context, “As automobile use increased, business owners found ways to cater to drivers who wanted easy access to services and plenty of parking spaces.”49 The 1966 Ghent dealership exemplifies this historic trend and is an excellent example of a mid-century business relocating to better meet the needs of their automobile-driving customers. The new dealership location had two acres of parking, entrances on both College Avenue and Drake Road with “360-degree access to the building”, and a drive-thru window for auto 49 Thomas and Harris, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S”, 62. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 133 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 19 part sales.50 Autobee’s assertion that, “Because, Mr. Ghent had started and established his business at another location, 5LR.14283 would not qualify under Fort Collins Local Landmark Criteria 1” is erroneous. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-22(a)(1) does not disqualify businesses that existed in a previous location; in fact, the relocation of the business at that specific point in time is what makes this site significant and qualifies it for individual landmarking under Standard 1. Feature 3 would not contribute to the significance of the site under this Standard. The site is significant under Standard 2 for its association with Frank and Dwight Ghent. The previous documentation in 2017 determined the site not eligible under this standard as, “Mr. Ghent’s activities in the development of Larimer County and Fort Collins primary took place before the move to 2601 S. College Avenue in 1966”. In 2018, the LPC noted additional information was needed to provide an evaluation of the site’s association with the Ghent family. Additional research conducted for this project found Dwight and Frank Ghent influential and important members of the Fort Collins business community. The Ghent’s were active in various veteran organizations, provided vehicles for community needs, served on local boards and commissions including the Chamber of Commerce Board, State Highway Commission, Fort Collins Water Board, and First National Bank Board. In addition, the Ghent’s were active members of local, state, and national automobile dealer associations. The Ghent family has made a recognizable contribution to the history of Fort Collins and the site is eligible under Standard 2 for its association with the family. Although Dwight’s home at 1612 Sheely Drive is locally landmarked as part of the Sheely Historic District and Frank’s home at 638 Whedbee is included in the National Register Laurel School Historic District and was individually landmarked in 1996, Fort Collins city code does not prohibit landmarking multiple properties associated with the same individuals. Feature 3 would not contribute to the significance of the site under this Standard. Under Standard 3, the site is significant as an excellent and rare remaining example of mid-century automobile dealership design and as an example of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. In 2018, Autobee and Autobee recommended the site not eligible under Standard C as the building had undergone alterations over the past five years and did not possess distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Additional research and consideration of character defining features other than the roof and overhead doors reveals the site to 50 “New Ghent Motors Garage Set for August Opening.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 134 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 20 retain sufficient integrity and convey a Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style. Feature 3 would not contribute to the significance of the site under this Standard. The site is a good example of the Modern Movements / Contemporary architectural style. Character defining features include large plate glass windows, long and low massing, low-pitched gable roof, asymmetrical plan, widely overhanging eaves, exposed rafter beams, stretches of uninterrupted wall cladding, obscured entry, and use of natural materials. Contemporary and Modern Movement architectural styles expressed the economic prosperity and belief in modern technology of the mid-century period.51 Glossy brushed metals, expanses of plate glass, and use of newly invented materials like laminated wood beam or plastics, “represented America’s unwavering belief in new technology” and excitement for the space age of the future.52 Use of modern materials and a modern design also indicated to prospective customers that the business and its products were modern and up to date. Modern Movement buildings express an important aspect of Fort Collins and United States history – a time of economic prosperity, belief in new technology and materials, and the changing nature of consumer culture.53 Fort Collins has several prominent buildings that express the wide variety of architectural forms included under the Modern Movement umbrella, but only one other known Contemporary style commercial building. Descended from the architectural tradition of Frank Lloyd Wright, Contemporary style buildings were designed to feature geometric shapes, natural materials and the interplay of interior and exterior spaces. A spate of commercial buildings constructed near downtown in the late 1950s through the 1970s convey the International, Googie, Usonian, and Brutalist styles. These buildings include Rocky Mountain Bank (1966) at 315 W Oak, First National Bank Tower (1968) at 215 W. Oak, Poudre Valley National Bank (1966-1967) at 401 S. College, and Safeway, now Lucky’s (1966), at 425 S. College. Further from downtown, the Faith Realty building at 1630 S. College (1964) and the Key Bank (1970), located just northeast of the Ghent dealership, express the Modern Movement architectural styles with their flat roofs, wide metal cornices, overhanging eaves, and horizontal massing. The strip mall at 1101 W. Elizabeth (1964) has not been previously documented by city’s Historic Preservation Services, but it expresses Modern Movement characteristics with its iconic folded plate 51 Carol J. Dyson, “Midcentury Commercial Design Evaluation and Preservation: An Opportunity for Commissions.” The Alliance Review (Spring 2017), 4. 52 Dyson, “Evaluation and Preservation.” 53 Carol Dyson, “Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials.” In Proceedings of the Mid-Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation Symposium, St. Louis, MO, April 2015. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 135 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 21 roof and exaggerated structural supports. Although not currently within city limits (but within the city’s Growth Management Area), the only known Contemporary style building is Supermarket Liquors at 1300 E. Mulberry. As discussed above, automobile dealerships emerged as a building type, separate from other retail establishments, in the 1920s. By the 1940s, automobile manufacturers were encouraging dealers to modernize their buildings through publications like General Motor’s Planning Automobile Dealer Properties and Ford’s Plans for New and Modernized Sales and Service Buildings. The Ghent’s were active members of the Ford Motor Company Dealer’s Association and frequently attended training sessions in Detroit, MI. A 1966 Coloradoan article notes the Ghent’s planned the site, “with the help of the Ford Motor Company” after visiting many auto dealerships throughout the country.54 This site exhibits the design principles of mid-century automobile dealerships which reflect a period of American car culture that no longer exists today. The site’s orientation along two arterial streets, increased access to service bays, and drive-thru part sales window illustrate the centrality of automobiles to Fort Collins residents, while the showroom’s elevation above street level, oblique orientation toward the intersection of Drake Road and College Avenue, and window walls reflect the values of mid-century consumer culture, where advertisements for new cars were made to those already driving automobiles. In addition, this site is one of the few remaining mid-century automobile dealerships within Fort Collins that retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic associations. During the 2018 City Commission meeting, several local examples of post-WWII automobile dealerships were noted. Those dealerships, along with others identified during the course of this survey, are listed below with a description of their current status. • Poudre Valley Motors constructed a new dealership at 303 N. College in 1951 and operated at that location through 1971.55 The building was demolished in 2022. • Michael Rambler Jeep constructed a new dealership with a folded plate roof at 331 N. College in 1965-1966.56 The building was demolished in 2022. • The Ed Carroll Volkswagen dealership, built in 1968 at 3003 S. College, has been heavily altered with several additions to the west elevation in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s and a remodel of the façade in 2017. 54 “History of Fort Dealers in Fort Collins.” Coloradoan, October 26, 1966. 55 “All Eyes are Focused on the Opening of…” Coloradoan, April 25, 1951. 56 “A New Business for Fort Collins.” Coloradoan, December 5, 1965. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 136 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 22 • Banwell Motors at 142 Remington was constructed in 1955 and has been determined eligible for local landmark status under Standards A and C for its early association with the automotive repair business and as a good commercial example of the Modern Movements style. • Watts Auto Sales at 1101 N. College was constructed in 1946 and demolished prior to 1970. • Oakes Motors (later Fort Collins Motors) at 354 Walnut was constructed in 1946 and demolished during the construction of The Elizabeth Hotel. • Rauch Motor Company was one of the first dealerships to relocate to South College in 1964.57 Historic aerial images indicate it was demolished between 1971-1978. • Continental Sports Ltd. (later Colorado Import Motors) at 1113 N. College was constructed in 1964. Since the 1960s, the roof style has been changed from flat to wood shingle-clad mansard and all of the automobile accessible openings have been closed. • Markley Motors, constructed in 1940 at 246 N College, has been remodeled several times since its original construction and is now part of The Exchange. This site no longer retains sufficient integrity. • Dreiling Motors was constructed in 1943 at 230 S. College. Since that time, the corner entrance has been infilled, the plate glass windows removed, and portions of the exterior have been re-clad with brick. The building no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic associations. The site is unlikely to yield important information in reference to research questions under Standard 4 and is not eligible under this standard. This site has also been evaluated for eligibility against the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria. Requirements for listing properties on the NRHP are set by the National Park Service and differ from those used to evaluate significance and eligibility at the local level; a property may be eligible under one set of criteria and not the other. Although the site is representative of Fort Collins’ post-war economic expansion, the site’s significance to this historic trend does not rise to the level required by the NRHP for individual nomination. Under Criterion B, the NRHP stipulates that the site be associated with a person’s productive life, and that multiple eligible properties be representative of 57 “Apartment House, Business Permits Issued at City Hall” Coloradoan, February 24, 1964. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 137 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 23 different aspects of the person’s life. Frank Ghent’s personal residence (638 Whedbee) is already listed on the NRHP as a contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District and the site most associated with his productive life is 205 N. College, where he sold automobiles for more than 20 years. Dwight Ghent’s significance in the Fort Collins business community does not rise to the level required by the NRHP. For these reasons, the site is not eligible for individual listing on the NRHP under Criterion B. Under Criterion C, the site is representative of the Modern Movement / Contemporary architectural style and as an example of mid-century automobile dealership design. Although the site does embody the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of construction, its architectural significance is not sufficient to qualify for individual listing on the NRHP. The site is unlikely to yield important information in reference to research questions under Criterion D. The site is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This site is significant for its association with the post-war movement of businesses to the outer edges of the city and as an excellent representation of mid-century automobile dealership design and contemporary architecture. As an example of the contemporary architectural style essential elements of physical integrity include its long and low massing, asymmetrical plan, exposed roof beams, broad expanses of uninterrupted wall surfaces, obscured entries, window wall with fixed windows filling gable ends, trapezoidal windows, and broadly overhanging eaves. As an example of mid-century automobile dealership design, essential physical elements include: siting and orientation of the building toward the street, visibility of the interior showroom, asymmetrical plan, and cohesive inclusion of sales, parts, and service departments. As an example of the post-war movement of businesses essential portions of physical integrity include its auto-centric design elements like ample parking, easy street access, and accommodations for drive-thru customers. Location, Setting, and Workmanship The site retains integrity of location. The dealership remains in the location where it was originally constructed in 1966. Integrity of setting has been slightly impacted by the construction of additional commercial buildings and demolition of 1960s commercial buildings to the north, south, and east. Although the surrounding buildings have changed over the last fifty years, the general commercial character of the setting is retained. The site continues to be located along two arterial streets and spatial relationships between the buildings and the street remain as originally oriented. The site retains integrity of workmanship which is visible in the application of the exterior stone cladding. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 138 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 24 Materials Integrity of materials has been impacted by the addition of metal cladding to the roofs of Features 1 and 2 and replacement of many original overhead doors in the service bays. As noted by Autobee and Autobee in 2018, only four of the original overhead doors remain and the replacement doors have significantly fewer inset windows. The Autobee’s remarked that the service bay doors, specifically the glass components, are a character defining feature of the building, and their loss, coupled with the replacement of the roof material, “greatly detracts from the historic nature of the building”. While these materials have been lost and do detract from the historic integrity, other significant character defining materials remain intact, including the laminated roof beams, fixed glass window walls, and broad expanses of uninterrupted exterior cladding composed of concrete block, stucco, and stone. Design Integrity of design has been slightly impacted by two small additions to the west elevation, added between 1983-1999, and the infill of some windows on the east elevation. Although Autobee and Autobee described the canopy on the east elevation as, “the largest addition” to the building, further research has determined that the canopy was in place by October 1966 and therefore does not detract from the integrity of the site. In addition, an artist’s sketch of the building’s design published in the Coloradoan in February 1966 includes the canopy, indicating it was part of the original design. Other aspects of the dealership’s design remain intact, including its long and low massing, asymmetrical plan, low-pitched gable roof, broadly overhanging eaves, fixed window walls, obscured entries, exposed rafter beams, and broad expanses of uninterrupted wall surfaces. In addition, the site retains all aspects of its mid-century automobile dealership design, including the drive- thru parts window, cohesive incorporation of parts, sales, and service departments, orientation of the showroom toward a busy intersection, surrounding asphalt parking lots, and easy automobile access to the site and service center. Feeling and Association The site retains integrity of feeling and association. Although the roof has been replaced with a material not available in the 1960s and many overhead doors have been replaced, the site retains its historic sense of the mid-century period. The building’s exterior cladding, massing, window walls, asymmetrical plan, low-pitched roof, and exposed rafter beams continue to convey the architectural aesthetics of the Modern Movement of the 1960s and the building is easily readable as of mid-century construction. The site retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic associations. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 139 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 25 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: Although several of the surrounding properties date to the 1960s and late 1970s, most do not appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historic significance. The area does not appear to possess a significant concentration or continuity of sites linked by historic theme or architecture If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing ☐ 46. If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing ☐ VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: 7198-7253 Negatives filed at: City of Fort Collins 48. Report title: Click here to enter text. 49. Date(s): October 2023 50. Recorder(s): Rebekah Schields – Historic Preservation Specialist 51. Organization: City of Fort Collins 52. Address: 281 N. College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524 53. Phone number(s): 970-224-6137 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 1 Packet Pg. 140 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 26 Site Photos and Maps Figure 1: Artist sketch of new dealership. Image clipped from Coloradoan, February 27, 1966. Figure 2: 2601 S. College façade. Image clipped from Coloradoan, October 26, 1966. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 141 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 27 Figure 3: 2601 S. College, service wing. Image clipped from Coloradoan, October 26, 1966. Figure 4: Feature 1, east-northeast elevation, view northwest (Image #7200, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 142 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 28 Figure 5: Feature 1, east-northeast elevation, view west (Image #7201, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 6: Feature 1, east-northeast elevation, view south (Image #7215, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 143 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 29 Figure 7: Feature 1, north-northwest elevation, view southwest (Image #7216, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 144 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 30 Figure 8: Feature 1, north-northwest and west-southwest elevations, view southeast. Note glass enclosed foyer connecting east and west portions of the building. (Image #7218, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 9: Feature 1, north elevation, view southeast (Image #7229, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 145 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 31 Figure 10: Feature 1, east half of north elevation, view south (Image #7221, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 11: Feature 1, center portion of north elevation, view southwest (Image #7223, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 146 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 32 Figure 12: Feature 1, west half of north elevation, view southwest (Image #7224, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 13: Feature 1, north and west elevations, view southeast (Image #7231, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 147 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 33 Figure 14: Feature 1, west end of south elevation, view northwest (Image #7246, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 15: Feature 1, center portion of south elevation, view north (Image #7247, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 148 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 34 Figure 16: Feature 1, east end of south elevation, view northeast (Image #7248, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 17: Feature 1, east end of south elevation. Note glass enclosed foyer between west and east portions of the building. (Image #7251, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 149 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 35 Figure 18: Feature 1, south-southeast elevation, view northeast. Note bump out, likely used as a drive through for part sales. (Image #7244, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 19: Feature 1, south-southeast and east-northeast elevations, view west (Image #7240, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 150 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 36 Figure 20: Feature 2, east-northeast elevation, view west (Image #7205, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 21: Feature 2, east-northeast and north-northwest elevations, view southwest (Image #7208, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 151 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 37 Figure 22: Feature 2, west-southwest and south-southeast elevations view east (Image #7212, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). Figure 23: Feature 2, south-southeast and east-northeast elevations, view northwest (Image #7213, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 152 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 38 Figure 24: Feature 3, view southwest. Note Features 1 and 2 in background at left and right, respectively. (Image #7203, R. Schields, 10/3/2023). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 153 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 39 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 154 Resource Number: B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State) Temporary Resource Number: Address: 2601 S. College Ave 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 155 2969882.1 October 27, 2023 VIA E-MAIL AND FED-EX Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, Paul Sizemore 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Re: Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code § 14-23(b) 2601 S. College Avenue; Resource No. B111 (City); 5LR.14283 (State); Historic Building Name: Ghent Motor Company Dear Mr. Sizemore: We are in receipt of the Official Determination for Fort Collins Landmark Eligibility issued on October 17, 2023 for 2601 S. College Avenue Property , of which DRACOL LLC is the owner. We understand that the Property has been evaluated and found eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation. Pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code § 14-23(b), this letter serves as a formal appeal to the Landmark Preservation Commission as to the eligibility determination. This letter is the first step in the appeal process and we intend to provide an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form for each resource that is subject to the appeal, prepared by an expert in historic preservation acceptable to both you, as the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director , and the appellant. We understand that the Cultural Resources Survey Form need not be filed with this letter initiating the appeal but must be filed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing of the appeal, the date of which will be set by the Director. We will await your reply as to the scheduling of such hearing. Nothing in this letter should be interpreted as in any way limiting any other right that we may have, now or in findings or conclusions in the Official Determination for Fort Collins Landmark Eligibility issued for the Property on October 17, 2023. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Sincerely, Kriss Spradley, cc: Chris Viscardi (via e-mail) Elliot Smith (via e-mail) Thomas J. Ragonetti (via e-mail) Bill E. Kyriagis (via e-mail) Diana Caruso Jenkins (via e-mail) ,TEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 156 Carolynne C. White Attorney at Law 303.223.1197 direct cwhite@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 303.223.1100 main 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 March 25, 2024 Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission City Hall West 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Kriss Spradley and Bill Barr, the owners (the “Owners”) of the property located at 2601 S. College Avenue (the “Property”), which is also commonly known as the Mazda dealership in the City of Fort Collins (the “City”). The Owners are appealing the determination of City Staff that the Property is eligible for historic designation. This letter summarizes why the Property fails to meet the criteria for eligibility for historic designation set forth in the Fort Collins Municipal Code (the “Code”). I.Background The improvements on the Property currently consist of a main showroom for an automobile dealership connected to large garage area, and a small garage. The improvements were built in 1966. The Owners began leasing the Property in 1988 for operation of a Ford franchise and, later, a Mazda franchise. In 2012, the Owners purchased the Property with the intent to redevelop it. In 2018, Mazda required that the Owners either build a new building on the site to house the franchise, or sell the franchise. The Owners sold the franchise and began to explore redevelopment of the site. In 2017, in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the Property, City Staff completed a historic survey that determined that the Property was eligible for historic designation. The Owners appealed this determination to the Landmark Preservation Commission (now the Historic Preservation Commission), which upheld the determination, and the Owners appealed the determination to City Council. City Council overturned the determination on April 3, 2018, finding that the Property and its improvements did not meet the criteria for eligibility for historic designation in the Code, and determining that the property was not eligible for designation. Although the proposed development did not move forward, City Council’s determination was valid for five years and recently expired on April 3, 2023. Currently, the Owners are working closely with a developer and have submitted a development application for the Property to create a mixed‐use multi‐family structure consistent with the future land use designation for this Property in the Fort Collins City Plan (the “City Plan”). In connection with this application, City Staff have made a determination under Section 14‐22 of the Code that the Property is eligible for historic designation, using the standards for Significance and Integrity (as defined below) in ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 2 the Code, which have been updated in minor ways since 2018. The Owners have appealed this determination pursuant to Section 14‐23(b) of the Code, and this appeal is the subject of this public hearing. In connection with this appeal, and as required by Section 14‐23(b) of the Code, the Owners are submitting a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form for the Property (the “Survey”) prepared by Natalie Feinberg Lopez of Built Environment Evolution, who is an expert in historic preservation approved by City Staff. The Survey is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Survey concludes, and this Letter demonstrates, that the Property does not meet the criteria for Significance or Integrity. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusions of City Council with respect to this Property in 2018. II. Analysis of Code Criteria Pursuant to Section 14‐22 of the Code, for a resource to be eligible for historic designation, it must fulfill the criteria for both Significance and Integrity. For the reasons set forth below, the Property does not fulfill these criteria. A. The Property Does Not Meet The Criteria For Significance. Pursuant to Section 14‐22 of the Code, “Significance” is “the importance of a site, structure, object, or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation” and is achieved by meeting any of the criteria set forth by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, as incorporated in the Code. These criteria include (1) events, (2) persons/groups, (3) design/construction, and (4) information potential. According to Cultural Resource Survey prepared by City Staff (the “Staff Survey”), the Property meets the criteria for (1) events (2) persons/groups and (3) design/construction. However, for the following reasons, the Property does not meet these criteria: (1) Events. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events: (a) A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or (b) A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. According to the Staff Survey, this criterion is met because auto dealerships are “strongly associated with the post‐war movement of Fort Collins businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, shifting toward the edges of the City.” However, as noted in the Survey, although the automobile was the main source of transportation that was considered in urban planning and development, it is rare for any automobile dealership to individually contribute significantly to urban development. Further, there ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 3 is no indication that this particular dealership contributed to the movement in any significant way other than being one of many automobile dealerships that existed during the post‐war area. At times, dealerships are designated as historic when the dealership lies within a historic district or an area that is directly related to the history of the automobile, neither of which appears to be the case in this instance. Although the history of the City was affected by the shift toward automobile usage by the public, there is no evidence to show that the City was unique in this regard. Therefore, this criterion is not met. (2) Persons/Groups. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Staff contend that this criterion is met by the Property’s former association with Frank and Dwight Ghent, and that the Ghents were influential members of the business community. However, Frank and Dwight Ghent did not begin their business here. The Ghents were originally associated with the used car lot located at 354 Walnut, where the Elizabeth Hotel now is. After this location, the company was renamed and operated for 26 years at 205 North College avenue where Beau Jo’s is presently located. The Property at 2601 S. College is the Ghents’ third location, and not the most significant. While the Ghents were associated with the business community, this association was not significantly related to this Property, and the limited association is not enough to warrant the significance that a determination of historic eligibility requires. In fact, this Property is not associated with the Ghents’ best years in sales. Even the locations that were associated with the Ghents’ best years were not deemed eligible for designation due to the limited importance of the association. Moreover, as noted in the Survey, the Ghents were active members of the community in Fort Collins but did not make any contributions that rise to a level warranting a historic designation. Therefore, this criterion is not met. (3) Design/Construction. Resources may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of resources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A resource can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 4 within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. Code, § 14‐22(a)(3). The standard in the Code for significant design and construction is high. A resource must “embody” and “represent” its type and be “distinguishable” from others. According to the Staff Survey, the Property is an example of a mid‐century automobile dealership in the “Modern Movement / Contemporary” style. However, as noted in the Survey, while the improvements on the Property show elements that are the style of the mid‐century period, such as the single story, large areas of glass, and smaller garages, these elements do not represent the work of a master, nor high artistic value, nor a distinguishable entity. The Survey states that the building is “not an excellent example of the mid‐century modern typology,” and the design elements are “very common” and “in no way remarkable” for the period. The Survey rates this Property as a 1‐1.5 on a 10 point scale (10 being the highest) for mid‐century design value. Additionally, according to the Survey, research indicates that no buildings designed by the architectural firm of Moore, Combs, and Burch, which designed the building on the Property, has been listed on state or local registers. Therefore, this criterion is not met. In sum, the criteria for significance as related to events, persons/groups, and design/construction are not met. B. The Property does not meet the criteria for Integrity. According to Section 14‐22 of the Code, to be eligible for historic designation, a Property must possess not only Significance but also Integrity. Pursuant to the Code, “Integrity” is “the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of the seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of the Interior.” The Code sets forth seven criteria for Integrity, and the Code specifies that although not all seven criteria need to be present, the “overall sense of past time and place” must be “evident.” As described in detail above, there are many reasons why the Property does not clearly meet the criteria for Significance. However, even if it did meet the above criteria for Significance, it does not convey an “overall sense of past time and place” as required by the Code under the Integrity criteria: (1) Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. The Staff Survey states that the Property fulfills the criteria for Significance in part because it reflects a movement of businesses “toward the edges of the city,” in which case the criterion for Integrity of location is not met because the Property is central to the City as it exists today. Also, according to the Survey, the area as a whole has lost significant Integrity for the mid‐century period and does not qualify for a national or historic district. All other existing buildings from the period of significance are widely dispersed, do not have the concentration needed for a historic district, and are not related to the ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 5 automobile industry. Further, as demonstrated by the Survey, the Property itself has not played a significant role in this location, nor has a historic event taken place at this Property. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met. (2) Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. Although Staff contend that the Property retains the Integrity of its design, the Survey states that while the Property shows elements that are the style of the period, such as a gable roof with exposed rafters and large areas of glass, these elements are “very common” for the time period and represent an outdated building, not a historically significant structure. Furthermore, as the Survey notes, many elements of the site and structure have changed over time, resulting in a loss of Integrity. These include: changes in the roof materials; an extension of the roof overhang on the east elevation; the loss of the upper windows on the east elevation; the enclosure of the connection between the showroom and service area; a change in the door at the body shop at west end of the service area; the replacement of the majority of garage doors; the loss of landscaping; the addition of fencing; and the loss of the car wash and gas station. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met. (3) Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. This criterion is closely related to the location of the Property. The Property is not related to the location or to any formally recognized attribute of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the vision for the neighborhood set forth in the Structure Plan, which calls for a transition away from auto‐oriented uses and toward vertical, high density, mixed‐use development in this area, demonstrates clearly that the surrounding community has changed and is expected to change further, which means that the Integrity of setting has been lost. The Survey shows that although there are several blocks with additional car ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 6 dealerships, all other dealerships have kept up to date with dealership requirements for modification. This caused the area to lose any correlation to the mid‐century period. All other existing buildings from the mid‐century period are widely dispersed, do not have the concentration needed for a historic district, and are not related to the automobile industry. The area has lost significant Integrity for the mid‐century period and does not qualify for a national or local historic district. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met. (4) Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. The Owners are unable to continue to use the Property in any meaningful way because any changes that need to be made to encourage any dealership to operate here require changes to the building’s façade, landscaping, and glass. The Survey indicates that the Property and original materials can no longer be used as a car dealership, as modern dealerships require remodeling that would make all aspects current and contemporary. Because the Property cannot be used as a car dealership, the Property further loses its Integrity. Further, as noted in the Survey, many elements show “significant deterioration”—not due to lack of maintenance, but because the materials are nearing the end of life cycle, as the original materials were inexpensive and made to be replaced often. For example, all portions of the building with the showroom and service bays are made of concrete slab‐on‐grade foundation. As the Survey states, these are not materials that were made to preserve buildings. Other issues with the structure and materials of the Property noted in the Survey as related to Integrity include problems with deterioration of drainage and surfaces, necessitating the removal of asphalt for the purposes of regrading and fixing the foundations. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met. (5) Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. The Survey found that this Property does not represent the work of a master, nor does the Property have high artistic value. According to the Survey, while there are specific elements that represent the style of the mid‐century period, the design and details are “very common,” and the Property is “in no way remarkable” for the period. Further, the back of the building with the garage doors is highly inefficient because the doors require constant maintenance and have large gaps that increase energy costs in the winter. The Owners have explored the idea of remodeling numerous times, but every time the analysis proved that tearing the building down was the most economically viable option, especially given the fact that no other dealership is willing to occupy the Property due to the Property’s non‐compliance with dealerships’ strict standards and regulations. ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 7 Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met. (6) Feeling is a resource’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource’s historic or prehistoric character. As noted in the Survey, the design and details of the improvements are “very common” and “in no way remarkable” for the mid‐century period. Therefore, they cannot successfully convey the feeling of the mid‐century period. Additionally, the improvements do not successfully convey the historic character of the post‐war era because, as the Survey states, automobile dealerships generally do not individually contribute significantly to urban development. According to the Survey, automobile dealerships can be designated, but they are typically directly related to the major car companies in Detroit. Additionally, as noted above, all other dealerships in the area have kept up to date with dealership requirements for modification, meaning that the character and feeling of this post‐war era is no longer present in this area. Therefore, this criterion is not met. (7) Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource’s historic or prehistoric character. As noted above, this Property is the Ghents’ third location and is not associated with the Ghents’ best years in sales. Further, as noted above, the Property is not strongly associated with the mid‐century period due to its “common” design that is “in no way remarkable,” as noted in the Survey. It is also not well associated with the Post‐War period, other than that it is an automobile dealership with an outdated design, and that existed at a time when all communities were becoming more auto‐oriented. Therefore, this criterion for Integrity is not met. III. Policy The Code sets forth certain policies and purposes with respect to historic designation and landmark preservation in Sections 14‐1 and 14‐2. These policies and purposes are helpful to guide decisions with respect to historic eligibility. A determination of historic eligibility for this Property would not advance these policies and purposes for the following reasons: ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 8 A. Policies in the Code First, the determination that the Property is eligible for historic designation would not advance the policies in Section 14‐1 of the Code for the following reasons: i. It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. This policy emphasizes that the preservation of objects of “significance” are a public necessity. However, as described above, the Property does not meet the criteria for Significance and therefore does not advance this policy. Further, the Property as an auto‐oriented use is not consistent with the vision of the Structure Plan for this area, and therefore continuing to associate the Property with the history of auto‐ centric development of the City does not advance civic pride and the general welfare. Therefore, historic designation of this Property would not advance this policy. ii. It is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural, archeological and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. A historic designation of the Property would not advance the economic standing of the City, because, as noted above, the Property can no longer be used as an automobile dealership, due to the fact that modern dealerships require remodeling that would make all design elements current and contemporary. Also, its design elements also are not conducive to any other use. Essentially, a historic designation would prevent any marketable use of the Property. Furthermore, a historic designation would not advance the cultural and aesthetic standing of the City due to the Property’s deterioration of materials that were not made to last and the fact that the Property is, as the Survey states, “in no way remarkable” as an example of mid‐century design. Therefore, historic designation of this Property would not advance this policy. B. Purposes The purposes set out in the Code are as follows: i. Survey, identify, designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those sites, structures, objects and districts which reflect important elements of the City's ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 9 cultural, artistic, social, economic, political, architectural, archeological, or other heritage. As discussed above, the preservation of this Property would result in a vacant automobile dealership due to the fact that all dealerships require a more current and contemporary design. This Property therefore will not reflect elements of the City’s social or economic heritage and, with no other appropriate marketable use, would remain unused until redevelopment is permitted. This vacancy would not advance the City’s purpose of preserving, protecting and enhancing historic resources. ii. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past. The Ghent family’s association with the Property is not apparent, and the Survey states that the Property is not an excellent example of the mid‐century period. The deterioration of the materials, which were never made to last, also fails to foster civic pride. Civic pride would best be furthered by following the recommendations of the City as documented in the Structure Plan to foster vertical mixed‐use development in this area that is less auto‐oriented. iii. Stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality and values of such sites, structures, objects and districts. As stated previously, if this Property were designated as historic and unable to be redeveloped, it would almost certainly remain vacant, which would hurt the overall aesthetics and economic vitality of the area. This Property would disrupt the natural progression of the area and would hurt the aesthetics of the surrounding community. Additionally, maintenance of this use in this area is not consistent with the vision of the Structure Plan and Midtown Plan for this area. iv. Protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors. This purpose will not be furthered by designating the Property as historic because this Property is not a tourist attraction. Instead, redevelopment will further this purpose by promoting mixed uses within Fort Collins that drive foot traffic to surrounding businesses and contribute to the vision set forth in the City Plan, Structure Plan, and Midtown Plan. v. Promote the use of important historical, archeological, or architectural sites, structures, objects and districts for the education, stimulation and welfare of the people of the City. As stated previously, designating this Property as historic will eliminate the use of this Property entirely because all dealerships require a modern and contemporary design that fits their design standards. Therefore, there would be no use of this Property that could educate the people of the City or contribute to their welfare. ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 10 vi. Promote good urban design. A historic designation would not promote good urban design because it would not allow the City to develop in accordance with the Structure Plan, as analyzed below. vii. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites, structures, objects or districts now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained under such a policy. A historic designation over the objection of the Owner would not encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites. Rather, the designation of this site would actively discourage private ownership of potential historic sites and frustrate this purpose. viii. Promote economic, social, and environmental sustainability through the ongoing survey and inventory, use, maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing buildings. For reasons stated above, this purpose would not be fulfilled by the historic designation because the building cannot be maintained as an automobile dealership, and it is not suited for any other use. The original materials used are at the end of their life and were not meant for long term preservation. Each time the Owners conducted an analysis of redevelopment options, the economically viable option was to tear the Property down, rather than to preserve the existing structure. Additionally, the existing building is highly inefficient and uses excess energy. Therefore, preservation of this building would not promote economic, social or environmental sustainability. C. Existing Historic Structures Already Honor the Legacy of the Ghents. As noted above, the Survey concludes that the contributions made by the Ghents to the City did not rise to a level warranting a historic designation of this site. However, even if they did rise to that level, existing historic resources honor the Ghents’ legacy. Dwight Ghent’s home at 1612 Sheely Drive and Frank Ghent’s home at 638 Whedbee are already landmarked. Therefore, landmarking the Property is not necessary to preserve and recognize the Ghents’ legacy in the City. D. The Designation Will Not Further Fundamental Property Rights The City and the State of Colorado have long recognized the right of a property owner to exercise control over his or her property as a fundamental right. Many provisions in the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution reflect the right of a private property owner to possess and hold dominion over their own property, and the Code recognizes this long tradition. Therefore, every criterion for historic designation should be viewed through the lens of the property owner’s rights. This right includes the right to sell or convey Property. After over twenty years of operating the Property, the Owners have ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 11 decided to exercise this right. Imposing a historic designation over the objection of the Owners runs counter to this right. E. The Existing Structure Is Inefficient The existing structure on the Property is in desperate need of redevelopment. As stated previously, the Owners looked into renovating the existing structure multiple times, and each time the only economically viable option was to tear the building down. Further, the back of the building with the garage doors is highly inefficient because the doors require constant maintenance and have large gaps that increase energy costs. F. The Market Does Not Support This Property As An Auto Dealership As stated above, this Property is unsuitable for every other auto dealership because it does not conform to the industry standard required by dealerships for design. An inability to continue to use the Property as an automobile dealership contributes to its loss of Integrity. G. There Is No Adaptive Use For The Property As noted above, the Property is unable to be remodeled to fit a modern car dealership’s standard because the standards require all dealerships to be current and contemporary. However, if this Property is remodeled into another use besides a car dealership, then the Property further loses its Integrity and its association with the period of significance identified in the Staff Survey. As noted in the Survey, the Property is an unremarkable example of the mid‐century style, so an adaptive reuse to preserve the architectural style would not serve the policies and purposes of historic designation in the City. H. Allowing Redevelopment of the Property is Consistent with the Structure Plan and Midtown Plan Allowing redevelopment of the Property, as the Owners propose, is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Structure Plan. The Structure Plan designates the Property as within “Urban Mixed‐Use Districts” and states, “[t]he continued redevelopment and revitalization of established mixed‐use districts along existing or planned high‐frequency transit corridors will continue to be a priority. The gradual transition of existing, auto‐oriented mixed‐use districts will be encouraged to help maximize available land and infrastructure, as well as to support other community objectives, such as expanded housing options, improved access to services and a more robust transit system.” Therefore, the Structure Plan encourages and prioritizes the redevelopment of properties and development of housing options and services, which is exactly what is proposed by the Owners and developer. The Structure Plan also states, “some existing Urban Mixed‐Use Districts may include pockets of lower‐intensity auto‐oriented uses; however, these areas should be encouraged to transition to a vertical mix of high‐density development through infill/redevelopment.” Essentially, the Structure Plan is encouraging the ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Historic Preservation Commission March 25, 2024 Page 12 replacement of the auto‐oriented use that currently exists on the Property with the type of development proposed for this Property. Additionally, redevelopment of the Property is consistent with the Fort Collins Midtown Plan (the “Midtown Plan”). The Midtown Plan locates the property within Upper Midtown, which has a “Gardens Theme.” The Midtown Plan focuses on higher intensity, mixed use redevelopment, excellence in design, and inviting streetscapes, which is exactly what is proposed by the Owners and developer. The Midtown Plan identifies the intersection of Drake Road and College Avenue as a “key streetscape node” that should seamlessly link College Avenue to the MAX corridor and represent key design themes from the Gardens Theme area. A vacant auto dealership will disrupt this seamless link, while a mixed use redevelopment would help bolster this connection in furtherance of the Midtown Plan. The current state of the Property is inconsistent with both the Structure Plan and the Midtown Plan because both plans provide that this area should transition away from auto uses and move toward a mixed use, high density development, and redevelopment would help to bring the Property into greater alignment with the Structure Plan and Midtown Plan. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, as evidenced by this Letter, this Property does not satisfy the required criteria for eligibility for historic designation in the Code. Specifically, the Property does not clearly meet the criteria for Significance or Integrity under Section 14‐22 of the Code, and there are many reasons why such designation does not further the policies and purposes of the Code or the City as documented in its adopted plans. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Historic Preservation Commission find that the Property is ineligible for historic designation under the Code. Sincerely, Carolynne C. White ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Exhibit A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey [See Attached] ,7(0 $77$&+0(17 3DFNHW 3J Resource Number: 5LR.14283 1 Temporary Resource Number: 1. Resource number: 5LR.14283 2. Temporary resource number: 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Ghent Motor Company 6. Current building name: 2Mazda of Fort Collins 7. Building address: 2601 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 8. Owner name and address: Dracol LLC, 5994 S. Holy St., No. 185, Greenwood Village, CO 80111-4221 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6 Township 7N Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 26 10. UTM reference Zone 13 ; 493402 mE 4489028 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 2022 Map scale: 7.5' x 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 1 Block: Addition: Ghent Annexation Year of Addition: 1966 13. Boundary Description and Justification: LOT 1, GHENT, FTC; LESS 96030371; LESS POR TO CITY PER 20150057258. From previous survey, not currently found: “From the Larimer County Assessor’s Office is the following legal land description for Larimer County Parcel No. 9726114001. The commercial building is on the southwest corner of the intersection of South College Avenue and West Drake Road. The property's northern boundary is West Drake, the eastern boundary is South College Avenue, the western boundary is McClelland Drive and the southern boundary is West Thunderbird Drive. Annexed to the city of Fort Collins as the Ghent Annexation in 1966, the boundary description dates from the mid-1960s. OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form I. IDENTIFICATION 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 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 170 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 2 Temporary Resource Number: III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular Plan. Three structures were originally found on site. Two are now connected: A) main showroom with an “L” shaped footprint, now connected to the garage area to the west of the showroom with a long rectangle footprint; B) a small garage to the north with rectangular footprint. 15. Dimensions in feet: A: Length 360’ x Width 110 ‘ B: 59’ x Width 29’ 16. Number of stories: A: Single B: Single 17. Primary external wall material(s): A: CMU, Stone Veneer, Wood Shingles, Glass B: CMU, Stone Veneer, Glass 18. Roof configuration: A: Gable and Flat Roof B: Gable 19. Primary external roof material: A: Metal and Asphalt/Bitumen B: Metal 20. Special features: Roof with large overhang, exposed glulam rafters, single-glazed, aluminum-framed windows 21. General architectural description: The building is constructed during the mid-century and includes some elements that were popular during the period, but is not an excellent example of the mid-century modern typology. The showroom portion of the building is slightly askew of the compass directions. Project North, South, East, and West will be used for simplicity. The Showroom portion of Building A is an “L” shape, with the long portion of the “L” running East-West, while the short portion of the “L” is set back to the SW. The service bays are located to the west of the showroom, and are built true to the compass directions. Building B, a small garage, is built askew and parallel with the showroom. Building A - Showroom and Service Bays Building East elevation The East elevation is the facade of the building and is the primary elevation. All portions of Building A appear to have a concrete slab-on-grade foundation. The original building has a showroom on the north side, with a new, red standing seam metal gable roof. There are large, exposed glulam rafters over 12 large single glazed, aluminum framed windows, positioned between the seven steel columns and one horizontal steel beam. The windows span the full height and width of this portion of the elevation. The upper six windows appear to have been removed and replaced by particle board or similar, presumably when a suspended drop ceiling was added to the interior. A large extension of the gable roof has been added at a later date (possibly the same year). The original exposed rafters have metal straps attaching the new rafters to extend the gable approximately 20 feet to steel support columns located to the east of the main facade. The material in the eave of the large overhang appears to match other eaves on the showroom portion of the building. Two signs are hung on the steel supports at the east, facing the street. One sign says “Mazda” and the other says “2 Mazda”. Site lighting is attached to the roof, and bird netting is stretched along the horizontal beam to the roof. Red metal downspouts are located at the NE corner, the SE corner, and at the connection of the two volumes. The south portion of the elevation contains the original office space, set back from the north portion of the showroom. The exterior is concrete masonry units (CMU) covered with original stone veneer on the lower portion of the elevation, and original shingle siding in the gable portion, with two large vents flanking the apex of ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 171 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 3 Temporary Resource Number: the gable. A “garden” of river rock stretches the length of this portion of the building. All original junipers are missing. To the south of the showroom/office is a raised concrete loading dock with surrounding chain link fence. North elevation The North elevation is the secondary elevation, as it is street facing. The showroom portion of the building is approximately one quarter of the North elevation, while the service area is approximately three quarters of the elevation. This elevation of the showroom has nine large single-glazed, aluminum-framed glass windows that span the space between steel columns and the steel horizontal beam, with the tenth bay containing an aluminum door, and a smaller side window that is hinged. When both are open, there is space to allow cars into the showroom. To the west of the door, the wall changes material to CMU with the original stone veneer, punctuated in the center by four floor-to-ceiling window bays with eight single-glazed, aluminum-framed windows. A small “garden” of river rock stretches the length of the CMU portion of the elevation. All the original junipers are missing. Site lighting is located under the eaves along the length of the showroom. Three red metal downspouts are located at the NE corner, to the west of the door, and at the NW corner of the showroom. The service area entrance is located to the west of the show room. It has a flat roof, and appears to be a mix of steel, aluminum and glass, with a door that forms the outer entrance to an airlock entry. A concrete sidewalk leads to the door, with a bench centrally located along the wall of the showroom. A concrete pad stretches to the west in a semi-circle from the sidewalk to the wall of the service department. To the west of the entrance is the main volume of the service department, built of CMU covered with a concrete render, under a flat roof with small eaves supported by small brackets. Directly adjacent to the entrance is an area that appears to be infill of an original opening, with three windows that do not appear to match the other windows in the building. Above the windows is the “Service Parts” sign. To the west are eight bays, all with new garage doors. An “Express Lube Plus” sign is above the last two bays. To the west, the volume increases in height by approximately three feet. This portion of the building has a flat roof, three bays with one original garage door and two new doors. The “Ken Graff” sign is above the two west bays. In the area that would appear to be the fourth bay, a door and window create the entrance to the “collision center”, with a sign reading “Body and Paint” located above the door. To the west of the “Body and Paint” volume, the roof drops back down to match the section to the east. This portion has four bays with one original garage door. The “Collision Center” sign is over the east bays. The final volume to west is a small storage shed that may have been added later than the date of construction. The entire service area shows cracks throughout the elevation indicating issues with settlement, wear and tear, and possible issues with deflection. Site lighting is located along entire elevation, both at the roof and under the eaves. West elevation The West elevation of the service area is located to the south of center of the West elevation of the showroom. The north portion the West elevation is the west wall of the showroom, built of exposed CMU with a gable roof, deep overhang, and exposed glulam rafters. There is a vent to the south of the center point of the gable, site lighting is mounted to the wall, and the red key drop box is mounted on the wall near the door to the service department. A bench is located slightly north of center. The service center entrance has a glass wall on the west ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 172 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 4 Temporary Resource Number: side. The west elevation of the service center is exposed CMU, with two CMU storage sheds, both with shed roofs. Between the two sheds are the gas meter and a service pipe. The south portion of the West elevation extends beyond the service department, and is made of exposed CMU with an eave, rafters and gable that match the north portion. Two vents are located in the wall, and there is a small wall-mounted sconce. A loading dock extends to the south of the showroom with a chain link fence. Bird netting runs along west gable and the service entrance roof. South elevation The South elevation of the Service area mirrors the North elevation, with the same number of bays, and roof changes at the same locations, but without signage (Please see the description of the ”North Elevation” above). The south wall of the service entrance has a glass and aluminum door, and six single-glazed, aluminum-framed windows that reach from floor to ceiling. A small window is located above the door. A concrete pad and picnic table are located outside the door. The South elevation of the showroom is exposed CMU with eaves that match the North elevation. Near the Service entrance is a small, three-sided bay window, with an operable single-hung central window. All windows appear to be single-glazed, aluminum-framed. Beneath the windows are wood shingles. A small light fixture is located above the windows. The roof line above and to the SW corner of the showroom roof is damaged, possibly from a large truck or semi-trailer running into it. An electrical meter is mounted on the wall near the bay window, along with an empty metal box that might have housed an outlet or similar. A sidewalk extends from a concrete pad to just to the east of the bay window. Two dumpsters are located between the bay window and the loading dock. To the west of the loading dock is a small set of concrete stairs with a metal pipe rail that leads to a steel metal door. The loading dock leads to a steel roll up door, which is surrounded by a chain link fence with barbed wire at the top. A large flood light is located over the steel door. A red drain pipe is located at the SE corner of this portion of the showroom office. The east portion of show room steps back to the north, and mirrors the North elevation configuration, but with four bays of seven windows between steel columns. There is a door and hinged glass that open to allow cars into the showroom, similar to the door on the North elevation, where the eighth window would be located. There are red metal downspouts at the junction of the glass wall and the East elevation, and another at the SE corner of the showroom. Building B - Small Garage East elevation The East elevation is the primary elevation. It has a gable roof that is shorter on the south side than the north, giving it an asymmetrical appearance. There is a large overhang with exposed glulam rafters and a red standing seam metal roof, items that match the showroom. The south portion of the elevation is CMU with stone veneer, and the north portion has three bays of windows between three steel columns, with five single-glazed, aluminum-framed windows, and one bay with a door and a window to the north side. The whole garage appears to be on a concrete slab on grade. There is a small river rock “garden” missing all plantings along the stone veneer portion of the elevation. A red metal downspout is located at the NE corner. The foundation has problems, and the fascia boards are deteriorating. The asphalt outside the front door is deteriorating due to drainage issues. Concrete stairs are located to the north of the front door, but are cracked and deteriorating. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 173 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 5 Temporary Resource Number: North elevation The east portion of North elevation is six large single-glaze, aluminum frame windows, with a steel column in the center. To the west is CMU with stone veneer. A river rock “garden” with bushes runs the length of the elevation. Site lighting is located under the eaves for the length of the elevation. Red metal downspouts are located at the NE and NW corners. A speaker is located at upper NW corner. West elevation The West elevation is made of CMU with two garage doors centered on the wall. Both appear to match the new garage doors found at the service center. There is a pipe at the SW corner that appears to be for electrical conduit or similar. A red metal downspout is at the SW corner. South elevation The South elevation varies at grade, with the west end lower than at the east, with an approximate difference of 16” from corner to corner. The elevation is all exposed CMU. A steel door is located at the west end. A river rock “garden” runs along the elevation from the steel door to the SE corner where it runs into the garden on the east elevation. Just to the east of center is a condenser with two concrete posts. Above it is a vent and pipes with what appears to be electrical conduit leading to an orange box. A red metal downspout is located at the SE corner. Lights are located under the eaves. 22.Architectural style/building type: Mid-century - style of the period of construction 23.Landscaping or special setting features: Landscaping within the property includes “gardens” of river rock and junipers, located in front of the East elevation of the main showroom, with a concrete brick retaining wall, flanking the central concrete stairs with metal pipe rail, a mature ash tree to the south of the stairs, and a flagpole to the north. Additional “gardens” are located to the north of Building B, with unidentified shrubs. Small concrete stairs with metal pipe rail are located to the NE of Building B, flanked by river rock “gardens”. Landscape plans from 1992 show additional “gardens” that no longer exist, or are missing the original junipers. Throughout the site there are large poles with flood lights. There is a bench in front of the East elevation overhang. 24.Associated buildings, features, or objects: small stone stairs with “WADRAKE” carved into the bottom stair - reportedly steps for the stagecoach, but unverified. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1966 Source of information: City of Fort Collins documents, Larimer County Assessors records 26. Architect: Moore, Combs, and Burch Source of information: City of Fort Collins documents 27. Builder/Contractor: Reid Burton Construction ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 174 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 6 Temporary Resource Number: Source of information: from previous survey ““New Ghent Motors Garage Set for August Opening.” Coloradoan, February 27, 1966.” 28. Original owner: Frank Ghent Source of information: City of Fort Collins documents, Larimer County Assessors records 29.Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Construction of the showroom, service area, and secondary garage was completed in September, 1966; A large overhang on the east elevation was added, perhaps in October, 1966 (unverified); the connection between the showroom and the service area was enclosed (unknown date); a car wash was added (1976); and gas station added (unknown date). Both the car wash and gas station were removed (unknown date). Various site features changed over time, such as the addition of a chain link fence at the west end of the property, and various small garden areas lost plant materials. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. H ISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Ford Car Dealership, including showroom, service department, and small garage. 32. Intermediate use(s): Car Dealership - various car types 33. Current use(s): Mazda Car Dealership 34. Site type(s): Commerce - Car Dealership 35. Historical background: Previous to becoming the Ghent Car Dealership, the SW corner of Drake Road and South Collage Ave was a farm owned by W.A. Drake. The Drake family had a long history of both farming and politics in Larimer County, but nothing particularly significant at the crossroads of Drake Rd. and S. College Ave. This area was annexed into the City of Fort Collins in 1964, and Frank Ghent purchased four acres to move the Ford Cars Dealership from its location of 52 years at 205 North College. Final construction was completed with a grand opening in the fall of 1966. Frank’s sons, Dwight and Eldon Ghent, show ownership in the dealership in 1946 and 1955, to became co-owners with their father of the Ghent dealership. In 2012 Dracol LLC purchased the property, and is the current owner. Frank Ghent was born in 1894 in Lancaster, South Carolina. He was married to Vera Nunnemaker in 1919, in Boulder, Colorado after his release from the US Navy. The couple moved to Fort Collins in 1922, and Frank Ghent purchased a Ford dealership in 1940, with Leo Chol as a partner. The dealership was located at 205 North College Ave., where Frank continued sales with several different partners until his sons took over the business. Frank participated in various community activities with his church, the rotary club, the gun club, the City Water Board, and the Highway 287 association. Frank Ghent died in 1985, followed by his wife in 1990. Eldon Ghent died in 2013, and Dwight Ghent followed in 2020. Transportation via car changed urban planning in the US, steering away from trollies, trains and the horse and buggy. Post WWII development allowed for the development of suburbia, with individual families often owning one or more cars. Security and affluence in post-war America were often symbolized by the home and the car, two of the most ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 175 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 7 Temporary Resource Number: costly investments for a family. Movement across America shifted to family vacations from the car, trekking across the newly developed interstate motorways. Car dealerships, often directly associated with the manufacturing plants in Detroit, were typically highly visible places of commerce in the community that represented a multifaceted, highly successful, nationally based retail entity. While dealerships do not have a recognized architectural typology, they were often regulated by the industry, requiring showrooms to have specific standards, which continues to this day. The regulated styles were developed to entice commerce, and increase sales, while service departments were developed to address maintenance issues and mitigate complaints. The Ghent dealership was designed with “the help of Ford Motor Company and the best of the features of the many buildings visited, the new showroom, offices and service facilities were planned”. The Ghent Motor Dealership is an example of a common dealership found 1 across the US of the period, with significant influence by the motor industry on the style and design, as is typical for all auto dealerships, currently and of the period of the 1966 Ghent dealership. 36. Sources of information: 1.Unknown. "New, Ultra-modern Ghent Motor Company Building Represents an Optimistic Investment in the Future Fort Collins." The Fort Collins Coloradoan, (1966): 29. Accessed March 16, 2024. https:// coloradoan.newpapers.com/image/588639157. 2.Unknown. "Announcing Frank Ghent and Leo Chol." Fort Collins The Coloradoan, no. September 4 (1934): 10. Accessed March 16, 2024. http://coloradoan.newspapers.com/images/588388593. 3.Unknown. "Council OKs Annexation Water Rule." Fort Collins The Coloradoan, no. November 26 (1964): 10. Accessed March 16, 2024. http://coloradoan.newspapers.com/images/588388593. 4.Vera Edith Ghent. 1990. Jpeg. Https://Lcgsco.Org/Obits/Ghenve90.Jpg, December 6, 1990. 5.Ewing, Betsy. "Making Bricks at the Fort Collins Brick Factory." Fort Collins History Connection, no. July 10 (1997). Accessed March 4, 2024. https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/search/advan. 6.Copeland, Robert. "Kay Horn Ghent." Find a Grave. Find a Grave, February 28, 2014. https://www.findagrave.com/ memorial/124805182/kay-ghent. 7.Copeland, Robert . "Eldon Frank Ghent." Find a Grave. Find a Grave, February 8, 2013. https://www.fi ndagrave.com/memorial/124805050/eldon_frank_ghent. 8."Dwight Ghent." EDSEL Quarterly - Fort Collins, CO January 23, (2020). Accessed March 14, 2024. 9."Dwight L. Ghent." The Fort Collins Coloradoan (Fort Collins), January 20, 2020. https://www.coloradoan.com/ obituaries/fcc030562. 10.By SPECIAL TO THE DENVER POST. "Greeley Dealer Bob Ghent Earns Prestigious Nomination." The Denver Post (Denver), October 25, 2013. https://www.denverpost.com/2013/10/25/greeley-dealer-bob-ghent-earns- prestigious-nomination/. 11.Kline, Richard. 2019. The Evolution of Local Dealerships: The Backbone of the U.S. Automobile Industry. On-line: MSL Academic Endeavors. https://doi.org/ISBN-13: 978-1-936323-73-9. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Unknown. "New, Ultra-modern Ghent Motor Company Building Represents an Optimistic Investment in the Future Fort 1 Collins." The Fort Collins Coloradoan, (1966): 29. Accessed March 16, 2024. https://coloradoan.newpapers.com/image/ 588639157. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 176 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 8 Temporary Resource Number: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National or Local Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National or Local Register criteria 39.Area(s) of significance: N/A 40. Period of significance: 1966 41. Level of significance: National State Local N/A 42. Statement of significance: 5LR.14283 the Ghent Dealership is not significant at the National, State or Local levels. While the period of construction is over 50 years of age, it does not meet any of the criteria needed for designation. Criteria A, Events that have made a contribution to the broad pattern of history: The development of Fort Collins expanded after WWII, and the car was the main source of transportation considered in urban planning and development; however, it is extremely rare for a car dealership to individually contribute significantly to urban development. For this reason, car dealerships across the US are rarely designated at any level. Those dealerships that are designated are typically directly related to the major car companies in Detroit. Criteria A does not apply. Criteria B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past: While research of the Ghent family shows a loving family with many relatives in car sales, the Ghents related to 5LR.14283 did not show any specific contributions to the Fort Collins community that warrants landmarking this site. Frank, Dwight and Eldon Ghent did well with their dealerships, but the best years in sales were not associated with this location. The locations that were associated with their best years in sales were not deemed to be eligible for designation due to individuals of importance associated with them, therefore importance cannot be indicated for this site. While the Ghents might be associated with the business community, particularly Dwight who participated in many clubs, it was not enough to warrant the significance that landmarking requires, and it was not related to the car dealership or the site. Fort Collins has members of the community that qualify for Criteria B; however, the Ghents who are associated with 5LR.14283, Frank, Dwight, and Eldon, are not among the ranks of those who qualify. Criteria B does not apply. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 177 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 9 Temporary Resource Number: Criteria C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction: The architectural style of the 5LR.14283, constructed in 1966, can be called mid-century, as can nearly all buildings constructed during the 1960s. The Ghent dealership shows elements that are of the style of the period, such as a single story, gable roof with exposed rafters, and large areas of glass seen on Building A, the showroom’s exterior walls, and echoed at the smaller garage. However, this does not represent the work of a master, nor high artistic value, nor a distinguishable entity. While there are specific elements that represent the style of the period, the design and details are very common, and is in no way remarkable for the period. On a scale of 1-10 for mid-century design value, 10 being the highest, this example is 1-1.5. Research on Moore, Combs, and Burch, the architectural firm that designed the original buildings on the property, shows no buildings listed on the state or local registers designed by the firm. The architects are not listed individually, or as a firm, as important architects of the mid-century period or otherwise, in the History Colorado archives. Criteria C does not apply. Criteria D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory: This category is typically used for archeological sites, and does not apply to 5LR.14283. Any aspect related to this category would not be related to the dealership. Criteria D does not apply. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Multiple elements of the site and structure have changed over time. These include the changes in the roof materials; an extension of the roof overhang on the east elevation; the loss of the upper windows on the east elevation; the enclosure of the connection between the showroom and service area; a change in the door at the body shop at west end of the service area; the replacement of the majority of garage doors; the loss of landscaping; the addition of fencing; and the loss of the car wash and gas station. Many elements show significant deterioration, indicating the end-of-life cycle, as the original materials were inexpensive and made to be replaced often. Site issues include deterioration of drainage and surfaces requiring the removal of asphalt for regrading, and repair of foundations. The site and original materials can no longer be used as a car dealership, as modern dealerships require remodeling that would change all aspects to be current and contemporary. That the site cannot be used as a car dealership in its current form is a further loss of integrity. VII. NATIONAL AND LOCAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY A SSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data Local Fort Collins eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National or Local Register district potential? Yes No X ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 178 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 10 Temporary Resource Number: Discuss: Although there are several blocks with additional car dealerships, all have kept up to date with dealership requirements for modifications, thus losing any correlation to the mid-century period of significance. All other existing buildings from the period of significance are widely dispersed, do not have the concentration needed for a historic district, and are not related to the car industry. The area has lost significant integrity for the mid-century period and does not qualify for a national or local historic district. 46. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47.Photograph numbers: see appendix, images 1-111 Negatives filed at: City of Fort Collins 48. Report title: 2601 S College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 49. Date(s): April 2024 50. Recorder(s): Natalie Feinberg Lopez 51. Organization: Built Environment Evolution 52. Address: PO Box 9464, Aspen, CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 303-562-5872 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. 179 APPENDIX for 2601 South College Ave Fort Collins, CO 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 180 TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 MAP OF A REA 3 MAP 2 OF A REA 4 DOCUMENTATION 5 BUILDING A 5 -EAST 5 -NORTH 12 -WEST 22 -SOUTH 30 BUILDING B 38 -EAST 38 -NORTH 38 -WEST 39 -SOUTH 40 SITE 41 CHANGES IN CONTEXT 49 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 62 ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES OF MID-CENTURY MODERN 67 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 181 1. Map of 2601 South College Ave, Fort Collins, CO. Image courtesy of the Larimer County Assessor, 2024 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 182 2. Map of 2601 South College Ave, Fort Collins, CO. Image courtesy of the City of Fort Collins, 2024 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 183 DOCUMENTATION BUILDING A EAST 3. East Elevation - Total elevation. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024 4. East Elevation - North end. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024 5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 184 5. East Elevation - NE corner, underside of eaves, exposed rafter, steel structure, gutter. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 185 6. East Elevation - windows showing change in materials from installations of suspended drop ceiling on the interior. The original glass is missing, and the new material constitutes an intrusion. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 186 7. East Elevation - metal straps connecting exposed beams from original structure and extension of eaves. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 187 8. East Elevation - signs of drainage issues at the base of one of the steel columns. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 9 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 188 9. East Elevation - South portion, with stone veneer, shingles, exposed rafters and red metal roof trim over fascia. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 189 10. East Elevation - Image of connection of aluminum frame, single glaze window with stone veneer. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 11 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 190 NORTH 11. North Elevation - NE Corner of showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 191 12. North Elevation - of showroom. Note door with hinged window to allow cars into the showroom, located in the middle of the photo frame.Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 13 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 192 13. North Elevation - to NW Corner of showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 193 14. North Elevation - airlock entry of the service center, the customer service office, and the first of the bay doors. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 15 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 194 15. North Elevation - Service center, bays 1-2. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 16. North Elevation - Service center, bays 3-6. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 195 17. North Elevation - Service center, bays 5-8. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 18. North Elevation - Service center, bays 9-11. Note the garage doors on bays 9 and 13 are original, all others have been replaced. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 17 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 196 19. North Elevation - Service center, door of the Body & Paint center. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 18 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 197 20. North Elevation - Service center, bays 12 and 13. Note the door on bay 13 is original. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 19 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 198 21. North Elevation - Shed addition at the back of the service center.. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 20 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 199 22. North Elevation - Service center, column between bays 2-3. Note the numerous cracks, typical of the columns on both the North and South elevations. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 21 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 200 WEST 23. West Elevation - Back wall of the Showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 22 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 201 24. West Elevation - NW corner of the Showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 23 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 202 25. West Elevation - Back wall of the Service Center. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 26. West Elevation - Back wall of the Showroom, south portion of elevation. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 24 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 203 27. West Elevation - Back wall of the Showroom. Note netting at the eaves. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 25 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 204 28. West Elevation - Back wall of the Showroom, south portion, detail. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 26 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 205 29. West Elevation - Detail at west, between storage sheds with gas meter. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 27 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 206 30. West elevation - Detail of stone veneer over CMU. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 28 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 207 31. West elevation - Detail of key drop. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 29 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 208 SOUTH 32. South Elevation - Service center, bays 7-15. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 33. South Elevation - Service center, bays 5-11. Note more of the original garage doors on this elevation. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 30 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 209 34. South Elevation - Service center, bays 3-7. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 35. South Elevation - Service center, bays 1-5. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 31 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 210 36. South Elevation - Service center, bays 1-2, and staff area and entrance to the Service center. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 37. South Elevation - Service center, staff area and entrance to the Service center. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 32 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 211 38. South Elevation - Showroom, “Bay window” that appears to have served as a drive-thru window. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 33 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 212 39. South Elevation - Showroom, dumpsters, door at stairs, and loading dock with roll-up door. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 34 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 213 40. South Elevation - Showroom, SE corner of office portion. Showroom windows on photo right. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 35 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 214 41. South Elevation - Detail of damage at roofline. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 36 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 215 42. South Elevation - Detail of the door and hinged window that open to allow cars into the showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 37 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 216 BUILDING B EAST 43. East Elevation - Entrance and office area of the small garage. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. NORTH 44. North Elevation - Entrance and office area of the small garage on photo left, service area at photo right. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 38 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 217 45. North Elevation - detail of “garden” area. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. WEST 46. West Elevation - Service area with two bays. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 39 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 218 SOUTH 47. South Elevation - Small door at the service area. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 219 SITE 48. Site - Detail of stairs on east side of showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 41 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 220 49. Site - Detail of bench on north side of showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 42 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 221 50. Site - Detail of the chainlink fence that surrounds the west end of the parking lot. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 43 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 222 51. Site - Detail of entrance on north side of the lot. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 44 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 223 52. Site - Detail of stairs on north side of showroom. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 45 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 224 53. Site - Detail of stairs on north side of showroom, showing signs of deterioration. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 46 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 225 54. Site - Detail of deterioration on east side of Building B. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 47 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 226 55. Site - Detail of the stone stairs on north side of lot, reportedly from the previous Drake farm before the car dealership was on site, from the stagecoach stop (no verification found). Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 48 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 227 CHANGES IN CONTEXT 2601 South College AVE. 49 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 228 STREETSCAPE - Drake Road and South College Ave. 56. View from corner, the dealership sits on the SW corner of Drake Rd. and S.College Ave. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 50 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 229 57. North side of Drake Rd. Note the construction of a new mall, a change in the local context. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 58. NW corner of the intersection of Drake Rd. and S. College Ave. Built in 1980, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 51 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 230 59. NE corner of Drake Rd. and S. College Ave. With an unknown construction date, the bank is deemed eligible for landmarking. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 60. SE corner of Drake Rd. and S. College Ave. Built in 2006, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of Google Earth. 2024. 52 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 231 South College AVE - EAST SIDE 61. 2614 S. College Ave. Built in 2005, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 53 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 232 62. 2712 S. College Ave. Built 1967, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 63. 2716 South College. Built in 1971, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. South College AVE - WEST SIDE 54 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 233 64. East streetscape in front of 2601 South College Ave. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 55 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 234 65. 2627 South College Ave. Property to the south of Car Dealership. Built in 1964, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 66. 2631 South College Ave. Built in 1975, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 56 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 235 67. 2701 South College Ave, built 1966, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of Google Earth. 2024 57 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 236 COLLEGE AVE AUTO DEALERSHPS 68. 205 North College Ave, location of first Ford dealership that was initially a livery stable. Frank Ghent purchased a portion of the dealership in 1940, and stayed there until moving to 2601 South College in 1966. This property is ideal for designation specific to the history of the car. Built 1910, eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of Google Earth. 2024. 69. Saab Dealership, 425 North College Ave, date of construction unknown. Eligibility unknown. Image courtesy of Google Earth. 2024. 58 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 237 70. Kia dealership, 2849 South College Ave, built in 1972, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 71. Glass Doctor, 2901 South College Ave, date of construction unknown, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 59 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 238 72. VW dealership, 3003 South College Ave. Built 1968, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 73. Porsche dealership, 3003 South College Ave. Built 1968, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 74. Subaru dealership, 3103 South College Ave. Built in 1973, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 60 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 239 75. Chevrolet dealership, 3111 South College Ave. Built in 1972, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of Google Earth. 2024. 76. Auto Zone, 105 West Prospect Rd. Unknown construction date, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Note despite having many similar features to the dealership at 2601 South College Ave., such as CMU construction, stone veneer siding, a large gable roof, exposed rafters, and large amounts of glass, this building is not eligible for landmarking. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 79. Auto Zone, 105 West Prospect Rd. Unknown construction date, not eligible for landmarking per the City of Fort Collins Historic Resources Planning Map. Image courtesy of BEE. 2024. 61 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 240 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 62 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 241 80. Historic Preservation map, large view. Courtesy of the City of Fort Collins. 2024. 81. Historic Preservation map, close up view of South College Ave. 2601 South College is in the center of the photo (blue). Note change in density of “eligible” landmark sites vs old town Fort Collins and adjacent areas - historic district potential is currently limited. Courtesy of the City of Fort Collins. 2024. 63 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 242 82. City of Fort Collins Design Guidelines referencing Sustainability and Embodied Energy. BEE research includes carbon calculations, to be presented at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on April 17, 2024. Document courtesy of the City of Fort Collins. 2024. 64 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 243 83. Additional section from City of Fort Collins Design Guidelines, items to consider with 2601 South College Ave eligibility. Document from City of Fort Collins. 2024. 65 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 244 EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE 66 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 245 EXAMPLES BELOW IN ORDER OF DATE OF CONSTRUCTION 84. Villa Savoye, Poissy, France, Le Corbusier, 1929. One of the earliest examples of the architecture that shaped the modern movement. Image courtesy of Architecture Daily. 2024. 85. Gropius House, Lincoln, MA. Walter Gropius, 1938. Image courtesy of Historic New England. 2024. 67 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 246 86. Neutra House, Los Angeles, CA, Richard Neutra, 1950. Image courtesy of the Neutra Institute. 2024. 68 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 247 87. Hanover Trust Company, New York, NY, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, 1954. Image courtesy of Wikimedia. 2024. 88. SR Crow Hall, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, Mies van den Rohe, 1956. Image courtesy of Illinois Institute of Technology. 2024. 69 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 248 89. General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI, Eero Saarinen, 1956. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 90. Ice Rink, Yale University, New Haven, CT, Eero Saarinen, 1958. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 70 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 249 91. McGregor Memorial Conference Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, Minor Yamasaki, 1958. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 92. Brazil Supreme Federal Court, Brasilia, DF, Brazil, Oscar Niemeyer, 1958. Image courtesy of Getty. 2024. 71 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 250 93. Case Study #8, Los Angeles, CA, Charles and Ray Eames, 1958. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 94. The Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY, Frank Lloyd Wright, 1959. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 72 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 251 95. National Congress Building, Brasilia, DF, Brazil, Oscar Niemeyer, 1960. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 73 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 252 96. Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA, Louis Kahn, 1962. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 97. Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA, Louis Kahn, 1962. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 74 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 253 98. Lincoln Center, New York, NY, Philip Johnson and Eero Saarinen, 1962. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 99. Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Louis Kahn, 1962. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 75 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 254 100. Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Louis Kahn, 1962. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 101. The Met-Breuer Building, New York, NY, Marcel Breuer, 1966. Image courtesy of Shutterstock. 2024. 76 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 255 102. The Ford Foundation Building, New York, NY, Kevin Roche, 1967. Image courtesy of Wikimedia. 2024. 103. Geisel Library, University of California, San Diego, CA, William Pereira, 1970. Image courtesy of the Getty. 2024. 77 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 256 EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF LESSER KNOWN/UNKNOWN ARCHITECTS 104. Westbury Automotive, Houston, TX, architect unknown, date unknown. Image courtesy of Mid- Century Preservation and W. Airport-Hester and Hardaway Photographers. 2024. 105. The Baringer House, Norman, OK, Architect unknown, 1968. Image courtesy of Mid-century Preservation. 2024. 78 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 257 106. Eichler tract home, Walnut Creek, CA, 1959. Eichler was a developer who built affordable tract homes, and wanted to bring affordable, fair housing to everyone. The style became common for the era. Image courtesy of Atomic Ranch online magazine. 2024. 107. Another example of Eichler tract home, Oakland, CA, 1959. Image courtesy of Atomic Ranch online magazine. 2024. 79 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 258 108. Texico gas station in Muldersweg, Netherlands, 1953. Image courtesy of www.arkitekting.wordpress.com/. 2024. 109. Exxon gas station in Dudok, Netherlands, 1953. Image courtesy of www.arkitekting.wordpress.com/. 2024. 80 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 259 110. Alum Rock gas station, San Jose, CA, c.1960. Image courtesy of www.arkitekting.wordpress.com/. 2024. 111. Union96 gas station, Los Angeles, CA, date unknown. Image courtesy of www.arkitekting.wordpress.com/. 2024. ** Research for mid-century modern car dealerships was disappointing, with all landmarked dealerships found built in the 1920-30s and of a very different architectural style. 81 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 260 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6048 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services March 29, 2024 Carlton Henry Planner, Norris Design 244 North College Avenue, Unit #165 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: 2601 South College Determination of Eligibility Appeal Dear Mr. Henry, As you are the design review applicant for 2601 S. College, this letter is to inform you that the appeal of the determination of eligibility for landmark designation of the property has been scheduled for April 17, 2024. This is a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and will begin at 5:30 pm in Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Rebekah Schields Historic Preservation Specialist 970-224-6137 rschields@fcgov.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 261 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6048 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services April 17, 2024 RE: HPC-Requested Addition to the Packet – Appeal of 2601 S. College Finding of Eligibility At its April 10, 2024 Work Session, the City’s Historic Preservation Commission requested that certain records related to the now-expired finding of the property at 2601 S. College Avenue be added to the record for its upcoming meeting. Included in this attachment, by date, are: -October 26, 2017 - initial staff/LPC (Landmark Preservation Commission) finding of the property as Eligible. -December 18, 2017 – Historic Survey Form for 2601 S. College Ave; produced by 2017 Appellant’s contractor, recommending the property Not Eligible. -February 21, 2018 – LPC Verbatim Transcript of the Appeal Hearing for 2601 S. College -April 3, 2018 – City Council Minutes excerpt related to Appeal hearing, finding the property not Eligible. Please note the following important caveats about these administrative records: 1.A determination of eligibility, by definition, does not consider or address the suitability or code compliance of any past, current, or proposed use of a property. A building permit or development review application is required in order to evaluate the code compliance of a proposed use or alteration. 2.An applicant may request a determination of landmark eligibility at any time if a valid determination (made within the last five years) is not already on file. The application for a determination of eligibility does not have to be associated with a current development application or proposed landmark designation. 3.The determination of eligibility and subsequent appeal process completed in 2017-2018 regarding 2601 S. College, although similar, was completed under a previous version of the City’s historic preservation codes (both Municipal Code Chapter 14, and Land Use Code 3.4.7). The City revised the process for historic survey and development review through code modifications adopted by City Council on March 5, 2019. It is under those new/current code requirements that the 2023 evaluation of 2601 S. College Ave as an historic resource was completed. 4.The 2019 code and process updates modified the determination of eligibility and development review process related to cultural resources in the following ways: a.Required identification of historic resources on the development site at the earliest stage of development i.In subsequent administrative refinement, City Preservation staff are routed on all development applications received by the City for potential comment. Structures on development sites that are not designated historic resources, but are at least 50 years old, must have a valid determination of eligibility on file ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 262 prior to submittal of a complete development application. In the absence of that information, historic survey is required. b. Required the City to significantly improve the quality of its pre-submittal historic review. i. Prior to 2019, the Director of CDNS and the LPC chair issued a determination of eligibility based on available evidence already held in the Historic Preservation property files and a short review of building permit history. The qualifications of those individuals as professional historic survey professionals varied based on who held the positions, and in many cases, determinations were made without the benefit of an intensive-level historic survey of the property due to the limited survey data on file. However, any resident of the City or the property owner could appeal the determination of eligibility, and at that time the appellant was required to include an intensive-level historic survey form produced by a qualified professional. ii. The new 2019 code standards establish a full, intensive-level, historic survey of a property as the evidentiary basis for the official determination of eligibility, which means that if there is no current documentation on file a survey must be ordered and paid for by the applicant prior to the determination. The survey findings must be based on the City’s local Landmark eligibility criteria, , and the documentation is completed by an independent consultant who specializes in historic survey, if available. The official determination of eligibility is issued by City staff, who are all qualified professionals in historic survey, following an internal process to establish consensus on the determination. iii. Upon appeal, an appellant is still required to produce their own historic survey form prepared by a qualified professional, as outlined in the Municipal Code (14-23b). ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 263 2017 CDNS/LPC Finding ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 264 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 265 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 266 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 267 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 268 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 1 OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form I.IDENTIFICATION 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 1.Resource number: 5LR.14283 2.Temporary resource number: 3.County: Larimer 4.City: Fort Collins 5.Historic building name: Ghents Motors Company 6.Current building name: Spradley-Barr Mazda, Inc. 7.Building address: 2601 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80525 8.Owner name and address: DraCol, LLC., P.O. Box 270710, Fort Collins, CO., 80527. II.GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9.P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 26 10.UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 4 9 3 3 4 9 mE 4 4 8 9 0 1 9 mN 11.USGS quad name: Fort Collins 1960 (p.r.1984) Year: 1984 Map scale: 7.5' x 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12.Lot(s): 1 Block: Ghent FTC; Less 96030371; Less POR to City Per 20150057258. Addition: Ghent Annexation Year of Addition: 1966 13.Boundary Description and Justification: From the Larimer County Assessor’s Office is the following legal land description for Larimer County Parcel No. 9726114001. The commercial building is on the southwest corner of the intersection of South College Avenue and West Drake Road. The property's northern boundary is West Drake, the eastern boundary is South College Avenue, the western boundary is McClelland Drive and the southern boundary is West Thunderbird Drive. Annexed to the city of Fort Collins as the Ghent Annexation in 1966, the boundary description dates from the mid-1960s. III. Architectural Description 14.Building plan (footprint, shape): There are two buildings associated with 5LR.14283. Building A is the main showroom and features an irregular building plan, Building B is a garage and features a rectangular footprint. 15. Dimensions in feet: A: Length 83.5’’ x Width 104’ B: Length: 59.3’ x Width 29.3’. 16.Number of stories: Bldgs. A and B: Single. 17.Primary external wall material(s): Bldg. A: Glass and Stone. Bldg., B: Concrete and Stone 18.Roof configuration: Bldg. A: Gable and Flat. Bldg B: Gable. 19.Primary external roof material: Bldgs. A and B: Metal. 2017 Appellant Survey Form ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 269 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 2 20. Special features: Two separate buildings both associated with automobile sales and service, Parking lot surrounds both buildings. Large stationary windows. Metal gable roof canopy. Rolling metal garage doors with windows. 21. General architectural description: This is the first recordation of 5LR.14283. According to the Larimer County Assessor, 5LR.14283 was constructed in 1966. Bldg A, Eastern Elevation: A gabled metal roof extends from Bldg. A’s exterior to form a canopy. The canopy measures 56 feet in length and 30 feet wide. Six metal posts support the metal gable roof. It is unclear when this canopy was added. Beneath the roof are two signs. The first sign, closest to the gable’s peak, reads “Mazda.” The sign below reads: “Spradley/Barr.” Building A’s eastern elevation is composed of six large glass metal window framed windows. These windows begin at ground level and extend to the height of the walls. Above the windows, paneling indeterminate materials covers six original windows, and reach to the gable’s peak. A decorative stone façade is set to the south of the showroom. This is the north wall of the parts and service section of the building. Bldg. A Northern elevation: Five stationary metal frame windows extend from the building’s northeast corner to the east. A metal frame commercial door is located within in this glass panel. This door provides the primary entry into the building’s showroom. A stone façade extends approximately 20 feet from this entry way. The stone façade extends from ground level to beneath the roofline. The stone façade is interrupted by four stationary metal frame windows similar in design and materials to those near the building’s northeast corner. The stone façade continues to the north for approximately another 25 feet. The façade extends from the ground to beneath the roofline. A glass and metal foyer connects the showroom and the parts and service garage of Bldg. A. This foyer is irregularly shaped and is about six feet wide on the northern elevation. The Service Section of the building appears to have been stuccoed. The roof line of the northern roofline features a cornice along the façade’s length. The Service Section is in three sections, with the center section tall enough to accommodate trucks. The first section has three backlit signs beneath the cornice. The first “Service Parts,” is above a rectangular metal sliding window. This appears to have been the first service bay of nine in the first section. Approximately five feet to the west is the second service bay. The second backlit sign reads “Full Service” and is above fourth and fifth bays. “Express Lube Plus” is above the eighth and ninth service bays. The metal rolling garage doors in this section each have three-over-three stationary windows in the center and all are replacements. The original rolling doors were predominately glass, the panes arranged in three columns and five rows. The bottom row was solid and probably metal. The center section has three truck sized rolling doors. Of the three doors the one farthest east appears to be original with three columns and six rows of glass panels, the seventh row at the ground level is metal. The other two doors are newer and match the ones in the first section. A sign above the two new doors reads “Spradley Barr.” Six feet west is a double human door, above which a backlit sign, “Body & Paint.” The third section has four rolling garage doors. A backlit sign, “Collision Center,” is above the first two doors. The second door is original. The other three rolling doors are newer. All of the rolling doors on this elevation are spaced two feet apart, except the two furthest to the west which are four feet apart. Bldg. A Western elevation: There are no fenestrations along the showroom’s western elevation. Concrete block is visible from ground level to the gable peak. The wood laminate beams supporting the roof are visible. On the western elevation of the service and parts garage is a solid concrete block wall. Two small prefabricated ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 270 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 3 additions were made to the building in the 1990s. They have shed roofs, and human doors on the southern elevations. Bldg. A Southern elevation: Beginning at the building’s southeast corner and heading to the west are stationary metal framed windows. These windows extend from the ground level to beneath the roofline. A metal framed commercial door is located in the glass panel nearest to the parts and service exterior. This door is the only access to the showroom from the southern elevation. The southern elevation of the parts and service section features a square, rolling garage door near this section’s southeastern corner. An eight-foot high chain link fence extends from the exterior wall for approximately eight feet and surrounds a loading dock that is two feet from ground level. Outside of the fence, three steps lead up to a metal human door. Near the south west corner of the parts and service section is a three sided metal framed bay window. A rolling metal door can close off the bay window from the main building. The foyer between the parts and service section and the service bays is about 15 feet wide on this elevation and its flat roof has a three foot eave. A small rounded porch is a couple of inches above ground level. Similar to the northern elevation, the southern elevation features a like number rolling garage doors. The last four in the first section appear to be original, as is the second door in the center section. Bldg. B (Used Car Sales): Bldg., B was originally constructed as the Used Car Sales office. It is located approximately 20 feet north of Bldg. A. Bldg. B features a metal gable roof with exposed wood laminate beams. Eastern elevation. The rough stone treatment found on the eastern and northern elevations of Bldg. A covers almost half of the eastern elevation of Bldg. B. Stationary metal framed windows also like Bldg. A. extend from the ground to the gable peak and from the stone covered wall to the northeast corner. In the northeast corner a metal framed stationary glass door enters the front office area. Northern elevation: From northeast corner, six, two-foot-wide, metal-framed, stationary windows reach from the floor to the top of the wall. The rest of the wall is the same rough stone as use on the eastern elevation. Western elevation: Two metal and glass rolling garage doors cover this elevation. These doors have 15 panels in five rows. The middle three rows are glass and the top and bottom rows are metal. The doors are set about two feet apart. The wall is painted concrete block. The wood laminate beams are exposed under the roof. Southern elevation: A metal, human door is located near the southwest corner. There are no other fenestrations along this elevation, and the wall is painted concrete block. 22. Architectural style/building type: Bldgs. A and B: No Style. 23. Landscaping or special setting features: An open asphalt parking lot surrounds 5LR.14283 in four directions. A mature deciduous tree grows near the main showroom’s southeast corner. Four small trees grow along the curb parallel South College Avenue. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: As of December 2017, there were other commercial buildings within the boundaries of the Ghent Addition. Most notably, the Sherwin-Williams Paint Shop at 2627 South College Avenue. This building was not recorded as part of this survey. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1966 Source of information: Larimer County Office Website, Parcel No. 9726114001. https://www.larimer.org/assessor/search#/property/?fromAddrNum=2601&address=College&city=FORT%20CO LLINS&sales=any&accountid=R0133361. Accessed December 10, 2017. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 271 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 4 26. Architect: Unknown. Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown. Source of information: 28. Original owner: Frank Ghent Source of information: R.L. Polk, 1966 City of Fort Collins Directory. Located at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives and City of Fort Collins Building Permit Correspondence, Tom Coffey to Mike DiTullio, June 7, 1972. http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=51&docid=12054&dt=OA-OTHER+AGREEMENTS. Accessed December 27, 2017. 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The Larimer County Assessor’s Office gives the date of construction for 5LR.14283 as 1966. For most of the twentieth century, this site was W.A. Drake farm site. The construction of the Ghents car dealership came after the publication of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. The Ghent’s added a car wash-service station to the site in 1972. The introduction of the car wash required the introduction of sidewalks, curb, and gutters. The canopy was added later, it does not appear in the earliest photos held by the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The windows in the gable were likely replaced at the same time as the ceiling was lowered. A permit for alteration for a minor office remodel in 1998 is perhaps when the ceiling was lowered. Plans held at the Fort Collins Permit Office indicate two additions – one measuring 18.5’ x 10’ and the other measuring 15’ x 10’ – were constructed along the building’s western façade in 2004. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Commerce-Trade/Specialty 32. Intermediate use(s): Commerce-Trade/Specialty 33. Current use(s): Commerce-Trade/Specialty 34. Site type(s): Automobile Dealership 35. Historical background: Based on photographs held at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, W.A. Drake operated a farm at the southwest corner of South College Avenue and West Drake Road as early as 1905. In 1919, Frank Ghent was discharged from the United States Navy. After the war, Ghent, and his wife Vera, lived in Fort Collins, and homesteaded in northwestern Colorado before returning to Fort Collins and working as a real estate agent. In 1940, he opened a car dealership at 205 North College Avenue, and in the 1950s he had a location at 262 East Mountain Avenue. In addition to his business interests, Ghent was a chair of a Fort Collins Civil Defense organization during World War II and served eight years as a Colorado highway commissioner. In 1966, Ghent moved his Ford-Lincoln-Mercury dealership to 2601 South College Avenue. The dealership is contained in the Ghent Annexation. The City of Fort Collins formalized the Ghent Annexation at the time Frank Ghent was getting ready to build his new dealership. As part of the deal the city accepted as approved the county’s building permits, and added street lights, curb and gutter on Drake Street. In 1996, the Ghents sold to another established Fort Collins auto dealer, Spradley-Barr. In 2012, DraCol assumed ownership of this property, but kept the Spradley-Barr name of the dealership. As of December 2017, DraCol retains ownership of 5LR.14283. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 272 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 5 36. Sources of information: Cara Neth, “90-year-old Founder of Ghent Motors Dies,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, (January 7, 1985): A-1, A-10, R.L. Polk, Fort Collins City Directories, 1966-2006. Located at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, History Archives; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1917-1943; Located on the Denver Public Library-Western History Collection website; Larimer County Assessor’s Office Appraisal Card, Parcel No. 9726114001, and City of Fort Collins Building Permit Correspondence, Tom Coffey to Mike DiTullio, June 7, 1972. City of Fort Collins Public Records, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=51&docid=12054&dt=OA-OTHER+AGREEMENTS. Accessed December 27, 2017. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria Applicable City of Fort Collins Local Landmark Criteria: ___ 1. The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or 2. The property is associated with the lives of persons that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or, 3. The property 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 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. X Does not meet any of the above Local Landmark criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: None. 40. Period of significance: N/A 41. Level of significance: National State Local 42. Statement of significance: This is the first recordation of 5LR.14283. The Ghents/Spradley-Barr dealership has been at this location since 1966. The car dealership is one of many along College Avenue. This was the third location for Ghent during the twentieth century. Because of the predominance of car dealerships as a twentieth century business model nationally, across Colorado and along College Avenue in Fort Collins, 5LR.14283 would not be considered eligible for listing to either the National or State Register under Criterion A. Frank Ghent was a successful ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 273 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 6 Fort Collins businessman from the 1940s until his death in 1985. Mr. Ghent was actively involved in the life of his community for most of his 90 years. However, that involvement is not at a level of eligibility for listing to the National or State Register under Criterion B. Based on photographs from the 1970s, the exterior of the 51-year-old car dealership has undergone minimal alterations or additions. The exterior is similar to other car dealerships constructed across the United States during the 1960s. The use of large, open glass windows and stone exterior treatments can still be found on other car dealerships, supermarkets, and professional buildings from the same period. The building retains fair historic physical integrity. Because there is nothing unique about the architectural style, settling, feeling, and association, 5LR.14283 is not eligible for listing to the National or State Register under Criterion C. Ghent/Spradley-Barr are perhaps the two best known car dealership in Northern Colorado. Mr. Ghent had been in the auto business for a quarter-century before relocating to this address. His children sold the dealership in 1996 after thirty years at 2601 South College Avenue. Because, Mr. Ghent had started and established his business at another location, 5LR.14283 would not qualify under Fort Collins Local Landmark Criteria 1. Mr. Ghent’s activities in the development of Larimer County and Fort Collins primarily took place before the move to 2601 South College Avenue in 1966. Because of that lack of association with a period in Mr. Ghent’s life where he made his contributions to the county and the city, 5LR.14283 would not qualify as a Fort Collins Local Landmark under Criteria 2. The exterior has undergone alterations over the past five decades. The building does not possess the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a ma ster, or possesses high artistic values. 5LR.14283 would not qualify as a Fort Collins Local Landmark under Criteria 3. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Research was unable to precisely date alterations to the building A’s footprint since original construction. The largest addition is the canopy on the eastern elevation. One out of 16 original service bays has been enclosed and one bay door has been enclosed on the south elevation at the far west end of Building A. Both of the original rolling garage doors on Building B have been replaced. Twenty-seven of the original garage doors have been replaced. As a result only four of the original 34 rolling garage doors remain. The original doors were 80%-85% windows and the new doors are only 40% window. The roof has been replaced with material not used in 1960s which distracts from the overall historic integrity. It should be noted that 5LR.14283 is well kept but only displays a fair level of historic physical integrity. The change of the roof to non- period materials, and the loss of a character defining elements in the loss of the service bay doors greatly detracts from the historic nature of the building. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: The commercial district in the vicinity of the intersection of South College Avenue and West Drake Road contains a number of buildings less than 50 years old. The proposed introduction of a residential/commercial center at the southwest corner of South College and West Drake would lessen the current national district potential. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing X 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 274 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 7 VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: 5LR.14283a through 5LR.14283j. Negatives filed at: Electronic images held by Autobee & Autobee, LLC, Lakewood, CO. 48. Report title: Letter Report: “Determination of Eligibility for 2602 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO.” 49. Date(s): December 28, 2017 50. Recorder(s): Robert and Kristen Autobee 51. Organization: Autobee & Autobee, LLC 52. Address: 6900 W. 26th Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80214. 53. Phone number(s): 303-906-7829 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 5 Packet Pg. 275 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 8 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom (Bldg. A) Eastern and northern elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283a. Photos showing the eastern elevation before the addition of the canopy, the lowering of the showroom ceiling, and covering of the gable windows. Photos taken September 1, 1966 (right) and September 6, 1966 (left). From Coloradoan Collection, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 276 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 9 Ghents Motors (6/2/1978). Post canopy addition. Photograph located Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 2601SCol78_01. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom (Bldg. A) Eastern and southern elevations. Looking northwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283b. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 277 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 10 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom and Service Bay Section (Bldg. A) Eastern and southern elevations. Looking northwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283c. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Foyer between Parts and Service Section and the Service Bay Section (Bldg. A) Southern elevation. Looking northwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283d. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 278 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 11 Ghents Motors. Photos showing the southern elevation of the Service Bay Section with original rolling garage doors. Photos taken September 1, 1966 From Coloradoan Collection, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom (Bldg. A) Northern and western elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283e. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 279 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 12 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Parts and Service Entry (Foyer) (Bldg. A) Northern elevation. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR14283f. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Parts and Service Entry (Foyer) (Bldg. A) Western elevation. Northern elevation of the Service Bay Section. Looking east. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283g. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 280 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 13 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr - Showroom (Bldg. A). Northern and eastern elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283h. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr – Used Car Sales. (Bldg. B) Western and southern elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283i. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 281 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 14 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr – Used Car Sales (Bldg. B) Eastern and southern elevations. Looking northeast. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283j. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr – Used Car Sales (Bldg. B) Northern elevation. Looking southeast. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283k. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 282 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 15 Ghents Motors (6/2/1978) Photograph located Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 2601SCol78_02. Ghents Motors (6/2/1978) Northern elevation of Service Bay Section. Photograph located Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 2601SCol78_03. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 283 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 16 2601 South College Avenue (5LR.14283) 6th P.M., Township 7N, Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 26 UTM reference Zone 13 4 9 3 3 4 9 mE 4 4 8 9 0 1 9 mN Fort Collins 1960 (p.r., 1984), 7.5’ USGS topo map Larimer County 5LR.14283 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 284 Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 17 Sketch Map (5LR.14283) 2601 South College Avenue Showroom N West Drake Road So u t h C o l l e g e A v e n u e A B A Used Car Sales Service Bays Foyer Parts and Service Parking Parking Parking 5LR.1428 3 Sherwin-Williams Paint Store – Not part of survey. Mc C l e l l a n d D r i v e ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 285 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held FEBRUARY 21, 2018 City Council Chambers 300 North Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: 2601 South College Determination of Eligibility Appeal Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, February 21, 2018 Commission Members Present: Alexandra Wallace, Acting Chair Michael Bello Katie Dorn Kristin Gensmer Staff Members Present: Karen McWilliams Cassandra Bumgarner Brad Yatabe Gretchen Schiager Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson **Secretary’s Note: Chair Meg Dunn and Vice Chair Per Hogestad recused themselves from the discussion of this item due to conflicts of interest. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 286 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 CHAIR ALEXANDRA WALLACE: Just as a note, both Meg and Per are still going to be recusing themselves from this portion of the agenda. So, this is the…for discussion item number 3; this is the item to consider the appeal of the Determination of Eligibility for Fort Collins Local Landmark Designation at 2601 South College Avenue, which was considered eligible for its association with the growth of the automobile industry and with the Ghent family, and for its distinctive, mid-century automobile dealership characteristics. Does staff have any new information received since the work session? MS. CASSANDRA BUMGARNER: Thank you Ms. Wallace. Yes, we did have some requests for additional information following the work session. The first one, what will happen with the W.A. Drake steps on the property? Staff has let the applicant know about this request and Bill Wells with Brinkman Partners has confirmed that the plan is to save or reuse the steps in any redevelopment…and they are prepared to discuss the steps at this meeting. We also had a question about the current context of the area, which I will review during my staff presentation. We received an email asking about the energy efficiency of 2601 South College building as it stands. Staff forwarded this request to the applicant but also notes that this question is not applicable to the Code requirements for determining the eligibility for designation of a property. Additionally, staff does not have this information readily available to address it. And then, finally, there was Bud Frick’s email with historic photos of automobile dealerships which was attached to the staff report. He sent this email on February 15th of 2018 to the Landmark Preservation Commission and staff regarding automobile dealerships from this era. Staff has forwarded this email to the applicant, included the email as an attachment, and pulled the photographs from each link into the attachment. CHAIR WALLACE: Great, thank you, Cassie. Does any member of the LPC have any disclosures regarding this item? MS. KRISTIN GENSMER: I was not present at the work session while this was being discussed; however, I have reviewed the audio recording of the discussion and…I suppose of the question period, I should say, and I am prepared to participate. MS. MOLLIE SIMPSON: I was also not here during the work session and did listen to the audio tape and are [sic] prepared as well. CHAIR WALLACE: Great, thank you Kristi and Mollie. Okay, so quickly to note, the LPC’s responsibilities tonight…we are not going to be considering the other two properties that were listed in the background of the section for the item…2627 South College Avenue and 132 West Thunderbird Road, because they were under 50 years of age. We are not going to be considering the economic impact and feasibility of retaining the property as being individually eligible. The LPC is also determining whether it will uphold the previous decision by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the LPC Chair, or to overturn it…to uphold or to overturn that decision. And the Commission is also looking at the eligibility of the property at 2602 South College based on the standards that are in accordance with Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. And, finally, this Commission is not designating the property as a landmark. 39 Okay, so does staff have a report? 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 287 3 MS. BUMGARNER: Yes. Alright, thank you Ms. Wallace, and good evening. My name is 1 Cassandra Bumgarner; I’m an Historic Preservation Planner and I’m presenting the staff report on 2601 2 South College Avenue…the appeal of the landmark designation eligibility. 3 On October 20th, 2017, Historic Preservation staff received an application for historic review for 4 three properties associated with a potential development proposal at the southwest corner of College 5 Avenue and Drake Road. As Ms. Wallace briefly stated, we did not review 2627 South College Avenue 6 or 132 West Thunderbird Road. Neither of those buildings were over 50 years of age, so the historic 7 review was not required for either of those properties. Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(C), Determination of 8 Landmark Eligibility, provides the process for identifying historic resources on and adjacent to 9 development sites, and requires that the decisions be made in accordance with the applicable provisions in 10 Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. 11 On October 26th, 2017, the Director of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services 12 and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the 2601 South College Avenue 13 property based on the provisions in Chapter 14 Section 72, and found that the proposed demolition of the 14 primary structures on the property constructed circa 1966 would constitute a major alteration because it 15 would negatively impact all seven aspects of exterior physical integrity. They also at that point 16 determined that the property was individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark based on significance 17 under standard A, B, and C. 18 On November 7th, 2017, Bill Wells, on behalf of the current owners, submitted a written appeal of 19 the decision that the property is individually eligible in accordance with the appeal procedure outlined in 20 Sections 14-6(B) and 14-72(E). The appellant has met all of the requirements outlined in the Code 21 regarding the appeal process, including submittal of a Colorado cultural resource survey architectural 22 inventory form, which was prepared by an independent consultant in historic preservation. 23 The 2601 South College Avenue site is on a commercial block at the southwest corner of two 24 arterials: Drake Road and College Avenue. On the southeast corner of the Drake and College intersection 25 is more commercial development with residential further east. On the northeast corner, there is some 26 commercial development with residential toward the north and the east. Some of the residential buildings 27 in this area have commercial occupants. On the northwest corner of the intersection is a commercial 28 block with an active development review application, PDP 160043, also known as King Soopers number 29 146, Midtown Gardens Marketplace. The application includes a proposed supermarket within the existing 30 Kmart building, and a new 7,200 square foot retail building that would replace an existing vacant building 31 on the northeast corner of the site. The project had a neighborhood meeting on November 2nd, 2016. The 32 round one staff review was held on January 18th of 2017…an additional review is ongoing. 33 So, the next few slides are current photographs of the property. There are three buildings on the 34 property, and this is showing you the showroom…and here are some more views of the showroom. Then, 35 on this slide and the following, you start to see more of the service repair garage and garage bays. And 36 then this is an additional building on the property which has been labeled as the outbuilding. And the 37 proposed work is for full demolition of those buildings. 38 So, Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code: Standards for Determining the Eligibility of Site 39 Structures, Objects, and Districts for Designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, 40 provides the framework for making the determination of eligibility. Eligibility is based on significance 41 and exterior integrity. The Landmark Preservation Commission must consider context as well. 42 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 288 4 The Code explains that significance is the importance of the site to the history, architecture, 1 archeology, engineering, or culture of our community, state, or nation. The property must meet at least 2 one of the four standards of recognized significance. I’ll now be reviewing the four standards of 3 significance; the first is events, and a property can be associated with either or both of two types of 4 events: one is a specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins pre-history or history, or two, 5 a pattern of events or an historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the 6 community, state, or nation. The second standard of significance is persons or groups. The property 7 could be determined significant if associated with the lives of people…persons or groups recognizable in 8 the history of the community whose specific contributions can be identified. The third standard of 9 significance is design or construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the 10 identifiable characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a craftsman 11 or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic, style, and quality, possess 12 high artistic values or design concepts, or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of 13 properties. Then the fourth standard of significance is information potential. Properties may be 14 determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in pre-15 history or history. 16 So, just to review, there are four types of significance, and a property must meet the criteria for 17 one or more if it is eligible for designation. The four types, again, are events, groups and people, design 18 construction, or information potential. 19 So, in addition to significance, a property must retain exterior integrity. All seven qualities do not 20 need to be present for a site to be eligible, as long as the overall sense of pastime and place is evident. 21 The first two standards for determining exterior integrity are location…and that’s, is this the place where 22 the historic property was constructed, or a place where an historic event occurred, and design…does the 23 property still have the combination of events that create the form, plan space, structure, and style of the 24 property. Next, we have setting, which is the physical environment of the historic property. Whereas 25 location refers to a specific place where the property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the 26 character of the place…it involves, how, not just where, the property is situated, and its relationship to 27 surrounding features and open space. Then, we also have materials as an aspect of integrity. 28 Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts or a particular culture or people during any given 29 period in history. And feeling is the sixth aspect of integrity, which is a property’s expression of the 30 aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time; it results from the presence of physical features 31 that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. And then, finally, the last aspect of integrity 32 is association. Association is a direct link between an important historic event or person and an historic 33 property. A property retains association if its place where the event or activity occurred and is 34 sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the 35 presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. 36 And then, like I did with significance, this is a review of the seven aspects of integrity, which are 37 location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. All seven qualities do not 38 need to be present, but it must convey an overall sense of history and place. 39 The Code also requires the LPC to consider context. Context is the area required for evaluating a 40 resource’s…context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. For example, a house located 41 in the middle of a residential block would be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the 42 block, while a house located on the corner may require a different contextual area. 43 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 289 5 The framework for processing eligibility is established in the National Parks Service Bulletin 15, 1 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. For standards A, events, and B, people, the 2 aspects of integrity of location, setting, materials, and design are particularly important. For standard C, 3 design and construction, materials, design, and workmanship are particularly important. Based on the 4 appeal process outlined in the Code, the Commission must determine whether 2601 South College 5 Avenue is individually eligible. If the property is individually eligible, the Commission should identify 6 which buildings contribute to that eligibility or do not contribute. This is a new determination of 7 eligibility based on provided evidence from the initial review and the new evidence in the form of the 8 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by an independent expert in 9 historic preservation, and the Commission should use the above criteria from Section 14-5 to make that 10 determination. All final decisions of the Commission are subject to the right of the appeal to the City 11 Council. And this concludes my presentation; I’m happy to pull up any of these slides during your 12 discussion. Thank you. 13 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you, Cassie. Do any members of the LPC have any questions for 14 staff? Okay, seeing none, does the appellant have a presentation to the Commission? And I ask that you 15 state your name and sign in please. 16 MR. TODD PARKER: My name is Todd Parker; I’m with Brinkman, representing the 17 ownership. 18 Thank you, Commission, for hearing our appeal on this, for 2601…as I said, I represent the 19 ownership, the Spradley-Barr family, as well as Brinkman…we are a partner, general partner, in the 20 redevelopment, hopefully, of this parcel. In direct response, I wanted to address a few things that were 21 brought up in the presentation, or the additional materials to the presentation. The W.A. Drake carriage 22 steps…those steps actually are an integral part of this project. In fact, the history of the parcel is an 23 integral part of the project. We have branded this redevelopment as the Drake at Midtown, and that is a 24 direct correlation to the W.A. Drake farm that existed there prior to the automobile dealership. The 25 carriage steps themselves, actually, are going to be a part of the redevelopment. And, I don’t know 26 if…can staff bring up the proposed development? That slide…if that’s doable? Yes, that one right there 27 would be awesome. 28 So, this is…there’s been a progression on this design, but this is not dissimilar from what we’re 29 proposing. The redevelopment of this block is really taking cues from the Midtown Plan as well as the 30 City Plan to focus a catalyst project in the Midtown area. And, with those two plans, one of the focuses 31 of the redevelopment is to bifurcate large block areas. You’ll see a large…or, a long north-south drive, 32 and we’ve actually made that more of a winding drive, and it’s going to have about a 30 to 50 foot buffer 33 on either side of it for gathering areas, parks, green areas…and the carriage steps are going to be integral 34 into those areas. How that is to be integrated, I’m not a hundred percent sure yet; design hasn’t 35 progressed to that point. But we’re going to take the carriage stones…carriage steps, and make it part of 36 that arcade area. 37 I also wanted to address…I know it’s not part of the determination, but, Mr. Bello had a question 38 on the efficiency of those buildings. Talking with Bill Barr today, the inefficiency of that building is 39 reflected in a lot of what…the energy that is going out that main window…it just has a reflection. This 40 last month, Spradley-Barr paid $8,000 in gas and electrical bills for heating, as compared to their Ford 41 dealership on South College, they only paid about $2,000, $2,200 for that same gas and electrical bill for 42 about twice the size; the Ford dealership is about twice the size of this one, so it really is a financial 43 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 290 6 burden on…the current architecture is as well. I know it’s not a part of the determination, but to address 1 that question. 2 And then, the last part is in response to the photographs that Mr. Frick provided to staff and was 3 copied to us as well this last week. I was looking at…in reflection of the architecture being indicative of 4 something that can be defined as mid-century modern. The photographs that were provided are similar to 5 what is currently on the site; however, I would also present that if you look for those properties today, I 6 could only find one that is in existence as an existing…as it was existing…as it was previously built out. 7 So, that architecture…to say that that architecture style is unique for this time period, I think is arguably 8 erroneous, and I actually have provided…or, have…can provide the Commission those same 9 photographs. I did some research and did a print out of those, and I have it on a flash drive too, if that’s 10 admissible to the Commission. 11 And then, as staff also noted, there was a third party…as part of the appeal process…the third-12 party investigation. And, with me, I have Kris Autobee, and she was going to address the Commission as 13 well, if that’s okay? 14 MS. KRISTEN AUTOBEE: My name is Kris Autobee…what else to I need to tell you as my 15 introduction? 16 CHAIR WALLACE: Just sign in please, thank you. If you could…if you could actually state for 17 the record who you are with. 18 MS. AUTOBEE: Okay, my name is Kristen Autobee and I’m with Autobee and Autobee, and I’m 19 really here to answer any questions you might have about our report, our findings. We don’t often end up 20 on the side that says ‘not historic,’ so it’s kind of a new place for us. 21 CHAIR WALLACE: Well, at this time, we’re just taking in to consideration if you have any 22 presentation or anything you would like to share with us and make known. 23 MS. AUTOBEE: Again, about the architecture, I guess I would encourage you to keep in mind 24 the car dealership, auto dealership, auto showroom, is not a recognized form of architecture under the 25 state of Colorado in the Colorado lexicon that we’re in. In the OAHP Field Guide to Architecture, this 26 falls under specialty…under specialty shop, or specialty commercial. So, it really needs to be part of a 27 broader look at architecture and not simply at auto dealerships in Fort Collins, because other types of 28 showrooms such as furniture, or hardware, or motorcycles, or other things are sold out of those same 29 styles of buildings, or types of buildings. So, there isn’t actually a style called ‘auto dealerships.’ So, 30 you’re really needing to consider that as part of this. 31 I also would like to encourage you to think in terms about the amount of change that has 32 happened to character-defining features of this structure. The façades that seem to be of the most interest 33 are on the east side and on the north side of the building of the main showroom. That really only 34 represents about 30% of the building. Another almost 30% has been changed, and what I would consider 35 to be character-defining elements, which are the rolling doors along the service bays. There’s been a 36 tremendous loss of glass…that building has a very different look from the original photographs, with very 37 light, airy, open…it has a very different feeling with the modern doors in it, and I would ask you to 38 consider that and those changes to that physical integrity, the historic integrity, as part of that. 39 Again, I’ll answer any questions about the report. 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 291 7 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you. Do any Commission members have any questions of the 1 appellant? 2 MR. MICHAEL BELLO: Yeah, Mr. Parker, can I ask you? So, what’s the ability to be able to 3 sever the garages from that showroom section? Is that possible? And keep the integrity of the 4 showroom? 5 MR. PARKER: The…not being a structural engineer, I can’t truly answer that Mr. Bello; 6 however, I will say that in one of our initial design concepts with the ownership group, we did look at 7 severing the auto body and…well, the auto body shop; there’s like 15 bays there or something like that. 8 We looked at severing that, taking that out, because it ran where that north-south drive was at, and leaving 9 the main building. But, we couldn’t make that work, and because of the way it was inefficient energy-10 wise, the ownership decided they didn’t want to pursue that, so we didn’t look at it any further. 11 MR. BELLO: Thank you. 12 MR. PARKER: Yep. 13 CHAIR WALLACE: Kevin? 14 MR. KEVIN MURRAY: So, Ms. Autobee…is that right? 15 MS. AUTOBEE: Autobee. 16 MR. MURRY: Autobee. Are the three things that, if I read your survey correctly, the three things 17 that you guys felt were detrimental were the front overhang, the roofing type, and then the garage doors. 18 Is that correct? 19 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes. 20 MR. MURRAY: Okay. 21 MS. AUTOBEE: We felt those were the character-defining elements of this building. That, 22 without those pieces, you have a significantly different look and feeling to that structure. 23 MR. MURRAY: Thanks. 24 CHAIR WALLACE: Any other questions? 25 MR. BRAD YATABE: Madam Chair, Mr. Parker did offer some photos, I believe, in association 26 with Mr. Frick’s…the photos that he had provided. I didn’t know if the LPC was interested in viewing 27 those, or wanted to do anything with that information. 28 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes, I think we would be interested in seeing those. 29 MR. PARKER: I can do one of two things; I have them on a flash drive, or I printed them out. 30 What would you prefer? 31 CHAIR WALLACE: Probably if we can do flash drive…you can access those. 32 MR. PARKER: So…these are a demonstration of a before and after for…I think there’s…I didn’t 33 count, but maybe a dozen, short of a dozen, examples that were provided in the email chain. And, what 34 I’ve done is taken the examples where I could see a name and determine a location, and then…like I said, 35 did a before and after. And you can see in each one of these, the…okay, thank you. So, you can see the 36 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 292 8 before here being…zoom in, even, probably not. You can kind of see the similar sort of architecture 1 that’s referenced…the low-slope roof, the big panes of glass off of pretty much the whole gabled end of 2 the building. And then you can see what it is today…this is an example in Clean, if I mispronounce it I 3 apologize…Texas. Second…I’ll go through these somewhat fast. The second one is Herb-Gould Ford 4 dealership, and see how its changed over the years; that’s in California. The one in New York, not a 5 dissimilar look; it’s actually turned into an ice cream shop. This one is the Gillboy Mercury, if I’m 6 reading it right, and that’s in Pennsylvania, and it’s now the modern version of the Ford. This one’s an 7 interesting one; it’s actually in a suburb of Detroit, Royal Oak. You can see the Royal Oak Pontiac 8 dealership up top. The middle photograph is what it was on Google, so they’ve scraped it and they are 9 doing something with it. And then right across the street, the interesting part is, you can see the old…I 10 don’t know if they’re designated, but historic buildings across the street. So…the end points of that 11 architecture as well. 12 And this is the one building that I could find an example where they maintained the old building. 13 You can see the low, sloped roof. Up here, you can even see the pre-engineered metal building in the 14 background. Same thing…a little hard because it’s off the street a ways. You can see the same low 15 slope, and then the metal building in the background; and you can even see this telephone pole is still in 16 the back here…and all the wires that make it look all pretty. But this is the only one that I could even find 17 that was the same building, and that’s in Ohio. 18 And, like I noted there, a few of these are back east, which, you know, arguably, has a very strong 19 passion or sense of what is and is not historic. And then to have one of the dealerships in Detroit, 20 Michigan, and they scraped that one as well…I think might say something to that same argument. Does 21 that provide context? 22 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you. 23 MR. PARKER: You bet. 24 CHAIR WALLACE: Any other questions that the commission has? 25 MR. BELLO: Yeah, so I guess I’m trying to understand…Mr. Parker, what your argument is 26 here? That the fact that these have been scraped…isn’t that kind of supporting the fact that this is the last 27 of the type of architecture that we should then preserve? 28 MR. PARKER: Sure…I’m not an historian, but speaking with Kris, and maybe she can get to it 29 better, but the mid-century modern period really predates even the construction of this building, which 30 was 1966, and you can find different documentation, but it actually goes up until like the mid-1960’s. 31 Not to say that it can’t still be built to that style, but to say that it’s unique to that period is not the case. 32 So, the argument is, is that other jurisdictions did not see anything unique in that architectural style. 33 MR. BELLO: Gotcha. Okay, thanks. 34 MS. AUTOBEE: I would add to that in saying that Fort Collins…again, if we look at this…can 35 you put up a picture of the current building? Thank you. Again, if we’re looking at this as being a non-36 style, a non-form, a non-ground print, and that leaves us with construction type and construction 37 materials. Fort Collins retains several structures that are of this same construction method and 38 construction materials. For example, the Safeway that is on College…is that still standing? It was last 39 time…the marina style with the nice curved roof? Again, that’s large, metal frame, plate windows with 40 the stone façade. Front Range Power Sports, a smaller example, but again, it would appear to be concrete 41 block with the stone façade and the large windows. So, this is not as unique as it might sound. It might 42 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 293 9 be the only one that’s currently in use as an auto dealership, but these elements are in other buildings in 1 Fort Collins. So, again, it’s not the only one, so to speak, because it isn’t of an official style. So, in 2 looking at it in terms of construction method and construction materials, Fort Collins has other examples 3 of this. 4 MS. KATIE DORN: I have a question for Mrs. Autobee. In your research, I’m just curios, those 5 two earlier locations for the auto dealerships…are those still existing? 6 MS. AUTOBEE: I didn’t go so far as to look to see if the building was still there or if it had 7 been…if there was some re-façading or any other changes. I did not look at that. I think that it’s 8 incorrect to call this an early auto dealership. Fort Collins has auto dealerships as early as 1909; that 9 would be the auto dealership to preserve, and to really say, this is what kicks it off. By the time this 10 building is built, a lot of the city planning is in place for the automobile. This is 50 years after the advent 11 of the car in Fort Collins. So, I don’t feel that it’s a really strong argument to say that this somehow 12 continues to influence that. We’re kind of stuck with the car. This might be the middle period of car 13 ownership if the young trendies have their way and we have a lot more public transportation, maybe the 14 car goes away. Maybe that increases the importance of this, but that’s in the future. So, no, we didn’t 15 look into those other structures. I would also argue that Frank Ghent, in terms of his importance, also 16 predates this building, and for exactly that reason: he has two other locations prior to this. 17 MS. DORN: Did you look at the entire Ghent family, including his son that he started the 18 dealership with, or just Frank? 19 MS. AUTOBEE: We just looked at Frank, and the reason for that is, I believe that his son’s home 20 is already recognized. Is that correct? Am I right about that? That one of the sons’ homes is recognized? 21 MS. KAREN MCWILLIAMS: I’m sorry; I couldn’t answer that question; I’m not aware that 22 we’ve recognized a home for the son, so…I don’t know. 23 MS. AUTOBEE: Okay. So, no, we looked specifically at Frank Ghent, and one of the reasons we 24 looked really, specifically at him, is that his importance to the city of Fort Collins seems to predate even 25 his…it comes from other things other than selling cars. He’s a naval vet from the first World War, he 26 tries to homestead after that, comes back to town, starts another dealership, by that time, the second 27 World War is getting underway, he’s a member of the Civil Defense, he goes on to be a Highway 28 Commissioner for a brief period of time. So, it doesn’t…I don’t know that this building represents Frank 29 Ghent in such a way that you can’t separate the two and still tell a good story. 30 I look at historic preservation this way: these are the buildings that we feel so strongly about that 31 we take them with us into the future, because the future can’t understand our current story without them. 32 And so that’s part of how we looked at the story of Frank Ghent, the story of the construction 33 methods…is, did that weigh so heavily. And that’s perhaps a little bit beyond what the City of Fort 34 Collins standards are, but in theory, that’s historic preservation. 35 MR. MURRAY: Ms. Autobee, I heard you say earlier, and I want to just make sure…confirm this 36 for me. You said that it’s probably not as significant as an earlier, like 1909 auto, but you said it would 37 probably be significant as a mid-automobile era? 38 MS. AUTOBEE: If the automobile goes away in 50 years, yes. But that’s a hard thing to base a 39 judgement on today, does this tell the story of auto dealerships to the extent that we have to have this one 40 or the set is incomplete, the story is incomplete. 41 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 294 10 MR. MURRAY: And then one other question, on the lexicon that you brought up. 1 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes. 2 MR. MURRAY: Wouldn’t you think the style would be mid-century modern with the type of 3 commercial? 4 MS. AUTOBEE: No. 5 MR. MURRAY: No? Why is that? 6 MS. AUTOBEE: There’s…that phrase is not actually in the lexicon. And right now, the state 7 historic fund, the lexicon there, kind of catching up with mid-century modern because it’s suddenly 8 becoming important. So, really looking at it from what is in the lexicon to date, and what is in the field 9 guides at this point in time, it becomes a commercial building, it becomes a specialty store in terms of its 10 use. But, we really can’t call it mid-century I don’t think. It’s built in the mid-century, but that’s a time 11 period, not a style. 12 CHAIR WALLACE: I’m curious, did you happen o consider the context of College as a main 13 thoroughfare connecting…as part of 287, potentially connecting to the Lincoln corridor…did you 14 consider that as a context. 15 MS. AUTOBEE: That’s an interesting thing to consider on this, and perhaps that’s why the stone 16 is only on the north and the east side when that structure is built. I don’t believe that there’s a lot of 17 development to what is the southeast of that. And in fact, the other two buildings on this parcel are not 18 being considered because they weren’t built yet. So, that’s open space. In some ways, that building has 19 lost its context for how you would view it coming from Fort Collins. When the structure is built, its only 20 as the permits are being pulled that the City of Fort Collins annexes that property. So, again, that was 21 outside of town at the point at which the Ghent family is pulling permits. And, contextually then, that 22 must mean that there’s not a lot beyond that. But, of course that’s outside the scope of our work. 23 MS. MOLLIE SIMPSON: I’m sorry, you just said that the…can you repeat what you said about 24 not being able to understand the building because everything was developed around it. I’m…what did 25 you say about that again? 26 MS. AUTOBEE: I think our understanding of the building historically…in 1967, if you went to 27 build…or to buy a car here, you’re probably approaching it from the northeast. That’s why those walls, 28 those façades, are the most decorative. 29 MS. SIMPSON: And did you take the building orientation on the site into consideration with 30 that? 31 MS. AUTOBEE: That absolutely takes it into consideration. Again, people aren’t necessarily 32 coming…he’s not advertising…the point of commercial architecture is to advertise your business. And 33 so, he’s advertising his business and how clean and how sleek his architecture is, that it is modern at that 34 moment in time. He’s trying to give his customers a feeling of security. They’re coming to this nice, 35 new, modern place. I don’t know that that’s how we read that building today, but in 1967 we would have. 36 And, we would have been coming, then, probably, from the north and the east. And, again, that’s why 37 those two façades have the stone work on them; that’s why those façades, and why the building is slightly 38 turned in that direction. 39 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 295 11 MS. SIMPSON: If you’re standing on the north and east corner, how is that changed? I’m just 1 not understanding that. 2 MS. AUTOBEE: I wouldn’t say that…the orientation of the building has not changed, that’s true. 3 But, I’m not sure that we read that building with the same eye toward the decorative as what we would 4 have in 1967. 5 MS. SIMPSON: Wouldn’t you say the decorative part is what’s inside the windows, though, and 6 that’s why he has the larger windows in order to sell what’s inside? 7 MS. AUTOBEE: When I say decorative, I’m referring to the stone work that’s been applied to the 8 exterior. That’s the decorative feature of that building. 9 MS. SIMPSON: Okay, I see. 10 MS. AUTOBEE: But, again, that only covers about 30% of the structure. 11 MS. SIMPSON: Which is still visible from the northeast corner? 12 MS. AUTOBEE: It’s still visible, yes. 13 MS. SIMPSON: So, it hasn’t changed? 14 MS. AUTOBEE: No, but what is beyond that building has. There are new…there are other 15 buildings now within the sight line, so that has changed…that context of the neighborhood has changed. 16 And those are not being considered on this review because they are less than 50 years old. 17 CHAIR WALLACE: And, I reviewed your report, but I just wanted to clarify that the front 18 addition was circa ’72 to ’78, is that correct? When that was extended? 19 MS. AUTOBEE: Yeah. 20 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Yes, Kevin? 21 MR. MURRAY: Actually…I actually have to have you change to a different page and all that, 22 but the Coloradoan picture shows that it was installed about a month after it was built in 1966, October 23 1st. 24 MS. AUTOBEE: Do you know…may I ask you a question? 25 MR. MURRAY: Sure. 26 MS. AUTOBEE: Do you have an idea of why that was added on? 27 MR. MURRAY: I have no…no…I’m old, but I’m not that…well, I’m that old I guess. But, just 28 in the picture, it’s…let me see…I was going to save that for discussion, but…page 135 shows the 29 Coloradoan photos. And…of October 1st, 1966, and it’s installed in those pictures. 30 MS. DORN: And, Cassie, what is the date on those…’66? 31 MS. BUMGARNER: So the date is October 1st of 1966. 32 MS. AUTOBEE: I think it’s interesting that they would need to make a modification so quickly. 33 MR. MURRAY: Maybe it was a hot summer, I don’t know. But, I think the page before is 34 September, and it shows it without it. 35 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 296 12 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes. 1 MR. MURRAY: So, it was added… 2 MS. AUTOBEE: I read that as being there was some…forgive me for using the word, but some 3 failure in the use of that building, if it is the sun. And then of course those windows are going to create a 4 tremendous amount of heat on the inside, that they have to make an immediate modification. 5 CHAIR WALLACE: True, but that is something to consider, that the alterations would also be 6 historic at this point, and not dating to the 1970’s. 7 MS. AUTOBEE: Accepted. 8 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? 9 MS. DORN: Sure…do you know of any other existing buildings that are associated with Frank 10 Ghent in Fort Collins? 11 MS. AUTOBEE: I did not look specifically for that. 12 MS. DORN: Okay, thank you. 13 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 14 MS. SIMPSON: You state in your report that Frank Ghent…the majority of the work that he did 15 for the town of Fort Collins was predated…this building. Do you have years on any of that stuff by 16 chance? 17 MS. AUTOBEE: The area of the report where we talk about that history is on… 18 MS. SIMPSON: I apologize; I did not see that, so if I missed that, I’m sorry. 19 MS. AUTOBEE: On page four of the report is where we talk about his World War I service. His 20 first car dealership is opened in 1940, so he’s been in business 26 years when he builds this structure. So, 21 this is…again, it’s not his first, it’s not the first car dealership, it’s not the beginning of something, it’s 22 very much in the moment I would say. That’s not a good historic way to explain what I’m thinking; I 23 apologize for that. 24 MS. GENSMER: To follow-up on that question, going to page four on the report when you 25 discuss when…or that he was a Colorado Highway Commissioner. When was that? Was that during 26 World War II while he was also part of the Civil Defense Organization? 27 MS. AUTOBEE: I believe that is the case. 28 MS. GENSMER: Thank you. 29 MS. SIMPSON: One of the other documents we have also states that he served on the Water 30 Board of Fort Collins; do you know when that was? 31 MS. AUTOBEE: I do not know when that was. 32 MS. SIMPSON: Okay. He was part of the Northern Colorado Rod and Gun Club…any idea on 33 that? I don’t know that that’s important, but…? 34 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 297 13 MS. AUTOBEE: Again, do those things…is that story told through this building? Is his 1 ownership of a car dealership, his building of this…is his story so well told through this building that 2 that’s important here? 3 MS. DORN: But I guess the question is also, are there other buildings associated with him that 4 still exist? 5 MS. AUTOBEE: Again, I don’t know the answer to that because the question was, is this 6 building indicative of this man’s life? Is saving this building the best way to preserve his memory, the 7 best way to honor his legacy as a dedicated community participant and…I mean he was very much a 8 member of the community fabric; that’s obvious. What isn’t obvious, is that community life in 9 relationship to a business he owns? 10 MS. SIMPSON: It looks like another document we received from 1980 shows that the Ghent 11 dealership was awarded quite a significant award, which was a business that Frank Ghent and his son 12 started. Did you take this award into consideration? 13 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes…and I’m not sure if this is the award that’s awarded to him by other car 14 dealerships? 15 MS. SIMPSON: It looks like Times [sic] magazine. 16 MS. AUTOBEE: I don’t know that Time magazine awarded him anything; they might be 17 reporting on that. And I don’t have that document in front of me. So, that I can’t speak to. There is no 18 question that this is a going concern…that Frank Ghent builds a successful business. But, is that what is 19 me morable about Frank Ghent? 20 CHAIR WALLACE: Mollie, is this the article that you were thinking about with the other article? 21 Okay…so the first line on that one? That Dwight Ghent, president of Ghent Motor Company of Fort 22 Collins will soon be featured in Time magazine. And then also that Ghent recently was one of the 70 car 23 dealers in the nation named a Time magazine quality dealer award winner for 1980. Okay. 24 MR. MURRAY: The problem might be with that is that Dwight wasn’t researched, Frank was. 25 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree. 26 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, are there any other questions that we would like to ask Kris? Okay. 27 Thank you. 28 MS. SIMPSON: I have one question for the other gentleman. The images that you shared of the 29 buildings that were scraped that looked similar…or altered, scraped or altered. Do you have years when 30 those were scraped or altered? 31 MR. PARKER: No, it was just research I did in about a 24-hour period, so I didn’t have time to 32 figure that out. 33 MS. SIMPSON: Okay, so it might have been before the 50-year period where they might have 34 been more significant? 35 MR. PARKER: Potentially; I think there are some that are indicative of being after…or well 36 within that 50-year period, like the new Ford dealerships. But some of them very well could be, yes. 37 MS. SIMPSON: Okay. 38 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 298 14 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, thank you. Does staff have anything they would like to add in light 1 of the appellant’s presentation? 2 MS. BUMGARNER: Yeah, I just wanted to address Ms. Dorn’s question about the two other 3 locations. Staff had looked those two up…neither one exists anymore. One, the Mountain Avenue 4 address is now the Mitchell Block, the site of the Fort Collins Food Co-op. And then, the College 5 Avenue address is now what is Beau Jo’s and City Drug. 6 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you Cassie. Okay, does the Commission have any questions of staff 7 or any other questions for the appellant before we move into…away from public comment…or move into 8 public comment…apologies. Okay, seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to 9 provide comments on the appeal to the Commission? Okay, seeing none…do any of the Commission 10 members have any additional questions before we close the public comment and move on to our 11 discussion? No… 12 MR. MURRAY: Do we have a discussion session on this too? 13 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. Okay, then we will close taking of evidence and move into a 14 discussion amongst ourselves in front. 15 MR. MURRAY: Sorry, did you say discussion? 16 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes, yes I did. 17 MR. MURRAY: I’m new at this, guys, so bear with me. I hear the…you know, it might not be 18 Frank Ghent’s best memory, but I wonder if this isn’t, probably, you know, the best example we have of 19 a…I know, if it’s not the lexicon…but, commercial building of this style for the age, especially talking 20 about context right now with the parking lot around it. Not sure it’s the best use, but it has…you know 21 what it is, and you recognize it as something that you would have seen growing up or whatever. 22 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree with that; I also feel strongly that this might not be a great 23 example considering that it’s not from the era of when the automobile started in this area, but it 24 definitely…it’s definitely a great example of an auto-centric time period of when Fort Collins was formed 25 and how it was formed. Drake Road and the way the building is oriented with the front angled towards 26 the road so when you’re driving down, you can actually see into the building. I think it’s very…it’s a 27 good example of that, a great example of an era of when the automobile was more important. Something 28 to consider. 29 CHAIR WALLACE: That was something that I was also considering, especially when I was 30 considering it…the span of it…that the Lincoln corridor, which I know that you had done some work on 31 so you might be able to speak to that more than I, but…how that extends throughout town and particularly 32 at that intersection, it seems to be a crossing point within the community, and that’s a long stretch of road 33 for College to go, and I know that there have been quite a few car dealerships…and most of them have 34 been more recent, but that particular property has been here, perhaps one of the longer times, to my 35 knowledge. 36 MR. BELLO: I hear what you’re saying…I think the front building is probably the significant 37 portion of this in terms of the architecture, and the history. I think the garages are certainly something 38 that’s been changed over time; you can tell from the photos. It’s not consistent with the…and I’m not 39 sure if we would apply this, but not consistent with the Land Use Code in terms of being able to have 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 299 15 garages like that. But, it seems to me the entire structure is not something that would be identifiable in 1 that regard. From the history, it’s mostly just that front structure. 2 MR. MURRAY: Just kind of a point of information, I am this old. I do believe that roof, going 3 by it every day going to Greeley to work for a while, was a hot tar and gravel roof, and it was kind of light 4 brown in color…the gravel was like a pea gravel. They probably got tired of it raining down on the new 5 cars, or something like that. But, anyway, I’m not sure…I mean, keeping the style of the building and the 6 way it faces and all that, to me, is…says that the change of roof doesn’t really change it. And garage 7 doors could always be changed back. I’m not sure if…maybe it’s not our position to think about how 8 anything could be developed well, it’s just more whether or not it’s…it’s individually eligible. But, 9 yeah… 10 CHAIR WALLACE: I agree with that; the roof shape is still there; the structure is still there even 11 though the material has changed. And, in terms of the garage doors, the voids are still there…so, the 12 garage doors could easily be changed back with new glazing. I don’t see that as a concern, considering 13 the voids are still there. When I was considering this property, I was really trying to figure out what I 14 would consider some of the character defining features, as Ms. Autobee had mentioned. And, they were 15 definitely the stone, which are still intact…it’s that front A-line…or not A-line, but that higher pitched 16 gable, and that’s still intact. One of the things that I was getting stuck up on was that canopy, and then 17 finding out that that actually is an historic addition. Because the other additions, like Mollie mentioned, 18 the doors and windows can be changed. The additions to the west side, I don’t see as being incredibly 19 significant. But the only other one that I’m thinking of is that roof. But, most of the character-defining 20 features, especially the windows, and the canopy, and the shape, I think, are all still intact. And so, I 21 think that it fulfills the…most of the integrity that I’m considering according to Code. 22 MR. MURRAY: It just hit me; I hadn’t thought about this before, but, if we’re going on the 50-23 year theory, the used car office and carwash in the back…it’s kind of a cool building, but I’m not sure 24 when that was put in. I read in some of the information that it came later…I’m not sure if that was in the 25 ‘70’s or something like that. I mean, it helps a lot in context with the other stuff. But, it might not 26 be…it’s not as old, I don’t think, as the showroom. 27 MS. DORN: I definitely agree that the design aspect of integrity remains intact, and I do agree 28 that perhaps the material aspect of integrity has been lost with this building. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 MS. SIMPSON: That might be true, but I would also say that both location and setting are pretty intact. CHAIR WALLACE: So, in looking at Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code, the standards for determining eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts, number four, the standards for determining exterior integrity, location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association…I think it might be helpful to go through them and see which ones the Commission thinks are still intact. MR. MURRAY: Well, starting off with the top one on exterior integrity…the location. I think the buildings stand in the same spot they are and the way they did originally with the parking lot all around it…asphalt around. And, I did just answer my own question though too…the used car building was put in 1967. So, my mind, the location fits, and also, the design of the building and it being turned toward the existing city and all that still exists. The setting obviously changes but it also goes back to when the city wanted to have parking lots out front and the buildings back from the area, like the Kmart place, and I believe Key Bank is the same, but not in context. The Walgreens is it? On the corner? That 43 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 300 16 has more the new design where you have it out by the sidewalk. The feeling…you feel like you’re going 1 to the car…you know, the car dealership. So, and I feel the association, which I know is a smaller area of 2 integrity, but it’s associated with expanding the city to when the car people moved out of the heart of 3 town with the idea that things were expanding in the city and moving out, and is also associated with the 4 expansion of auto as automobile is the main center of transportation. 5 MS. SIMPSON: Can you pull up the definition of setting, please? Thank you. 6 MS. GENSMER: In this case, with the definition directly in front, I would say that setting is 7 preserved, specifically the part that says it involves how, not just where. And by that, I mean how it 8 relates to College Avenue in that location, how it interfaces with the road…it is a car dealership; it’s 9 directly tied to the transportation corridor in that way. 10 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree with that. Both Drake and College are still intact. 11 MS. GENSMER: Yes. 12 CHAIR WALLACE: Any thoughts on workmanship? If that remains intact? 13 MR. BELLO: Well, I guess, you know, for this type of building, I would say it’s probably there, 14 but I don’t think the workmanship is anything like, you know, real craftsmanship; it’s a fairly simplistic 15 architecture from that standpoint. But, for this genre, for this type of building, it’s consistent with what 16 was built at the time I guess. 17 CHAIR WALLACE: And what about materials? 18 MR. MURRAY: Well, I think materials, you know, it really talks to when everybody…the big 19 glass and lots of lights to give you an idea of looking in and seeing your shiny new car. I think that was a 20 new development…the idea that you could use big glass and it didn’t fall over…or you could still have 21 the structure with a less showing structure, because the glass could go all the way to the corner. So, I 22 think it’s a good example of that. And the materials are all there. I’m not sure if the stone…it’s moss 23 rock, which was big in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s in Fort Collins in commercial buildings…I’m not sure if that’s 24 a pre-stress panel, or if that’s put on concrete block…applied…and it could be either one. 25 MS. GENSMER: To me, the use of the large windows in that way gets more at design. With 26 materials…I mean, it is part…the glass material is obviously part of it, but with materials, I’m 27 considering more how much of the actual historic fabric is intact. We know that the roof itself, while it 28 has that form, that design, we know the materials were replaced in that regard. 29 CHAIR WALLACE: Plus, I think it was 27 out of the 34 windows or doors had been removed or 30 replaced, so that’s a significant number. 31 MS. GENSMER: Yeah, I would agree with that. So, I’m not sure about the integrity of the 32 materials, though I do think other aspects, such as design, are there. 33 MR. MURRAY: So, what windows were replaced…27 out of 34? 34 CHAIR WALLACE: Of the paneling for the doors, the sliding doors are no longer original. 35 MS. GENSMER: Yeah, and when they were replaced, they had less glass than the others. 36 MR. BELLO: These are the garage doors? 37 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. 38 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 301 17 MS. GENSMER: Yes. 1 CHAIR WALLACE: Any other Commission thoughts on materials? So, on that discussion, it 2 seems that we lean towards six out of the seven are intact, for the qualities for integrity, so that’s 3 definitely a preponderance I would say, so that’s something that we can consider. If we also consider 4 previously within the Code, the standards for determining significance, usually associated with events for 5 standard A, for standard B, persons or groups, and design or construction for standard C, and D, which I 6 don’t think pertains to this information potential. As a Commission, do we have any thoughts on whether 7 or not it meets one or more of these levels of significance? 8 MS. DORN: I’m not convinced that it meets the design construction standard because of, like, 9 what Mrs. Autobee mentioned, that unfortunately this type of building is not included in the state lexicon. 10 MR. MURRAY: I know the state lexicon is not always what the City uses, but I’m thinking that 11 they, by not being in the lexicon…and I think Ms. Autobee said, also, the state is still trying to catch up 12 on their lexicons too. I think as far as the design and construction goes, even though it may not have a 13 name, it’s obvious to everybody what era it comes from, and that most of the main parts are there in my 14 mind. I don’t know if events…events is kind of such an open word. But, in my mind, it’s significant in a 15 pattern of events of, you know, the automobile industry moving out to the sticks, and opening wide up to 16 get more space and all that. But is this supposed to be more of a specific event, like somebody was hung 17 from the front of the building or something like that. 18 CHAIR WALLACE: Well, according to the standards for events, the second option under events 19 is a pattern of events or an historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the 20 community, state, or nation. Do you think that it fulfills that? 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 MR. MURRAY: I think it was trendy when it was built, so maybe number two, not number one though. MR. BELLO: Yeah, I’m struggling with it being a recognizable contribution to the development of the community. I don’t see Fort Collins being a community of auto dealerships or of this type of building, so I’m not sure it’s recognizable. I mean, if you talk about this kind of context, I would think of downtown…the buildings downtown that are significant in terms of what Fort Collins is all about, and how that’s contributed to the development of the community. But, I don’t see this one building as doing that. MS. SIMPSON: I see the event or historic trend being the car-centric development of our city and how it was designed for cars, and this building reinforces that, being a car dealership. CHAIR WALLACE: Well, I’m wondering, too, if that area to the south was more open, if that would help to encourage the southward movement that the community has seen since the 1970’s. I know the mall opening up and a lot of that movement…moving away from the downtown area. I think an argument may be able to be made that those businesses helped encourage that southward movement as well. MR. BELLO: You’re saying this building helped develop it? Because it’s turned its back to the south, basically, right? CHAIR WALLACE: Possibly, but I guess I’m thinking, if the area to the south had been more open, and then businesses starting to trickle down further south away from the downtown area, then that 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 302 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 could be part of that trend of southward movement for businesses and movement of citizens. I don’t know; I’m just trying to base it on the spot, thinking of the 1960’s and ‘70’s and ‘80’s in Fort Collins. MS. SIMPSON: And in the report, it talks about the Ghent annexation happening at the same time as the Ghent dealership was being built. The lights…I believe it said that the lights were also put in at that corner at that time. MR. MURRAY: The City actually…it says in the stuff that they…accepted the plans that the County had to allow it into the city to build curb and lights. And I think at the same time, that’s when all of the collegiate stuff was being built, late ‘60’s, early ‘70’s…all the ranches to the ea st and behind Key Bank, kind of back in there. CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, so it sounds like we may think it’s possible for it to be associated with…for significance under events? Seems like we might be a little split…does Katie or Kristi have any thoughts on whether or not it fits within that significance? MS. DORN: I think it could fit under a pattern of events with the southward expansion of the auto dealership corridor in Fort Collins. 14 MS. GENSMER: I would agree with that. 15 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. What about it’s association with Ghent? 16 MR. MURRAY: I think especially if you put Dwight into the picture, that helps a little bit. The 17 Ghent family was big in town. I think it might be the…I don’t know how long the memory is in Fort 18 Collins. You know, everybody knows Whedbee, they know Avery, and those folks, and I’m not sure 19 Ghent is going to last as long. But, I think they’re probably the most significant person attached to it. I 20 don’t know if that’s as really a firm a thing in my mind. 21 MS. SIMPSON: I also…I can’t seem to find it, but somewhere I was reading that this, although 22 Frank had two previous dealerships, this was the one that he started with his son, making it more 23 important to the family as a whole as well. 24 MS. DORN: I think the association is a very important aspect, or standard, for significance for 25 this building. And I would like to see more research on the son himself, and his interaction with this 26 father in the auto dealership business here in the site. And I’d also like to learn a lit tle bit more about the 27 different locations that might be associated with Frank Ghent, to see if they still exist and if they would 28 have a better association than this building. 29 MR. MURRAY: Well, the…yeah, I remodeled Beau Jo’s, and that is…was Ghent Bugas…Ford 30 dealership. And I think he bought it from Bugas, so Bugas started it originally, and then he took it and 31 moved it from there. But that is, I mean if you look at it, it would include Scrumpy’s and City Drug and 32 all that…it’s all one big room. That was the original Ford showroom in town. 33 CHAIR WALLACE: I can’t help feeling that even if these other two properties…because we 34 know that the building that…the other ones that were on the Mitchell Block and then the one where Beau 35 Jo’s and City Drug are now, if we’re going to say any of the properties that we’re aware of might be 36 associated with him, I would think it would be this property, because I would think that within the 37 community, if you say Ghent, then it’s usually associated with the auto dealership, not necessarily, here’s 38 Scrumpy’s, this used to be this, it no longer is, and it was associated with somebody who was associated 39 with the automotive industry and these other elements. So, I don’t know if it would change my opinion if 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 303 19 there was another property, because I think that what we know, this property may best signify that 1 association. 2 MR. MURRAY: I’m a little weirded out about thinking of the Ghent family as history. Is Dwight 3 still alive? It might be that we’re talking to him like he was history and he might be just sitting watching 4 this on TV. So, if you’re out there, Dwight, we love you. 5 MR. BELLO: You know, I’m new to this so I’m trying to understand exactly how the criteria 6 works, but I mean, Mr. Ghent, either one of them, their contribution to the community was opening up a 7 car dealership and doing some civic work and that kind of thing, but I don’t see that as being a significant 8 historian to the community. You know, I mean, it’s not like some of the great names in our country and 9 in our community that have done great things for the nation, or for the state, or for the community itself I 10 mean. So, I’m not sure how you tie this to the history of the community, and whether or not it’s 11 something that is…he’s notable for that reason. I mean, I think there’s other things that we’re picking up 12 on this for this building…I’m not sure this is one of the strongest ones for determining the eligibility of 13 this. 14 MS. GENSMER: I would tend to agree with what Mike said; I do see, of course, that it was 15 owned by…well, or operated by both Ghent’s in that regard, and that they were prominent businessmen 16 who were specifically tied to auto dealerships. But, at least based on the architectural inventory form 17 prepared by the independent contractor, it does seem to me that many…aside from being a businessman 18 and running that business, at least for Frank, many of his community involvements, for example, being in 19 the Civil Defense League, et cetera, were prior to this building. However, I also can’t really speak to 20 Dwight because I don’t have a lot of context for him. 21 CHAIR WALLACE: I, myself, am a little bit torn on the association with Ghent, because my 22 family has been in Fort Collins, so when they say Ghent, we all know what they’re talking about. But, if I 23 take my own family story out of it, I don’t know that I would see that being a strong association. It’s 24 definitely not as strong as I would say there is a connection to the automotive industry. So, would it be a 25 fair assessment…seems like we might still be a little split. Is there a consensus that we might have on its 26 association with Ghent? 27 MR. BELLO: Well, I think the association with Ghent is whether or not Ghent is a person of 28 historic significance, right? 29 CHAIR WALLACE: Right. 30 MR. BELLO: So, I would say, I would agree that he’s tied to this building, and he’s tied to that 31 industry, but is he… 32 CHAIR WALLACE: Is it significant? 33 MR. BELLO: Significant? 34 CHAIR WALLACE: Right, and you would say no? 35 MR. BELLO: No, right. 36 CHAIR WALLACE: Mollie, do you have any…which way you would lean? 37 MS. SIMPSON: I, like you, know the family name. I would love to know more research on the 38 family as whole before I comment on that. Mostly, Frank and Dwight. 39 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 304 20 out Frank and Dwight before being able to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MS. DORN: I agree that I’d like more information ab solidly comment on the association with the Ghents. CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, and Kristi and Kevin? MS. GENSMER: Well, based on what’s before us today and the information that we have as far as associations with persons, I’d have to say no. Some of that is for a lack of the data, specifically with Dwight. However, that doesn’t preclude what I’d already said about thinking that…about the associations with events. So, I guess I’m saying not for persons. MR. MURRAY: I’ve been in town since ’71 I think, and when I first came to town, everybody knew who the Ghent family was, and I’m sure, I’m sorry, I don’t know if it’s G-E-N-T, or G-H-E-N-T, and so I’m going back and forth. But, I feel that, in the context of the associations and all that with automobile industry, and the growth of the automobile in Fort Collins, I see him as the only car dealer that really stands out…maybe Markley. But, like I say, yeah, it’s kind of…to me, it’s, I’d have to say yes, but is it a strong feeling to me…it’s not. If other things were no, I wouldn’t think of it as that strong. I’m sorry…I’m a mediocre…I can’t come up with a real strong yes or no, kind of in between. CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. So, it seems like, more or less, we’re leaning towards not based on the information that we have at hand on Frank and Dwight…again, to this time. Is that a correct assessment? Okay. Alright, then, we talked briefly about the design and construction and its significance. Do we have a consensus on whether or not the building retains that? MS. SIMPSON: I’d like to hear more about what the Commission has to say with design. Specifically, style, I guess…your thoughts on that. MR. MURRAY: I’m sorry, you want what on it now, I’m sorry. MS. SIMPSON: We just didn’t talk much about design or construction…I’d just like to hear more about what everyone has to say. MR. MURRAY: I’m not sure, are we going through the list, or are we just… CHAIR WALLACE: We’re considering the significance associated with standard C, design and construction. MR. MURRAY: Right. Okay, but I mean, under landmark, they have major event, ID with someone import [sic]…we’re not doing all those? 28 CHAIR WALLACE: We have already looked at those ones, so we’re looking at standard C. 29 MR. MURRAY: Okay, so we’ve gone past the broad cultural, economic, and social? 30 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. 31 MR. MURRAY: Okay. It’s a very distinctive building. For its time and its age…it was when, 32 you know, automobile things changed. I mean, you used to…if you go downtown, all the cars were 33 inside and you peeped in through little windows, and here you had them all out with big, shiny bright 34 lights outside. And had…I don’t know what…they must have just had a couple Cadillac…or 35 not…Lincolns, on the inside, or something. I don’t know what made it…put the two or three in the 36 showroom and then have all the rest outside. But, I’m sure there was a method to the madness. 37 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 305 21 MR. BELLO: As I read through the design and construction…while you’re talking about 1 the…properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of 2 style and method, or period…or method…I’m sorry, period or method of construction. I mean, it 3 certainly does that…represents the work or craftsmanship of an architect whose work is distinguishable. I 4 mean, the craftsmanship, like I said, it’s not…I’m not sure it’s high craftsmanship, but it’s certainly 5 distinguishable style. And it talks about that, work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic, 6 style, and quality. And then, possesses high artistic values…I think that’s debatable…or design 7 concept…but, I think it is a design concept that is unique for that type of structure. So, I think there’s 8 parts of this that do apply and parts of it that don’t apply. But I think, if you take any part of this, there’s 9 sections of it that certainly do apply to it from that standpoint. So, it seems to meet the criteria if you 10 don’t have to have every piece of that. 11 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 12 MR. MURRAY: I think the landscape architecture is pretty unique to the time too…like I say, the 13 City doesn’t allow the big parking lots around the outside…but that’s the whole idea…I mean, if you go 14 down to any car place up to lately, it’s big shiny stuff…so as you’re driving by, you’ll see it and all that. 15 So, that fits in there too. 16 MS. SIMPSON: Well, something that I was looking at within that section, under standard C…it’s 17 the second to last sentence in that paragraph…a property can be significant, not only for the way it’s 18 originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period or for the way it 19 illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. And, although that building may 20 not have changed significantly in that, I feel like that might be interesting to consider how that was 21 different from a lot of the previous decades of architecture, especially moving to the north. 22 MS. GENSMER: I would agree, and to follow up on that, and kind of the larger trend of the rise 23 of the automobile and really focusing on that, many of those commercial properties up north you were 24 referencing were more pedestrian-oriented, whereas there’s the parking lot around it, there’s that whole 25 way it’s situated with regard to the roads…and the landscaping, I guess… 26 MS. SIMPSON: And…the change in taste for later as we were shown by the images of other 27 buildings and how they have been scraped. So, not only has the style changed from previous time 28 periods, but it’s also later time periods. So, this definitely marks a certain time period in the auto industry 29 sale. 30 MS. GENSMER: And just commercial. 31 MS. SIMPSON: And commercial, thank you. 32 CHAIR WALLACE: Katie, do you have any thoughts? 33 MS. DORN: I agree that it does illustrate changing tastes and attitudes, and it does represent a 34 specific period of time…in the style of automobile dealerships, especially in Fort Collins. 35 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 36 MS. SIMPSON: One of the things that I think is so interesting about our city is how we started 37 next to the river and we slowly started moving outward, and this is just another example of constantly 38 moving away from the river…moving south with the annexation of this area, with the orientation of the 39 building, with everything that’s developed beyond that as well. And how it was developed. 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 306 22 CHAIR WALLACE: I myself feel like this may be eligible under standard C for its design and 1 construction because it falls under a lot of the buildings that people don’t…mid-century modern is 2 starting to come about, and even just…it’s more modern even if we don’t reference it as big…big C 3 modern. It’s not necessarily that style, but it hints and suggests at that, and that’s…a lot of people still are 4 grappling with what they think about it. It’s not necessarily pretty; it’s not something that’s 5 recognizable…it looks like something that might be in a lot of different places. But, it shows that change 6 in Fort Collins design, and I think that people love that period of architecture; they hate that period of 7 architecture…there’s not usually a lot of in-betweens. But, I think it does represent that style…or lack of 8 style. It’s part of that emerging…it’s part of that change in design where a lot of steel, a lot of glass, a lot 9 of the stone is coming into place. 10 MS. SIMPSON: Alex, would you call this mid-century modern? 11 CHAIR WALLACE: What was that? 12 MS. SIMPSON: Would you consider this a mid-century modern… 13 CHAIR WALLACE: I would. 14 MS. SIMPSON: You would? 15 CHAIR WALLACE: I would classify it if I were looking at the building; I would have said it was 16 mid-century modern, particularly since a lot of the elements are hearkening not only to that…the steel and 17 the glass, but then I’m interested by the incorporation of the stone, which I tend to see more in Fort 18 Collins architecture in the ‘70’s. So, in some ways, that might be a little bit up and coming of an element. 19 But, I would have said it was mid-century modern. 20 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree with that…the floor-to-ceiling windows, the roof style, the 21 marriage of the indoor and outdoor spaces…normally you orient it so that way you can look out and you 22 have a connection to the outdoors, but what’s interesting about this is, considering it’s commercial, 23 everybody…it’s oriented so everybody’s looking inward. Also, the exposed beams, the rock on the 24 outside…I would definitely consider it mid-century if I were classifying it as well. 25 CHAIR WALLACE: So, as a Commission, do we think that it retains the design and style as far 26 as significance? Mike says yes. 27 MS. GENSMER: I say yes as well. 28 MR. MURRAY: I think so. 29 CHAIR WALLACE: I see nods. Katie? Yeah? 30 MS. DORN: I guess the only thing that just throws me off a little bit is the change of material of 31 the roof, the loss of integrity, and how that plays in with this particular standard for significance. 32 CHAIR WALLACE: Because also when we were discussing earlier the integrity, we were 33 thinking that materials may be questionable, and that six out of the seven…does that impact your thought 34 on its retaining, if we exclude the materials? 35 MS. DORN: Yes…Cassie, could you bring up that list that shows the most significant aspects of 36 integrity for each standard for significance? Thank you. 37 MS. BUMGARNER: Yeah, I just pulled it up. 38 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 307 23 MS. DORN: So, under standard C, it does list materials, design, and workmanship. And usually, 1 you should try and have at least five out of the…okay, so…the…sorry, I’m trying to figure out how to say 2 this on the spot. Feeling and association need to be kind of combined with the others, and so it’s really 3 important to have a good, clear cut evidence for aspects of integrity for materials, design, and 4 workmanship for the standard for design and construction. And so, if you take out materials because we 5 thought that was questionable, that takes out about 30% of this…the level…the integrity to support the 6 level of significance for this building in that case. I don’t know if that made any sense, but the fact that 7 we’re questioning materials worries me about the aspects of integrity to support this criteria for 8 significance. 9 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 10 MR. MURRAY: I’m thinking most of the material is there still, especially the asphalt…but, in 11 my mind, it’s…you know, the roof…the roof and the garage doors are things you always replace and 12 repair, and they could always go back. But, people are getting away from doing hot tar roofs now and 13 they’re going with other styles, so, that’ll probably never happen. But, I think we’re throwing materials 14 out…we’re talking about the massive beams, the tongue and groove ceiling, the glass fronts, and 15 then…and the moss rock sides. Then…it’s one of those generic ones…the whole garage is made out of 16 cinder block, which I think…or concrete block, and that’s original too. So, I’m seeing…when you look at 17 it, it’s got to be 90 to 80% of the materials there. 18 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 19 MS. SIMPSON: Although I don’t think that the materials…I don’t know…I’m kind of split on 20 the integrity in terms of materials. I don’t know that I consider design…or that this building is significant 21 for design; however, I do think that the design of this building continually adds to the fact that this 22 building is significant for a specific time period. 23 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Alright, well I’d like to move on and consider context. Do we feel 24 that the context is intact? Which, according to the Municipal Code, is the area required for evaluating a 25 resource’s context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. For example, a house located in 26 the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the 27 block, while a house located on a corner may be required a different contextual area. 28 MS. SIMPSON: I think we need to decide what the context is…this building, when it was built, it 29 was on the edge of town. It’s no longer on the edge of town; however, it was never oriented towards the 30 back side of town, it was oriented towards town and towards the street, and those streets are still intact 31 and all four corners do still have commercial buildings on them. College Avenue is still there. 32 MS. GENSMER: True…and is still commercial, at least in that area. 33 MR. BELLO: Does the changing environment around it…what’s going on the old Kmart site, 34 does that impact this at all in that regard? Or is this…just looking at it as it is today? Because the Kmart 35 site is going to be something completely different. 36 CHAIR WALLACE: Right, and I think that we can take it for what it is now, but also when it 37 changes, it’s still going to be commercial. 38 MR. BELLO: The Walmart site…I mean the Kmart site? 39 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes, that’s the plan as far as I understand. 40 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 308 24 MR. MURRAY: I don’t know if it fits, but I know Cassie wrote…or the staff wrote a current 1 context of the area that I think we all got, and points out that it’s the corner of a street that’s, you know, a 2 major intersection. And it does point out that there’s going to be change where the old Kmart was, but 3 it’s…it’s putting into the existing Kmart building, so that may not change a bunch. But, I think the 4 context, you know, obviously of the lot itself, stays, but the context around it is going to change. So, I 5 don’t know how we do that. The Walgreens being moved out to the…to the intersection is a change of 6 context for the block. But, the Key Bank and Kmart stay the same at this point, and so it fits with that 7 overall I think. 8 MS. SIMPSON: Although I do think the…the surrounding corners are important to take into 9 consideration if we’re considering this building for its association with the car industry and the vehicular 10 aspect of College and Drake, I still think that the fact that it’s still visible from those streets is the most 11 important. If you look at the pictures that were provided to us on page 135 from the Coloradoan, they 12 show the showroom, which Mr. Murray was talking about with the feeling you get when you see the cars 13 inside the windows, and how excited you are looking at the cars. I still think that is intact, and you can 14 still see that as you drive down College or Drake in your car. 15 MR. MURRAY: On your way to the drive-in. 16 CHAIR WALLACE: I would agree that the context remains intact, particularly since it’s at two 17 very strong arterials of College and Drake, and that it’s predominantly commercial, and since the time of 18 construction, I think the buildings that have been around it have been predominantly commercial. So, 19 there hasn’t been a drastic change as far as impacting that context. 20 MR. BELLO: You know, as I look at this photo that you pointed out, on page 135, if I remember 21 the development now…was there a change in grade or something? Because, you don’t see this from the 22 corner…you see the cars on the bottom and then there’s an elevation change. And I’m trying to wonder 23 how that occurred, because you don’t see it…it doesn’t look like this from the corner. 24 MS. SIMPSON: There’s also a lot of cars in the way now. 25 MR. BELLO: Yeah, there are a lot of cars in the way…right. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CHAIR WALLACE: Katie, Kristi, any thoughts on context? MS. GENSMER: I agree with what’s already been said. I do think the context remains intact. MS. DORN: I agree; the context remains intact, and I agree with the two arterials and the predominantly commercial area being intact. CHAIR WALLACE: So, as a Commission, it would appear that we have examined the integrity, the context, as well as the standards for determining significance. Are there any other aspects that anyone on the Commission would like to chime in on or consider at this time? No? Okay, then I think it might be prudent to start putting forth a motion. 34 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 309 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MS. GENSMER: I can try to do so…I may need help from my fellow Commission members as we add in our findings and seek to support it. So, I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission uphold the prior determination and find that 2601 South College Avenue is individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. This motion is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, as well as the discussion that we just had, with the following findings: the property has significance under…under standard A, events for associations with a pattern of events, specifically the movement of Fort Collins toward midtown from downtown, so moving south, the change in the city towards a community that relies on automobile transportation, the expansion of the automobile industry, as well as the larger expansion of the city, including the Ghent annexation. I also find that it is significant under…or under standard C, design and construction, because it embodies the identifiable characteristics of a specific period, in this case, mid-century commercial architecture. Some of the specific characteristics are: the very prominent windows facing out onto the major transportation arteries, the use of moss rock and concrete block, and the way that it is sited on the property on the landscape in relation to the major transportation corridors of Drake and College, as well as the way its situated in relation to the parking lot surrounding it. Okay, and…still going…the property exhibits exterior integrity and it satisfies integrity of location in that it remains in the same place; it has not been moved, integrity of design for many of these elements including the large windows, the way it was designed to face towards the streets. It retains integrity of setting because of the way it’s situated at that intersection. Integrity of workmanship…although as Mike said, it isn’t high style, it still embodies the type of construction that was done in that period, as well as integrity of feeling and association because it retains those larger characteristics tying it to both the vehicular arteries, commercial properties, and the automobile industry. And, feel free to add things in there. Finally, that the LPC has considered the context of the area surrounding the property as is required under City Code Chapter 14. We find that the context relates directly to the major transportation arteries of Drake and College, as well as the commercial properties that are surrounding it on those intersections, and the way that they are oriented towards vehicular traffic and set back from the roads. I think that’s it. 27 CHAIR WALLACE: Gretchen, did you get all that? 28 MS. GENSMER: Yeah, I was worried about that. 29 CHAIR WALLACE: It’s on the recording of course, but, if you want to hear it again, she’s going 30 to have to repeat it. 31 MS. GENSMER: And that’s be interesting. 32 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, do we have a second? 33 MR. MURRAY: I’ll second. 34 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, something I would like to potentially see added to it is that we cannot 35 determine, at this time, that standard B is fulfilled because we do not have enough information, or we’re 36 basing our decision on the information that we have at hand on the Ghents. So, if we could apply that as 37 well? 38 MS. GENSMER: I’m okay with that. 39 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 40 MS. GENSMER: Kevin, as the seconder, are you okay? 41 MR. MURRAY: I’m okay with that. 42 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 310 26 for a roll call vote please. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Alright, then I would like to call MS. SCHIAGER: Bello? MR. BELLO: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Dorn? MS. DORN: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Gensmer? MS. GENSMER: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Murray? MR. MURRAY: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Simpson? MS. SIMPSON: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: And Wallace? 12 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. Okay, motion passes. So, we have decided to uphold the decision of 13 the property at 2601 South College Avenue as eligible for landmark designation, and this is according to 14 standard A, for event, and standard C, for design and construction, as well as upholding six out of the seven 15 exterior integrity, and for maintaining context. Thank you. 16 17 18 19 20 21 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 311 April.3, 2018 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting — 6:00 PM ROLL CALL PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Staff Present: Atteberry,.Daggett, Jensen AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION George Grossman questioned how the City could help the vitality of small businesses. He stated there is a lack of coordination between City departments with regard to economic vitality. He noted the Economic Health Department has not weighed in on the Sign Code changes. Ursula Lord discussed the increasing goose population and requested Council read an opinion piece she wrote for the Coloradoan. Margaret Mitchell stated there is not enough handicap parking at the Senior Center and discussed the planning process related to a lot on the 800 block of East Elizabeth. Stacy Lynne discussed the Sign Code update and varying City statements regarding murals. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP Mayor Troxell summarized the citizen comments and encouraged Mr. Grossman to attend meetings of the Economic Advisory Board. Councilmember Cunniff requested a timeline of the evaluation of the Senior Center handicap spaces and information as to any City plans related to the geese population. Councilmember Martinez requested staff input regarding Ms. Lynne's comments. Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, replied murals will not be part of the phase two Sign Code update. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item No. 6, First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund into the Capital Project Fund for the East Prospect Road Improvements Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program, from the Consent Agenda. City of Fort Collins Page 207 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 312 April3, 2018 Councilmember Cunniff asked if it would be possible to have some Finance Committee discussion about the combined projects prior to Second Reading of the Ordinance. Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, replied that can be arranged. Councilmember Cunniff stated he is concerned about the number of out -of -cycle budget requests that do not allow Council to examine the totality of the effects on the budget. City Manager Atteberry agreed with the concern and acknowledged this was a miss. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Transportation Board is involved in any of these items in terms of providing a recommendation. Crager replied the West Prospect project was brought before the Board in January. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Ordinance No. 047, 2018, on First Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked why the Art in Public Places appropriation is included at this time. City Attorney Daggett replied the Code describes the process as happening at the time of appropriation of funds for the project. Councilmember Stephens stated the process could have been better; however, Prospect Road needs the improvements. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 047, 2018, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [6 TO 11 MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER:. Bob Overbeck, District 1 AYES: - Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak NAYS: Cunniff DISCUSSION ITEMS 15. Consideration of an Appeal of the Landmark Preservation Commission Decision Regarding the Eligibility of the Spradley Barr Property, 2601 South College Avenue, to Qualify as a Landmark. Landmark Preservation Commission Overturned) The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of the Landmark Preservation Commission's (LPC) de novo decision made on February 21, 2018, finding that the property at 2601 South College Avenue is eligible for individual landmark designation. This decision was consistent with the initial decision made by the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director and the LPC Chair. On March 7, 2018, an appeal was filed challenging the LPC's decision. Only parties -in -interest as defined in City Code Section 2-47 may participate in this hearing and the scope of the appeal is limited to those items identified as grounds for appeal in the Notice of Appeal. City Attorney Daggett reviewed the appeal process, Lucia Liley, attorney for Brinkman Development, requested presentations be extended to 20 minutes given there will not be rebuttal. Mayor Troxell agreed. Laurie Kadrich, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, stated this is an appeal of the Landmark Preservation Commission decision that the property at 2601 South College Avenue, the current Spradley Barr Mazda dealership, is eligible for landmark status. Kadrich showed photos of the property. City of Fort Collins Page 212 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 313 April 3, 2018 Mayor Troxell noted there was a site visit and requested staff respond to questions submitted by Councilmembers. Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner, stated the first question was, what evidence was used for the Landmark Preservation Commission's conclusions regarding the angle of the showroom building to the intersection of Drake and College. Photos and sketch evidence indicated the angled orientation of the main building is toward the intersection. Bzdek stated the second question related to historic context and evidence provided to support the Commission's' understanding of context. At the site visit, staff described the context noting the building is at the intersection of two major streets and, at the time of construction, the building was at the edge of town. Context also includes the description of the property, photos, and site maps. The third question related to the role of the building topography in how the site was developed. Photos of the site during construction show excavation in front of the showroom building, which created an area of lower elevation along College. It appears the building was constructed higher than the surrounding terrain. Bzdek stated the architect and contractor associated with the design and construction of the building is unknown at this time. In terms of which historic materials are still intact, Bzdek replied original materials include the walls of natural rough stone set into concrete, the canopy, the large single -pane glass windows set into metal frames, the concrete block 16-bay service station, and 7 of the original overhead rolling garage doors. Historic materials that have been changed consist of the roofing material, most of the overhead rolling garage doors, two small pre -fabricated buildings. Mayor Pro Tern Horak expressed concern this is more detailed information than what is in the record. City Attorney Daggett replied staff is responding to the Mayor's request that they provide responses to questions asked. Councilmember Cunniff stated more questions were asked at the site visit than usual and questioned best practices. He asked how to ensure these kinds of questions and this process are properly part of the record should Council's decision be appealed. City Attorney Daggett replied Councilmembers are authorized to ask questions during the hearing and the Mayor has asked staff to describe the questions that were asked at the site visit. Councilmember Cunniff suggested providing answers in writing in the future. Mayor Troxell stated he understood that the questions would be answered in writing as well; however, having this information in the record could be helpful for the appellants. He requested staff begin to provide more succinct answers. Ms. Liley stated she does not have any objection to more succinct answers; however, she noted a great deal of new information is being brought forward that was not part of the record. Bzdek continued stating some of the upper windows have also been replaced. Bzdek stated staff does not have information about the eligibility of the Key Bank building at this time. She stated the determination of eligibility is based on the sum total of all the resources on the property and the significant aspects of each building are considered separately. City of Fort Collin Page 213 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 314 April 3, 2018 Regarding the influence of the Ghent family's history, Bzdek stated the LPC did not believe it had sufficient information about the Ghent family and declined to make a finding related to significance. Bzdek stated there were several examples of pre-war auto dealerships in the downtown area; however, none of them- are unaltered enough to be eligible for landmark designation. Bzdek stated Council asked staff to provide a summary of the elements the LPC found to contribute to the significance and integrity versus the federal standards. She stated the City's local Code ordinance is based on the federal standards. Bzdek answered questions related to the evidence provided for the original determination of eligibility and stated staff did not provide a recommendation because this was an appeal. Bzdek stated the carriage steps are engraved with the name W.A. Drake, in reference to a state senator who constructed his home at this location. Mayor Troxell asked Councilmembers to comment on observations made at the site visit. Councilmember Cunniff stated he listened to the presentation and had observations and questions about the orientation of the building, the materials, and the site plan and elevations. Councilmember Overbeck stated he observed the building orientation and faqade. Councilmember Martinez stated he observed the building facade. Mayor Troxell stated he asked most of the questions which were driven by the lack of understanding by the LPC in their questions. He stated the Commission did not appear to have an understanding of the property. Mayor Troxell asked if there are any procedural issues. Councilmember Overbeck discussed a 2013 article in the Denver Post in which the Ghent family's ties to Fort Collins were outlined. He asked if that may have some bearing on the discussion. Councilmember Cunniff requested Council and the appellant receive copies of the staff responses to questions prior to the appellant's presentation. Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) City Attorney Daggett noted staff has provided a written version of the questions and answers discussed earlier in the hearing. Ms. Liley stated Brinkman has yet to file a PDP application for this project; however, its goals include tiered density, retail, hotel, multi -family, improved intersections, pedestrian, MAX line, and bike connectivity, building orientation toward streets, and a grand promenade. Brinkman believes the existing structures and parking lots need to be demolished for the project to be feasible. Ms. Liley discussed the Code requirements for determination of eligibility: significance and exterior integrity and discussed an independent firm's completion of the inventory form required by the state and the City's Code. The firm, Autobee and Autobee, recommended the property not be considered individually eligible and, at the LPC hearing, Ms. Autobee testified there had been City of Fort Collins Page 214 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 315 April3, 2018 so many changes to the character -defining elements of the building, there was not enough left to meet the integrity standard. Ms. Liley discussed the changes made to the building since its construction. Ms. Liley stated the Autobee report concluded this site does not meet any of the criteria for significance; however, the LPC made a finding of significance based on two of the four criteria: pattern of events and design and construction. Ms. Liley referenced,Ms. Autobee's testimony related to this topic. Ms. Liley discussed the stated policies and purposes related to historic preservation in Chapter 14. She requested Council uphold the appeal and noted the carriage steps are planned to be preserved by Brinkman in a park or gathering area. Councilmember Cunniff noted this is a determination of eligibility rather than a designation. Kadrich replied standards would apply to the site if it is determined to be eligible because the applicant would be requesting a commercial redevelopment; however, eligibility does not guarantee a designation, nor would it require an owner to proceed with a designation. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the City Code requires that all the elements be met for eligibility. Assistant City Attorney Brad Yatabe replied significance and exterior integrity need to be established, and each of those standards contain different factors. Additionally, the context must be considered. At least one of the factors of significance must be present and a minimum number of factors must be met for exterior integrity; however, there is some latitude left to the decision maker. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Code requires the architectural style to be unique or one -of - a -kind. Yatabe replied he is not aware of that requirement; the standards point to whether a property is a good example of an architectural style. Councilmember Martinez asked about the significance of the showroom being angled. Bzdek replied there is no specific evidence or information as to why the building was constructed at an angle. She showed photos of the building and discussed its elevation. Councilmember Martinez asked who did the masonry work on the building. Bzdek replied staff does not have that information. Mayor Troxell stated staff provided a recommendation during the original determination of eligibility. Kadrich replied staff did contribute to making the decision as the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services participated in the original determination; however, when that decision was appealed to the LPC, staff members make no recommendation to the Commission. Mayor Troxell stated the LPC struggled with coming to a determination based on eligibility. Kadrich replied this type of review is done hundreds of times per year and the majority of these initial reviews are determined to be not eligible. Mayor Troxell stated he cannot understand why eligibility was determined originally given the LPC struggled to attach meaning to the criteria. City of Fort Collins Page 215 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 316 April 3, 2018 Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, stated the process for determination is -conducted by himself and the LPC Chair, Meg Dunn in this case. The first step is to determine whether the proposal is a minor or major amendment to the site; given this was a demolition, it was determined to be major. The second step is to look at significance, which was determined to exist in terms of association and representation of the auto industry. Mayor Troxell stated some of the conclusions were not based on fact but rather on assumptions. Leeson agreed and stated that is part of the reason the independent architectural survey is requested. In this case, the report indicated the site was not eligible. Mayor Troxell stated the report is the only piece of architectural research that has some basis for suggesting what to be done. Leeson agreed. Councilmember Martinez asked how the building's orientation becomes evidence as part of the historical significance of the site. Leeson replied the original decision was not based on the orientation; it was referenced as being unique and the assumption was made that it was oriented toward the intersection for greater site lines. Councilmember Martinez asked where the carriage stairs were located originally. Leeson replied staff is unaware if they have been moved; however, they were from the site. The stairs were not part of the evaluation. Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to overturn the decision of the Landmark Preservation Commission that 2601 South College Avenue is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins local landmark under City Code Section 14- 5 because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code. Mayor Pro Tern Horak stated Ms. Autobee's testimony and report were compelling and it appeared the Commission was struggling to make its motion and decision. He suggested more precise language be set for motions in quasi-judicial situations. Councilmember Cunniff disagreed and noted the Commission found the building expressed.the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. He also noted the Code does not reference the lexicon and stated the building does have significant, although not complete, historic materials and it is clear the building orientation was a deliberate design choice. He stated the consultant admitted errors in her interpretation related to the awning and taking the consultant's opinion as the only one that matters is incorrect. Councilmember Stephens stated she agreed with the motion and discussed the changes in the exterior integrity of the building over the years. She stated people do not see this building as a local landmark. Councilmember Martinez stated he does not view this building as being historic in any sense. Mayor Troxell stated he views historic preservation as an important part of the City; however, this structure is one year beyond the 50-year trigger for an eligibility discussion and 50 years is not necessarily iconic of what drives decision -making criteria. He stated he would like the City to be more proactive in terms of preservation of those buildings in the community that reach a standard of preservation. He also stated there was a lack of understanding and appreciation of the Ghent family and stated old does not necessarily mean historic. City of Fort Collins Poge 216 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 317 April3, 2018 Councilmember Martinez asked if the moss rock on the building was considered part of the historic value. Leeson replied in the affirmative. RESULT: LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECISION OVERTURNNED- ADOPTED [6 TO 11 MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak NAYS: Cunniff OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Cunniff requested staff start to look at the City's standards for site visits and questions and how they fit into the body of evidence for appeal hearings. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a memo as to the current policy related to Art in Public Places appropriations. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. or ATTEST: nSEALityCrk City of Fort Collins Poge 217 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 318 Section 14-5,Sec. 14-22. Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts. Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered. A determination of eligibility for landmark designation typically applies to the entire lot, lots, or area of property upon which the landmark is located and may include structures, objects, or landscape features not eligible for landmark designation located on such lot, lots, or area of property. In order for a district to be eligible for landmark district designation, at least fifty (50) percent of the properties contained within the proposed landmark district must qualify as contributing to the district. Resources eligible for landmark designation or eligible to contribute to a landmark district must possess both significance and integrity as follows: (1)(a)Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object, or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how propertiesresources are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. (2)The criteria Standards for determining significance are as follows: a.(1) Events. PropertiesResources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A propertyresource can be associated with either (, or both), of two (2) types of events: 1.a. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2.b. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. b.(2) Persons/Groups. PropertiesResources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. c.(3) Design/Construction. PropertiesResources may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of propertiesresources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A propertyresource can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. d.(4) Information potential. PropertiesResources may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (3)Exterior integrity(b)Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) ,7(0 5, $77$C+0(17 3acket 3g. 1 qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object, or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. (4)The criteria Standards for determining exterior integrity are as follows: a.(1) Location is the place where the historic propertyresource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. b. (2) Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a propertyresource. c. (3)Setting is the physical environment of a historic propertyresource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a propertyresource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the propertyresource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. (4) Materials are the physical elements that form a historic propertyresource. e. (5) Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. f. (6) Feeling is a property'sresource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period orof time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property'sresource's historic or prehistoric character. g.(7) Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic propertyor prehistoric resource. A propertyresource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property'sresource's historic or prehistoric character. (5) Context. The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area. Upon the submittal of an application necessitating a determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark or Landmark District, the Director and/or the chair of the Commission shall determine the minimum area required for evaluating context, and such information, including photographs and other documents, as required for the determination. ITE0 5, ATTAC+0ENT 6 Packet Pg. 320 From:Mark Sears To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Ghent Motors Date:Thursday, April 4, 2024 1:46:35 PM As a midtown resident for 48 years, I recommend scraping the existing Ghent Motors buildings to allow something fresh that can fully utilize the site without being compromised by the existing buildings. Thanks, Mark Sears 3131 Worthington Ave Fort Collins Sent from my iPhone ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 321 From:Sharon Danhauer To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Ghent-Spradley-Barr/2Mazda Date:Friday, April 12, 2024 8:13:28 AM This building is a great example of the 1950s automobile boom that changed nearly every town in America. But it's especially important to Fort Collins' history of growth after WWII. I live in Loveland, where there was nothing like this building. It was unique to Fort Collins and it would be great if it were saved. With the planned housing and much of the site being usable as proposed, why couldn't the building be reused? It should be thought of as a feather in the owner's cap rather than be demolished. Sharon Danhauer sadanhau@gmail.com 970-290-0169 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 322 From:Historic Preservation To:Historic Preservation Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Comments regarding the Ghent/Spradley-Barr/2Mazda eligibility item Date:Friday, April 12, 2024 8:45:30 AM To the decision-makers regarding the eligibility of the historic Ghent Motor property at 2601 S. College Avenue, The purpose of Section 3.4.7 in the Land Use Code is to help the City maintain important DNA — places that help differentiate Fort Collins from Loveland or Denver or wherever — while still allowing for new development. Given that 4/5s of the proposed project could likely be completed exactly as proposed by the applicant, and that the last 1/5th would require the reuse of a historic property that would actually give the gas station (or whatever eventually goes into that spot) even more space than the applicant is proposing, while still having plenty of space for 6 gas pumps, there is absolutely no reason (certainly not hardship or inability to achieve the desired program for the space) for the applicant to not reuse the historic site as required by the City’s land use code. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 323 Sometimes Historic Preservation is overly associated with Victorian era buildings, as if no history exists outside of 1860-1910. But Fort Collins' explosive growth following the Second World War is an important part of our local story. Despite the fact that we had a very affordable streetcar system as well as a densely built pattern of development that encouraged walking and riding, the national trend to rewrite cities with only the automobile in mind drastically changed Fort Collins and all of America. What better way to showcase this radical change in Fort Collins history than to not only save a building constructed on the far, far south end of town that no one could reach except by automobile, and a building constructed in such a way that it appealed to fast-moving motorists more than it did to pedestrians, but it’s a building constructed specifically to sell the very automobiles that the city was being transformed to accommodate! This is quite possibly the BEST building in all of Fort Collins to showcase this important and significant change within our community. The property owner should be proud of their ability to not only provide much-needed housing within our community but to do so while also maintaining such an important and significant piece of our local history. I would appreciate if this letter, and also an online article that I have written regarding this property — https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor- building-could-be-repurposed/ — would be included in the information provided to the applicant and commission for next week’s meeting. Thank you, Meg Dunn, District 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 324 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/1/8 The Old Ghent Motor Building Could beRepurposed by meg | Mar 30, 2024 | Built Environment, Historic Preservation | 0 comments UU aa,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 325 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/2/8 There’s a perception that historic preservation only ever always gets in the way of development. Once we’ve saved one important house and turned it into a museum, what would be the need to landmark anything else? Can’t the preservationists just focus on the museum and let everything else get scraped and replaced? We need more _______ (housing/of ce space/parking/big box stores/ ll in the blank with whatever the need of the day is)! But discounting historic preservation can have negative social, economic, and environmental rami cations. I’ve already written a whole four-part series on how historic preservation is an important part of creating a vibrant local economy, so I won’t delve into that here. I would like to address one speci c example in Fort Collins that shows just what it could look like to value historic preservation while at the same time allowing for new development. ,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 326 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/3/8 A conceptual review was submitted to the City of Fort Collins in 2023 regarding the property where 2Mazda of Fort Collins (formerly Spradley- Barr Ford) is located. The proposal also includes the Sherwin-Williams property to the south and a third parcel that is used as additional parking space by the dealership. The City’s Preservation Department had a historic survey completed on the property and found that the 2Mazda building (Possibly buildings. I haven’t been able to read the report yet.) are eligible for historic designation. That means that there is something signi cant about the building(s) — most likely their relationship to a car- centric pattern of development that was new for the City at the time, their signi cantly mid-century Modern architectural design, and the new use of a construction technique in the back portion of the main building — and that they retain enough integrity to convey that signi cance. When a commercial property contains a designated historic landmark or is found to contain a building eligible for designation, the City requires that the “proposed development is compatible with and protects historic resources” (LUC 3.4.7(A)1). In the case of the old Ghent Motor property (now 2Mazda), the code requires that “Historic resources on [the] development site are preserved, adaptively reused, and incorporated into the proposed development” (LUC 3.4.7(A)(1). There’s still a pathway towards demolition if the property owner wants to pursue that, but because of 3.4.7, they’ll just have to take some extra steps to get there. I have yet to see a property owner take this route, at least not in the past decade or so. Usually when the property owner continues to insist that demolition is the only way to achieve their objective, they will appeal the eligibility decision to the Historic Preservation Commission, and if the HPC still upholds staff’s decision, then the property owner can appeal to City Council. ,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 327 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/4/8 The kind of building reuse required by the Land Use Code, section 3.4.7, has been done many, many times within the city of Fort Collins, with good results. A recent, beloved example on the east side of town is the conversion of old farm buildings at Jessup Farm into a restaurant, cafe, brewery, and other small shops. While 205 single-family homes, 220 condos, and 330 apartment units were constructed on green elds around the old farmstead, the adaptive reuse of the farmstead itself has provided a sense of connection to Fort Collins history that would have been lost if those buildings had been scraped. They add an authenticity to the entire development — a value add — that comes only by keeping the older buildings, with all of their character and patina. ,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 328 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/5/8 The Balfour development proposed on E. Harmony in 2022 was going to leverage the historic farmhouses, barn, and shed to create a Western sense of place for the new 5-story independent living development. (The image above was taken from the company’s marketing materials on the project.) Unfortunately, the project seems to have been canceled (perhaps due to the sudden rise in interest rates?), but the advantage of keeping and integrating the historic buildings into their design is evident as you look through the marketing materials developed for the project. Other recent projects that have retained historic resources include the new Alpine Bank building on the southeast corner of College and Prospect, the Music District on S. College, and the lofts at 148 Remington Street. ,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 32 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/6/8 So what the code is asking the developers of the old Ghent Motor property to do is to nd a creative way to leverage the resource that they have on their property, rather than throwing it away. The historic resource has value to the community as a whole, reminding us of our past, including past values and stylistic choices. By retaining the resource and using it for a new purpose, the development would immediately retain a sense of authenticity that it would otherwise take decades to accrue. It would also keep materials out of the land ll and reduce the amount of new resources that need to be harvested, processed, hauled, and installed into a new building. And there’s still plenty of room on the site for a signi cant amount of new construction. Compare the developers’ proposal (above) to what the project might look like if they instead retain the historic buildings (below). Granted, the image is an ugly cut-and-paste job and would require reworking, but it’s enough to give you a sense of how the corner buildings could be retained and reused and there’d still be more than enough room to add all the things that the developers want to add. ,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 33 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/7/8 The applicant is hoping to add a new gas station at the corner of Drake and College — half a mile south of where a gas station was recently scraped to be replaced by a bank and one mile east of where another gas station was recently converted into a pizza shop. (There’s also a gas station one mile to the north and half a mile to the south of this location. So if there used to be four, and two have already closed, isn’t that a sign that we don’t need another one? But what do I know.) No matter what the applicant wants to put on the site, the code requires that they nd a way to reuse the building on the corner or go through the necessary steps to demolish. Retaining the historic buildings wouldn’t be particularly onerous. The old Ghent building has a lot of natural light, making it a brilliant location for a restaurant or cafe. It could also be a beautiful retail space with ample oor space. If we are in desperate need of housing, which we are, and have nowhere else to put that housing but where historic buildings reside, then we need to nd a way to bear the loss while building for the need. But when there are times that we can provide for the desperate need while still retaining part of the DNA of our community — resources that help us ,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 331 4/12/24, 8:47 AM The Old Ghent Motor Building Could be Repurposed - My WordPress https://urbanfortcollins.com/the-old-ghent-motor-building-could-be-repurposed/8/8 Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress better understand who we are and where we’ve been — then why wouldn’t we choose the path that helps us keep that sense of place? ,T(M 5, ATTAC+M(1T 6 PacNet Pg. 332 From:Sue Schneider To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Ghent Motor Property Development Proposal Date:Friday, April 12, 2024 8:52:27 AM To Whom It May Concern: As a 4th generation Larimer County resident, my family and I have seen the many changes that have taken place over the years within the county and in the municipalities within the county. I certainly remember when Drake was the south end of town and the changes that took place during the 60s forever shaped what Fort Collins would become. I implore you to consider the significance of the Ghent Motor property at 2601 S. College Avenue and encourage the developers to reuse the historic property rather than demolish it. I would have hoped the developers would be proud to represent a time in Fort Collins when growth was powered by the motor vehicle and urban sprawl. It is easy to think of historic preservation as relating to the early pioneers, but there have been pioneers throughout our development and different types of growth are represented by different types of structures. I would hope that the powers that be will see the significance of this property and act accordingly. The proposal as a whole is admirable and well thought out, but the desire to demolish a historically significant building is in my view short-sighted. Thank you advance for your consideration. Susan Abbott Schneider > Sent from my iPad ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 333 Headline Copy Goes Here Senior Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini Historic Preservation Commission Appeal: 2601 S. College Ave. City Historic Landmark Eligibility April 17, 2024 Headline Copy Goes Here2601 S. College Avenue 2 1 2 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 33 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Role of the HPC • De Novo hearing – HPC provides a new decision • Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the buildings addressed as 2601 S College Avenue • Standards under Municipal Code 14, Article II • Provide a determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) • NOTE: The HPC’s role in this appeal hearing is not to consider adaptive reuse potential, which is not a consideration of MC 14, Article II •This is considered if a resource is first determined Eligible, during the conceptual or formal development review stage Headline Copy Goes Here 4 Current Review Timeline • August 16, 2023 – Preliminary Development Review Meeting (All City Depts) • August 23, 2023 – Historic Survey Ordered • October 17, 2023 – Survey Completed and Transmitted •Completed by City staff since no 3 rd party historians were available • October 27, 2023 – Appeal Received 3 4 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 33 Headline Copy Goes HereCode Process 5 - 3.4.7 - (B) Requires identification of historic resources on/near development site - (C) Determination of Eligibility - (D) Treatment of Historic Resources - Chapter 14, Article II - 14-22 – Standards for eligibility - 14-23(b) – Process for appealing a staff decision Land Use Code (Development)Municipal Code - Eligibility If found Eligible Headline Copy Goes Here 6 Outcomes • If determined Eligible •Does not require or initiate landmark designation •Does require preservation and adaptive reuse of historic resources for development applications subject to land use code compliance [3.4.7(D)(3)] •Modifications of Standards are allowed under the usual process in LUC 2.8 • If determined Not Eligible – no further Preservation concerns 5 6 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 336 Headline Copy Goes HereLandmark Eligibility: 2-Step Linear Process 7 Significance 1. Events 2. Persons/Groups 3. Design/Construction 4. Information Potential *Section 14-22, ““Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts.” Integrity (7 Aspects) 1. Design 2. Materials 3. Workmanship 4. Location 5. Setting 6. Feeling 7. Association Headline Copy Goes Here2601 S College 8 7 8 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 337 Headline Copy Goes Here2601 S College Avenue: History • Formerly the W.A. Drake Farmstead • Demolished for the Ghent Auto Dealership • 1966 – Completed • 1972 - Car Wash structure added to NW corner • Removed between 1983-1999 • 1998 – original roofing replaced with standing seam metal Headline Copy Goes Here2601 S. College Avenue: Significance Standard 1 Events/Trends • Comparative Context • Few substantial, surviving examples of post-war expansion in this part of Fort Collins •100 E. Drake •2720 S. College Ave •2839 S. College Ave. • Formerly many examples, but most are either altered or demolished 1 – Events/Trends (South College Commercial Expansion) •General postwar movement of businesses away from Downtown, including automobile dealerships 100 E Drake Rd 9 10 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 33 Headline Copy Goes Here2601 S. College Avenue: Significance Standard 2 Persons/Groups 2 – Persons/Groups (Frank & Dwight Ghent) Successful business owners & community leaders in early and mid 20th century • Landmarked Residences: 1612 Sheely Dr. (Dwight); 638 Whedbee St. (Frank) • Pre-1966 Ghent businesses heavily altered Frank Ghent, 1984 Ghent Motors Ground-breaking, March 9, 1966 Ghent Motors at 205 N. College, 1950 – since heavily altered Headline Copy Goes Here 2601 S. College Avenue: Significance Standard 3 Design/Construction • Comparative context • Automobile dealerships (and other auto-related properties) •142 Remington – Banwell Motors (now the Gearage) •150 W. Oak – Goodyear store • Modern Commercial Architecture •425 S. College, Safeway (now Lucky’s) •1101 W. Elizabeth, Campus West Shops •Bank towers downtown, including 401 S. College, 215 W. Oak, 315 W. Oak •Smaller bank buildings, including 100 S. College & 100 E. Drake • Modern Architecture overall •Those named above, along with some residential and religious architecture 3 – Design/Construction (Modern Architecture / Auto Dealerships in Fort Collins) • One of the only intact auto dealership from either the early (c.1920s) or mid-20th century periods in Ft Collins • Significant surviving reflection of Modern architecture in this section of Fort Collins • Potentially one of only two examples of commercial Contemporary style architecture in Ft. Collins 11 12 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 33 Headline Copy Goes Here2601 South College Avenue: Integrity • MC 14-22(b): “the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object, or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. • Overall good/sufficient integrity • Detractions in Design and Materials due to: •loss of most historic overhead garage doors in service wing •1998 modification of roof to standing-seam metal Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Staff Evaluation of Integrity Staff ConclusionAspect of Integrity Retained – the dealership remains in its original location.Location - the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. Retained – Impacted by the two small additions on the west elevation and some window infill. However, overall design elements such as long and low massing, asymmetrical plan, low-pitched gable roof, broadly overhanging eaves, fixed window walls, obscured entries, exposed rafter beams, and broad uninterrupted wall surfaces remain. Design - the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. Retained – although the surrounding buildings have changed over the last fifty years, the general commercial character of the setting is retained. Setting - the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. Retained – Some detractions including the replacement of the roof with standing-seam metal and replacement of the overhead garage doors in the service bays. However, other key character- defining materials remain including the laminated, exposed roof beams, fixed glass window walls, and broad expanses of uninterrupted exterior cladding of concrete block, stucco, and stone. Materials - the physical elements that form a resource. Retained – important features of the Modern construction techniques, including stone veneer over concrete construction, remain. Workmanship - the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. Retained – Maintains overall sense as a 1960s/mid-century auto dealership.Feeling - a resource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. Retained – building’s exterior cladding, massing, window walls, asymmetrical plan, low-pitched roof, and exposed rafter beams make association with the mid-20th century apparent. Association - the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource's historic or prehistoric character. 13 14 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 30 Headline Copy Goes Here 15 Staff Evaluation of Appellant Materials - Significance Appellant ConclusionStaff ConclusionApplicable Standard INELIGIBLE - Community: Assertion that car dealerships cannot individually contribute to patterns of urban development. - State: See above - Nation: Not significantto national history ELIGIBLE– Pattern of Events - Community: strongly associated with the post-war movement of Fort Collins businesses, generally, and automobile dealerships, specifically, away from downtown toward the edges of the city. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history. Standard 1 – Events/Trends INELIGIBLE - Community: Note that best years in sales were at other sites in Fort Collins, and that Ghent social contributionswere not directly related to the dealership property. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significantto national history ELIGIBLE - Community: associated with Frank & Dwight Ghent as significant business and social leaders. Acknowledge residences of both Ghents are already Landmarked. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history. Standard 2 – Persons/Groups INELIGIBLE - Community: While there are specific elements that represent the style of the period, the design and details are very common, and is in no way remarkable for the period. On a scale of 1-10 for mid-century design value,10 being the highest, this exampleis 1-1.5.. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significantto national history ELIGIBLE - Community: significant as an excellent and rare remaining example of mid-century automobile dealership design and as an example of the Modern Movement/Contemporary architectural style. Comparative analysis with other resources in Fort Collins demonstrates this is a significant local example of Modern commercial architecture. - State: Not significant to state history. - Nation: Not significant to national history. Standard 3 – Design/Construc tion Not significantNot significantStandard 4 – Information Potential Headline Copy Goes Here 16 Staff Evaluation of Appellant Materials - Integrity • Staff acknowledges modifications – addressed in staff-produced historic survey form • Much of the appellant’s materials suggest perceived lack of adaptive reuse potential as a factor in historic integrity • Under City Code (and federal guidelines for NRHP), historic integrity is a measure of the presence of historic materials, features, and overall connection to the important historic period. 15 16 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 31 Headline Copy Goes Here 17 HPC Work Session Requests • Add 2017-2018 Determination and Appeal to the record • This has been added as Attachment 5 • As noted in the cover memo, the 2017-2018 process occurred under a previous code version and does not reflect current Land Use and Municipal Code requirements. • Appellant requested addition – redlines from 2019 code changes to Chapter 14 Headline Copy Goes Here 18 Comments • Public Comments • 1 – against preservation • 3 – support Eligible finding and adaptive reuse 17 18 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 32 Headline Copy Goes Here 19 Role of the HPC • De Novo hearing – HPC provides a new decision • Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the buildings addressed as 2601 S College Avenue • Standards under Municipal Code 14, Article II • Provide a determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) • NOTE: The HPC’s role in this appeal hearing is not to consider adaptive reuse potential, which is not a consideration of MC 14, Article II •This is considered if a resource is first determined Eligible, during the conceptual or formal development review stage 19 ITEM , ATTACHME1T Packet Pg. 33 Supplemental Documents Supplement 1 2601 S. College April 17, 2024 S8PPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 2 Team Property Owners: Kriss Spradley and Bill Barr Built Environment Evolution: Natalie Feinberg Lopez Brownstein: Angela Hygh and Nina Sawaya 2 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary S8PPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | The Appeal The Property Owners are appealing the determination by City Staff that the Property is eligible for historic designation. De novo standard. City Council determined on April 3, 2018 that the property was NOT eligible for historic designation. City Councils determination expired on April 3, 2023. 3 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 4 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 2601 S College Ave. Commonly Known as The Mazda Dealership 4 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 5 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Criteria for Historic Eligibility For a resource to be eligible for designation as a landmark under the Code, it must possess both significance and integrity 5 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 6 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Significance 6 Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object, or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. City Code, §14-22. The criteria include: (1) events (2) persons/groups (3) design/construction (4) information potential Introduction Background Process &IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 7 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Integrity Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. City Code, § 14-22. The criteria include: 1. Location 2. Design 3. Setting 4. Materials 5. Workmanship 6. Feeling 7. Association 7 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 8 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Natalie Feinberg Lopez, APTI RP 8 Consulting in technical preservation and conservation analysis for 25 years. Extensive Experience With Mid-Century Modern Structures Acted as Principal Planner for the Historic Preservation Department for the City of Aspen Introduction Background Process &IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 9 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Events Recognizable contribution Two Types: Specific event Pattern of events or a historic trend 9 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 10 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Persons/Groups 10 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary Specific contributions to history that can be identified and documented. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 11 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Design/Construction Embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; Distinguishable from others Possess high artistic values or design concepts; Recognizable and distinguishable group of resources. 1.5 out of 10 11 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 12 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Design/Construction Comparison with excellent examples of modern architecture. 1 2 International - excellent examples of modern architecture. Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 13 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Design/Construction Comparison with excellent examples of modern architecture. 13 United States - excellent examples of modern architecture. Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 14 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Design/Construction Comparison with excellent examples of modern architecture. 14 Local - excellent examples of modern architecture. Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 15 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Integrity Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. City Code, § 14-22. The criteria include: 1. Location 2. Design 3. Setting 4. Materials 5. Workmanship 6. Feeling 7. Association 15 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 16 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Location & Setting 16 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 17 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Location & Setting College Ave Auto Dealerships 17 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 18 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Materials: Not Built to Last Many elements show significant deterioration indicating the end-of- life cycle including: Original Materials were inexpensive and meant to be replaced often Deterioration of drainage Surfaces requiring removal of asphalt Repair of Foundations 18 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 19 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Design and Workmanship On a scale of 1-10 for mid-century design value, 10 being the highest, this example is 1-1.5. 19 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 20 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Feeling and Association Does not retain the feeling and association of the Post-War era. None of these South College examples are eligible: 20 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 21 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Other Considerations Top: Dwight Ghents Home 1612 Sheely Drive Bottom: Frank Ghents Home 638 Whedbee 21 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 22 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Things to Keep in Mind Being selective about what is eligible for historic designation preserves the designation process 22 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 23 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Policies and Purposes Section 14-1 and 14-2 stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality and values of such sites, structures, objects, and districts promote the use of important historical archaeological or architectural sites promote good urban design 23 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 24 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Structure Plan 24 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 25 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Midtown Plan 25 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 26 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | No Changes Since 2018 No new discoveries about the property or the Ghents. No substantial changes to the criteria. 26 Introduction Background Process & Criteria IntegritySignificance Summary SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 27 Thank You April 17, 2024 S8PPLEMENTAL INFORMATION APPELLANT PRESENTATION Supplement 28 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PUBLIC COMMENT Supplement 29 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PUBLIC COMMENT Supplement 30 1 Jim Bertolini From:David Everitt <dgecamino1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:37 AM To:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] Drake & College historical designation It has come to my attention that the ugly building located on the SW corner of Drake and College has been designated as a historical site and that this designation is being reconsidered. I believe that the historical designation is inappropriate and shortsighted as it is inconsistent with the current and future redevelopment of the mid-town corridor as it will create a blighted eye-sore along college avenue in addition to effectively smothering the redevelopment of the site on which it is located into much needed high density living units which is consistent with our city’s objectives to provide more urban housing. I urge the Historical Committee and the City Council to remove the historical designation for the betterment of our community. Thank you, David Everitt 6833/(0(17$/,1)250$7,21 38%/,&&200(17 6XSSOHPHQW1 1 Jim Bertolini From:Sara Vaught <sara@pennymade.co> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2024 1:24 PM To:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] To Whom it may concern, I oppose the finding of historic eligibility for 2601 S. College Avenue. There is clearly no association with the history of Fort Collins. The building is not historically significant whatsoever! We need redevelopment in this area of Fort Collins. This could be an incredible opportunity for Fort Collins for local jobs, revenue and a fun practical mid-town experience. Sincerely, Sara Vaught Sara Vaught Client Relations Manager __ pennymade.co 6833/(0(17$/,1)250$7,21 38%/,&&200(17 6XSSOHPHQW 1 Jim Bertolini From:Glen Schwab <schwab11@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2024 11:07 AM To:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] drake and college property Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Mr. Bertolini, As a 40-year resident of Ft. Collins, I find it puzzling that a car dealership with no historical architectural features would be designated as a historical building in Ft. Collins. Looking at that building, nothing resonates with “historic landmark.” With the development of the new King Soopers shopping center directly north of this site, one would hope the renovation of the building / site in question would enhance the overall area and generate a new enthusiasm for the future of Ft Collins. Thanks for your consideration. Glen Schwab 6833/(0(17$/,1)250$7,21 38%/,&&200(17 6XSSOHPHQW 1 Jim Bertolini From:Lisa Clay <lclay@advancetank.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2024 2:02 PM To:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] 2601 S. College Avenue Historic designation Mr. Bertoli, I heard that 2601 S. College Avenue is designated as a historic building. I admit to being surprised by that designation. After working with this issue at St. Joseph Catholic School and Church, I understand the desire to have such designations to preserve some of the historic culture of our community. I would not put the building at the Southwest corner of College and Drake in that category. There is very little, if anything, that makes one look at that building and find it culturally/historically relevant. I put it in the same position as the old Kmart building that was allowed to be torn down just due north of this location to make way for a new King Soopers. In this case it’s a box with garage bays in the back, versus just a big box. With all of the allowed renovation and new build within mid-town Fort Collins, the southwest corner would be a great location to allow change to occur to make what sits on that corner much more aesthetically pleasing to all. I would respectfully ask that you lift the historic designation for this site. Thank you, Lisa Clay P.S. As a company that was not allowed to build in Fort Collins without making it look more like Woodward or HP back in the 1980’s, not sure why this old car dealership, with its grey siding and red roof is something the City wants to maintain. Lisa K. Clay CEO Advance Tank and Construction 970-568-3444 DD: 970-237-6438 http://www.advancetank.com - 6833/(0(17$/,1)250$7,21 38%/,&&200(17 6XSSOHPHQW 1 Jim Bertolini From:Bob Carnahan <bob@bcarnahan.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2024 2:06 PM To:Historic Preservation Cc:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] 2601 S College appeal Dear Commission members and staff, I recently became aware that a prior determinaƟon relaƟng to the property at 2601 S College is once again before you due to some procedural Ɵmeframe issues. This property was determined not to be historically significant in 2018. This enƟre mid-town redevelopment area needs mixed use properƟes with a focus on aƩainable, affordable housing. This property is not historically significant, just old. The enƟre area needs spruced up and this property seems to be key to moving that vision along the Max corridor forward. I encourage you to follow the direcƟon and efforts already addressed in 2018. Let’s get this redevelopment moving again. With best regards, Bob Carnahan Fort Collins, Colorado Sent from my iPhone 6833/(0(17$/,1)250$7,21 38%/,&&200(17 6XSSOHPHQW