The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/16/2025 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting (2)04/16/2025 Agenda Page 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 16, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Online via Zoom or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Council Chambers This hybrid HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION meeting will be available online via Zoom, by phone, or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00p.m. Participants should join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. 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/97119271921 Webinar ID: 97119271921 (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chairperson 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 +1 720 928 9299 and enter Webinar ID 971 1927 1921. 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 press *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. When you are called, press *6 to unmute yourself. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PERSON: To participate in person, individuals should come to City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 and be prepared to follow strict social distancing guidelines. There may be needs to limit the number of individuals in the meeting room, and thus staging for individuals to speak may need to occur in the lobby or outside (weather permitting). Individuals who wish to speak will line up along the northern wall, maintaining physical distancing. The chairperson will call upon each participant to speak. (Continued on next page) Packet Pg. 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 16, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the HISTORIC PRESERVATION 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 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, Staff Liaison’s administrative professional needs to receive those materials via the above email address at least 48 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to preservation@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison’s administrative professional will ensure the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 48 hours prior to the meeting. 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. Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Packet Pg. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 16, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Commissioners • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • STAFF REVIEW OF AGENDA o This review provides an opportunity for Staff to review the posted meeting and agenda and provide the Commission with any last-minute updates that may affect the order of agenda items. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW o The Chair will invite public requests for a Commissioner to “pull” any items off the Consent Agenda. This is not the time for public comment on the item. o Any Commissioner, at the Commissioner’s own prerogative or in response to a request from the public, may “pull” an item off the Consent Agenda to be considered as a separate item. o Pulled Consent Agenda items will have the opportunity for public comment and will be considered before scheduled discussion items. • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS REMAINING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW UP FROM COMMISSION • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2025 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Packet Pg. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 16, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM • ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP o This is an opportunity for Commissioners to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Agenda. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA o This is an opportunity for staff to provide updates on general activities at the City of Fort Collins related to the work of the Commission. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA o This is an opportunity for commissioners to share individual activities and updates related to the work of the commission. • CONSIDERATION OF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS o Any agenda item a Commissioner pulled from the Consent Agenda will be given time for a staff presentation on the item, public comment, and discussion, and the Commission will act on the item at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA Each item on the Discussion Agenda will be given time for a staff presentation, public comment, and discussion, and the Commission will act on the item in its agenda order. 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 and outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commissioners and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission. Packet Pg. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 16, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM 3. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 712 SCENIC DR. Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager 4. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 125 W. TRILBY RD. Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager 5. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 616 W. OLIVE ST. Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager Packet Pg. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 16, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM 6. REPORT ON LAUREL & COLLEGE HISTORIC SURVEY The City of Fort Collins is completing a historic survey of forty-eight (48) properties near the intersection of Laurel Street and College Avenue. This area was selected for survey as it includes a high concentration of older commercial buildings and a number of small businesses that may be subject to the City’s Land Use Code and historic survey requirements for adaptive reuse projects. In addition, the area is within the City’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and is expected to see more development pressure and infill in the coming decades. As such, the goals of this project are to remove the cost of a third-party survey for small businesses and to provide more accurate and up-to-date information to property owners along the corridor to help facilitate future development planning and real STAFF: Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist 7. HPC OFFICER ELECTIONS • OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION o Commissioners may raise new topics that may properly come before the HPC for consideration. • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 6 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 2025 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC February 19, 2025 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 7 Historic Preservation Commission REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025 – 5:30 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL o Commission Members Present – Jim Rose (Chair) Bonnie Gibson (Vice Chair) Margo Carlock Chris Conway Jeff Gaines Jenna Edwards Aaron Hull David Woodlee o Commission Members Absent – None o Staff Members Present – Stephanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Melissa Matsunaka, HPC Admin o Guest(s) – None •AGENDA REVIEW Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, reviewed the published agenda. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS ON OR NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2025. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carlock, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Bertolini noted staff and Council are currently interviewing for the vacant seat on the Commission. Additionally, staff is seeking nominations for the Friends of Preservation awards that will occur in May. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP None. • 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). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, reported on staff and Commission members attending the Saving Places conference in Colorado Springs. Bertolini reported on a 2010 historic survey of the El Palomino Motel on North College, noting it was considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. He stated the pool pump house, which is considered a contributing historic resource, was run into by a vehicle and was considered not salvageable; therefore, a demolition permit was issued. Jones reported on the upcoming Friends of Preservation awards and stated nominations will close on March 2nd at midnight. Jones also reported on upcoming education and outreach opportunities, including a sold out program related to the work of Montezuma Fuller tomorrow at the Museum of Discovery, which will be repeated in May, and a Laurel Street and College Avenue survey and open house at Avogadro’s Number on February 26th. Jones also provided a reminder about the Historic Preservation newsletter. 3. 509 REMINGTON STREET (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: barn that contributes to the City Landmark at 509 Remington St., the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn. The proposal includes relocation of the barn, some exterior alterations, and a garage addition. The applicant has waived Conceptual Landmark Design Review and is seeking a Certificate of DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Taylor Meyer, VFLA (Applicant); Kevin Buffington (Owner) Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner STAFF PRESENTATION Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, provided location information and showed photos of the property and historic buildings on site. She noted the Commission will be providing a final design review for the proposed addition to and rehabilitation of the historic barn on the site as the conceptual design review has been waived. Jones provided some historical information about the property, which was designated as a City Landmark in 1997 and is on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Laurel School Historic District. She commented on the architectural significance of the site and its association with prominent community figures. Jones discussed the proposal to relocate the barn, which was determined to be feasible by a structural engineer. Additionally, the barn is proposed to be rehabilitated to convert it into habitable space and an addition would be added for a garage. Jones provided additional details regarding the proposed rehabilitation, materials, and proposed window and door replacements and alterations. Jones stated staff finds the project to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) standards for rehabilitation. She noted no new exterior openings are proposed, thereby minimizing the loss of historic material. The addition that is proposed to be removed for the garage is not known to have historic significance in its own right. Jones showed images of the house on the site and stated the distance between the house and the existing location of the barn is approximately 44 feet, and the distance between the house and the proposed location of the barn is approximately 37 feet to the historic part of the barn and 33 feet to the proposed addition. Jones stated staff recommends approval and issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for this work. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Taylor Meyer, VFLA, discussed the desire of the property owners to utilize the barn structure in a more functional manner and to prevent it from deteriorating over time. He noted the proposal would include habitable space, but would not be a living unit. Meyer discussed the reasons for relocating the barn and noted the alley improvement project to the west of the property will be underway shortly, and relocating the barn prior to that project would be advantageous. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Vice Chair Gibson concurred with the staff assessment that the proposed project meets the SOI standards and supported issuing a certificate of appropriateness. Commissioner Gaines concurred and commended the design. Commissioner Carlock commended the effort that went into mirroring the barn doors and windows to the existing structure. Commissioner Carlock made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hull, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed work on the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington Street because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 4. 509 REMINGTON ST. (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) AND 515 REMINGTON ST. (FRED W. STOVER HOUSE, GARAGE, AND SHARED BARN) LANDMARK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS DESCRIPTION: include both Chestnut (the alley north of E. Mountain Ave between Chestnut and Jefferson), and East Mulberry (the alley east of S. College Ave between E. Mulberry St and E. Myrtle St.). Both projects include LID treatments, public art, improvement/concentration of trash & utility infrastructure, etc. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Kevin and Dawn Buffington (owners of 509 and 515 Remington St.) Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner STAFF PRESENTATION Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, provided location information and showed photos of the properties. She noted the barn straddles the property between the two parcels: 509 and 515 Remington Street. Jones outlined the role of the Commission related to landmark ordinance amendments and noted City Council will be the final decision maker. Jones discussed the historic designation of 515 Remington Street, both architecturally and for its historical association. She outlined the request for landmark ordinance amendments, one of which is an update to the landmark boundaries and legal descriptions to reflect an already completed lot line adjustment that has been recorded with Larimer County and reviewed by City Zoning staff. The second amendment request deals with the relocation of the barn to update the name and text of the 515 Remington Street landmark to strike references to the shared barn to more accurately reflect the location of the barn to being entirely within the 509 Remington parcel, as was just approved with the Commission’s previous action. Jones stated staff recommends leaving the reference to the shared barn in the 509 Remington Street ordinance as a reminder of the historical association. Jones stated staff recommends adoption of a written resolution recommending that City Council approve the landmark ordinance amendments as proposed. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Taylor Meyer, VFLA, stated he was available for questions. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 Commissioner Gaines made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hull, that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution recommending that City Council adopt ordinances to amend the designations of the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington Street, and the Frank W. Stover House Garage and Shared Barn at 515 Remington Street, specifically to strike the phrase ‘shared barn’ from the 515 Remington Street landmark ordinance, update the boundary and legal description on the 509 Remington Street landmark ordinance from north 45 feet of lot 6, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 509 Remington Street, to north 45 feet of lot 6 and the south 5 feet of the west 39 feet of lot 6, and the north 8 feet of the west 39 feet of lot 5, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 509 Remington Street, update the boundary and legal description on the 515 Remington Street landmark ordinance from lot 5 and the south 5 feet of lot 6, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 515 Remington Street, to lot 5 and the south 5 feet of lot 6, except the north 8 feet of the west 39 feet of lot 5, and except the south 5 feet of the west 39 feet lot 6, block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 515 Remington Street. Further, that the Commission finds that the proposed amendments are supported by the analysis of provided in the staff report, the 1997 landmark nominations, and the presented evidence at this meeting that such modifications would not diminish the historic significance or historic integrity of the properties, and finds also that the amended designations would allow the preservation of the properties to remain consistent with the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: new two-story building at the corner of Chestnut and Mountain Avenues, directly abutting the Armory building, an individual City Landmark located outside of the Old Town Historic District boundary. The project includes minor modifications to the west wall of the Armory to provide access between the two buildings. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Mountain 300, LLC, represented by Chris Aronson (design, VFLA) 262 E. Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this item is a recommendation on a development review at 300 East Mountain Avenue that is adjacent to a historic building. He noted the role of the Commission is to provide a formal recommendation via motion to the decision maker, which is the Community Development Director in this case. Bertolini provided renderings of the proposed project: a two-story mixed office and commercial building which is approximately 31 feet tall. He noted there is some functional relationship proposed between this building and the existing historic Armory building. Bertolini stated the applicant completed a historic survey in 2019 of the one-story structure that was formerly on the site and he provided a summary of the building’s history. Bertolini noted there was historic significance found in the historic survey; however, the former building was considered not eligible for historic designation largely due to building modifications over time which eliminated the historic integrity of the site’s ability to tell the story of its former use as a vehicle service garage. Bertolini discussed the community and architectural significance of the abutting historic Armory building, which is the anchor point for the design compatibility discussion. He noted the proposal includes minor modifications to the west wall of the Armory to prove access between the two buildings. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 Bertolini provided renderings of the proposed building and noted all seven of the compatibility requirements in the Code must be met. He outlined those requirements and associated staff findings: width and massing similarity, which staff found to be mostly met, step backs for buildings taller than the historic resource, which is not applicable in this case as the proposed building height will be the same, the use of durable and authentic materials, which is a duplicate requirement to one of the Downtown zone district, which staff found is not clearly met as one of the proposed exterior materials is a high-pressure laminate, compatibility between new construction and historic buildings based on dominant materials, which staff found is not clearly met given some of the proposed materials, windows and fenestration compatibility, which staff found to be exceeded, matching some degree of horizontal or vertical alignment, which staff found to comply roughly, and visibility, which staff found to be met particularly from the Mountain Avenue elevation. In terms of Commission questions from the work session, Bertolini stated ‘authentic’ typically involves referencing or using materials that are part of the historic vernacular within the downtown area. In terms of why the ghost sign on the west elevation of the Armory building was not considered to be a character-defining feature that needed to be preserved, Bertolini stated the sign relates to the Paramount Laundry business that did exist in the building for a long period of time, but was not recognized with the National Register nomination. Bertolini stated the proposed project was considered new construction rather than an addition to a historic structure given the applicability of various standards, the building’s presence outside of the landmark boundary, which is the west wall of the Armory, and the parcel line that exists between the buildings. Bertolini stated the Commission requested a discussion of how staff has interpreted the seventh compatibility requirement regarding visibility of historic features in the past. He stated this is a unique situation in that it is part of the densely populated downtown area where abutting construction is common. He noted examples of those situations were provided in the Commission’s packet. Bertolini outlined the Commission’s requests from the applicant for clarity on the expected long- term durability of the high-pressure laminate material, information regarding how the applicant is framing ‘primary’ materials, and clarification and additional detail about the joint between the two buildings on the Mountain Avenue side. He provided some suggested discussion questions for the Commission and summarized some input received from members of the public. COMMISSION QUESTIONS Commissioner Carlock expressed concern about the review of the project as a stand-alone building rather than as an addition given the entry points between the two buildings. She asked if the first floor of the new building will serve a function for the Armory or be leased out to a different commercial tenant. Bertolini replied he would let the applicant answer that question. Commissioner Carlock asked if there are other examples of the landmark lot line being the deciding factor for review as an addition versus a stand-alone new construction building. Bertolini replied he cannot think of an exact example of functionally related buildings across parcel lines being classified as new construction. Commissioner Carlock stated reviewing the project as an addition would involve the question of subordination and other items which could make this project not viable as proposed. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Chris Aronson, VFLA, provided some renderings of the project to help examine scale and context. He outlined the goal of the project to draw pedestrians further east on Mountain and showed photos of the existing site and Armory building. He commented on the symmetry of the Armory building and the matching design of the new building. In terms of materiality, Aronson stated the desire was to have brick be the primary material creating contrast with the Armory in order to highlight it. Aronson commented on the rounded section of the proposed building at the corner and noted that since the building is within the storefront area of downtown, there must be a minimum of 60% glazing on the ground floor. He noted the primary entrance to the building is on the Chestnut side of the building and showed some renderings of the proposed building versus other nearby buildings to show scale and the compact nature of the building. Aronson stated the building’s uses will include support space for the Armory on the first floor against the west wall of the Armory, including a ticket office, bar extension, and green room, though most of the first floor will be used for a new unidentified tenant. Aronson stated two of the west wall penetrations will be new, one in the basement and one on the first floor, and three are existing. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 Aronson discussed the proposed exterior materials and exterior light fixtures. He stated the high- pressure laminate is a very durable, high-cost product and noted it is in use on the City’s Lincoln Center building. He commented on the seven compatibility requirements and the ways in which the project meets those requirements. Additionally, he showed images of other downtown buildings that used panelized products and noted there is about 40% more brick on the façade than the panel material. He provided additional details regarding the Trespa panel material and showed some photos of buildings across the country that have used the material. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Commissioner Carlock requested clarification regarding the use of the second floor and asked if the rounded corner space of the first floor is the space to be occupied by the commercial tenant. Aronson replied in the affirmative to the second question and stated the basement will be storage for the Armory and the potential tenant and the second floor could be a separate tenant, or possibly the same as the first floor tenant, and the second floor will not be used for the Armory. Commissioner Carlock asked why there is still an opening on the second floor. Aronson replied the opening already exists. Commissioner Carlock asked if there was any thought given to expanding into the second floor for entertainment space or a larger bar. Aronson replied the second floor of the existing Armory is primarily administrative and there is no logical way to get guests between the existing balcony area and the second floor of the new building. Commissioner Hull asked if the show time screens on the new building will be used for the Armory. Aronson replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Woodlee asked how the Trespa panels will be affixed to the building. Aronson provided a sample to the Commission and stated there will be a concealed fastener that requires thicker panels. Commissioner Woodlee asked if the distance that the front façade goes above the roof will terminate on a substructure. Aronson replied there will be another Trespa panel for top of parapet. Commissioner Conway asked about the significance of the use of the building in the Commission’s determination. Bertolini replied it can be a factor, but does not change the legal pathway in terms of the need for the Commission to make a recommendation; use is not the determining factor. Vice Chair Gibson asked if the material percentages presented are for the entire building or just the Mountain Avenue elevation. Aronson replied they are just for Mountain Avenue. Commissioner Edwards asked about the difference in evaluation if the project were to be classified as an addition. Bertolini replied classifying it as an addition would change the set of standards that would be applied to the project. As a stand-alone new construction project, the seven compatibility standards must be met, and they are influenced by the National Parks Service rehabilitation standards. If the project were to be analyzed as an addition, the Secretary of Interior standards nine and ten for rehabilitation would apply and the addition would need to be compatible, distinguishable from the historic building, subordinate to the historic building, and reversible. Bertolini stated the Land Use Code follows that logic, though the standards are not a one-to-one comparison. Chair Rose stated this process normally involves a conceptual design review and final design review and asked why this project did not involve the conceptual phase. Bertolini replied the Land Use Code does not require a conceptual review in front of the Commission, though it is optional, and staff did not make a point to recommend that in this case based on advanced looks at the plans. Members of the Commission examined samples of the materials planned to be used for the building’s exterior. Commissioner Conway stated there are incentives for the building owner to utilize a durable, long- lasting product. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 Commissioner Gaines stated that because the landmark designation is specific to the Armory property and does not extend beyond the wall, there is no framework or grounds for this project to be considered an addition. Bertolini replied the Commission does have the option of reviewing the project as an addition; however, the Commission’s authority in terms of approving projects is limited to the landmark boundary. He noted staff’s recommendation is to consider the project to be new construction and review it under the Land Use Code; however, the Commission could opt to review it as an addition and recommend that staff ensure the design is compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and reversible per the Secretary of the Interior standards. Commissioner Gaines stated the building is functioning, in large part, as an addition to the Armory and it is not as independent and severable as many neighboring buildings across party walls are. He stated that many of the requirements for a successful design are covered within the Land Use Code standards; however, the consideration missing from the Land Use Code standards is the question of subordination. He stated he believes the Commission could have a constructive conversation by walking through the Land Use Code standards. Commissioner Carlock commended the building’s design overall, particularly the fenestration and lines to ensure the building fits in with and yet is distinct from the Armory. However, she stated the building clearly does not meet the SOI standards if it is considered an addition. Vice Chair Gibson echoed the concerns and noted much of the building will be used for the Armory. However, in looking at property lines and historic landmark lines, there is no language in the Land Use Code that can definitively point to the building not being new construction. She stated her main concern was the materials; however, there are statistics to show the panel material does not take up as much of the façade as it initially appears. She stated the project seems to meet the applicable Land Use Code standards. Commissioner Gaines disagreed and stated there are major opportunities for improvement. He stated the design falls short of the Land Use Code requirements in almost every category. Chair Rose suggested the Commission discuss each of the seven compatibility criteria individually. Commissioner Edwards asked if the Commission could agree on new construction versus an addition. Stephanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission could conduct a ‘straw poll’ on the issue, though it would not be binding. Commissioners Carlock and Edwards viewed the building as an addition. Commissioners Hull, Conway, Gaines, Gibson, and Woodlee viewed the building as being new construction. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Width/Massing/Articulation Commissioner Carlock stated she does not believe the building meets these criteria. Commissioner Gaines concurred and stated the building has a complicated façade that is split into several irregular pieces without any hierarchy or clear unifying organization. Commissioner Woodlee questioned whether eliminating the wings of the building could help with the visual massing. Commissioner Gaines stated the building’s design feels like a mini Armory that is very simplified but the design does not meet the standard by trying to force in the wing motif. He also commented on the joint between the buildings and stated the single most important thing that could be done to honor this standard would be to have an intentional piece of relief that separates the two buildings. Chair Rose concurred the design looks like three separate buildings and agreed there should be a separation in the design between the Armory and the new building. Commissioner Gaines stated he does not believe the choices in the massing options are doing the job of respecting the Armory. Commissioner Conway suggested the building does meet the width standard and stated the color change from the Armory building distinguishes the new building. Vice Chair Gibson stated it seems the width standard is met. Commissioner Conway stated he does not necessarily agree with the articulation requirement; however, this building meets the standard. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 Step Backs Commissioner Gaines noted the standard calls for step backs to be located at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources. He stated this façade shows the importance of the transition happening at the same height. He also stated the transition between the brick and paneling seems stark and the new façade creates a mis-proportioned section of brick above the windows which has an awkward relationship to the proportions of the Armory. He stated the choice to keep the new building to two stories does not ameliorate the building’s design. Commissioner Carlock stated she was initially concerned about the massing; however, the new building is visually two separate buildings. She commended the design overall. Vice Chair Gibson stated this standard is met given the buildings are the same height; therefore, a step back is not required. Authentic/Durable/High-Quality Materials Commissioner Carlock stated the standard is met. Vice Chair Gibson stated it is difficult to assess new materials; however, the sample seemed durable. Commissioner Woodlee noted this Code section was written before many materials were even viable options. He noted wood is a material on the list and Trespa has stated the panel material is 70% wood. He stated he believes this requirement is met. Commissioner Gaines stated ‘authentic’ is somewhat of a loaded term, but noted the goal is to avoid simulated materials. He expressed concern that the panel material falls into a simulated material category; therefore, the intent of this standard is not met. Referencing Predominant Material(s) in Type/Scale/Color/3-Dimensionality/Pattern (at least 2) Commissioner Carlock stated the standard is met. Commissioner Conway concurred. Windows – Pattern/Proportion/Solid-to-Void Pattern (at least 1) Chair Rose stated the portion that is adjacent to the Armory makes reasonable references to window fenestration, though it departs from that further west on the elevation. Commissioner Gaines stated this standard is met and stated the building becoming more transparent further west is beneficial. Chair Rose concurred. Horizontal/Vertical Reference Points Vice Chair Gibson stated the reference lines are distinctly present. Commissioner Gaines stated the parapet with the laminate material seems problematic. He stated the intent to pull the Armory’s dentils across does a disservice to the integrity of the Armory façade. He stated designers have a need to check boxes in some of these situations; however, there are cases where that can detract from what is trying to be protected. Visibility Vice Chair Gibson stated the ghost sign for the laundry is not part of the historic integrity of the property; however, there are few ghost signs left. Commissioner Carlock stated this standard is met and stated the ghost sign is not necessarily the most important one in town. Vice Chair Gibson concurred the standard is met and stated the sign is not from the period of significance. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Commissioner Conway made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Woodlee, that that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the two- story commercial/office building at 300 East Mountain Avenue, finding that the proposal complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 5.8.1(F)(1)(c), Table 1., specifically that it meets the applicable Standards with the exception of the third standard for authentic/durable/high-quality materials. Further, that the Commission advises staff to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the modifications to the Armory to facilitate connection to the new building, finding that the work meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Commissioner Hull concurred with the motion stating the materials are not as authentic as they could be. Commissioner Gaines questioned whether it is appropriate to give a recommendation of approval if a standard is not met that would have a significant impact on the design. Bertolini replied the Commission has issued conditional approvals in the past and suggested that if the Commission feels the recommendation is properly articulated with a note that one of the standards is not met and the decision maker should take that into account and perhaps require a change before approval, staff could include that in a memorandum to the decision maker. He requested the Commission articulate what part of the standard is not met to provide guidance to the decision maker regarding what they should consider as an acceptable change. Commissioner Gaines stated there is significant opportunity to improve on the design and the balance between the two buildings. He stated the applicable Land Use Code standards articulate goals of the new construction being compatible while protecting and complementing the historic character of historic resources, which he stated this design does not accomplish. He stated the materials are a large part of that; however, there are also other items that could improve upon the way the building protects and compliments the Armory, including articulating the joint between the two buildings. He suggested the applicant focus more on designing a nice, new building rather than on meeting the letter of the standards. He stated the Chestnut façade is in some ways more elegant and the Mountain Avenue façade could be strengthened by incorporating more of those aspects. He asked how much leeway the applicant has to change the design based on the Commission’s recommendation as he would not just want the laminate material to be replaced as the only change. Bertolini stated the decision maker is very much awaiting feedback from the Commission on the design in terms of whether the Code is met. He noted the design conversation specifically is a matter of whether the Downtown zone district standards and Land Use Code standards are met, the applicant does have leeway to alter their designs. He noted the project has only gone through one round of review with the full City staff; therefore, there would be some opportunities to modify elevations. Commissioner Carlock asked if the requirement is that all seven of the standards are met. Bertolini replied that the expectation is that all standards are met given the abutting historic resource. Chair Rose suggested there may be sufficient background captured in the minutes that could clarify why the material element is considered as not meeting the Code language. Bertolini noted there was not consensus on whether the authentic/durable/high-quality material Code section was met. He stated it would be helpful for staff to have a bit more clarity on what exactly is not met and some potential pathways forward. Vice Chair Gibson suggested adding language into the motion that the concern is based on concerns regarding the authenticity of materials. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaines, to amend the motion to add the language ‘based on concerns of authenticity of materials’ to the third standard. Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: Carlock. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on the amended motion was as follows: Yeas: Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: Carlock. THE MOTION CARRIED. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 17 • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Jim Rose, Chair DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING FEBRUARY 6 TO APRIL 2) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager INFORMATION Staff are 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. 19 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 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 Program Title Description Building History: The Life and Work of Montezuma Fuller Co-produced with Fort Collins Museum of Discovery/Local History Archive and Historic Larimer County (Ron Sladek) and work of architect Montezuma Fuller, including showcase of archive materials, pre/post program activities, and a presentation including biographical info, an armchair tour, and historic Approx. 70 Feb. 20, 2025 Laurel and College Survey Open House Area property owners, tenants, developers, general public the results of the Laurel and College survey project and gather info/stories about the Approx. 25 Feb. 26, 2025 University of Wyoming Guest Lecture Brigida Blasi, University of Wyoming Culture in the Public Sector class describing job duties and education required to work in municipal Historic Approx. 15 March 5, 2025 Window Restoration Workshop Deep Roots Craftsmen, City of Loveland Planner Marian Duran, staff from Deep Roots Craftsmen demonstrated and led participants in techniques to repair and weatherize wood Approx. 12 March 8, 2025 Civil Rights Walking Tour Compass Community Collaborative School sites in Old Town area with class of high school 14 March 12, 2025 Preservation 101 Poudre Libraries 46 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 255 Linden St. (Stover Building, south) Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Feb. 20, 2025 Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 416 Peterson St. (416 Peterson St.) shingle). Contributing building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Feb. 21, 2025 220 E. Myrtle St. (220 E. Myrtle St.) shingle). Contributing building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Feb. 25, 2025 638 Whedbee St. (E.M. Dodd/Frank Ghent Property) City Landmark and contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Feb. 28, 2025 300 Peterson St. (Williamson/Spangler Residence) building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Approved March 11, 2025 419 Whedbee St. (L. Achzig House II) to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved March 11, 2025 611 Mathews (Morrish Residence) Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved March 11, 2025 108 N. Meldrum St. (Avery Carriage House) Landmark and State Register/National Register property. Reviewed by staff Approved March 12, 2025 300 Peterson St. (Williamson/Spangler Residence) building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Approved March 11, 2025 521 Peterson St. (F.W. Lange Residence) Contributing building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by Approved March 21, 2025 (J.M. Morrison House & photo. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff Approved March 27, 2025 255 Linden St. (Stover Building, south) Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Approved March 27, 2025 (C.E. Honstein House/Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center and the Honstein/Johnson Carriage House, Pool, In-kind reroofing (asphalt shingles). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved March 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 426 Peterson St. (Rowe/Peasley/Kreutzer Residence) Contributing building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by Approved March 28, 2025 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 5.8.1 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 2839 S. College Ave Demo existing building for new Historic survey needed (underway) 2/13/2025 2000 Stover St. Minor Amendment: Landscape overhaul for xeriscape, street shade trees, etc. some columnar trees to avoid blocking visibility of the main sanctuary from Stover Street sidewalk. Working w/ applicant to 3/17/2025 232 E Vine Dr Office building infill on City Landmark site; staff guidance provided; Conceptual Landmark Design Review before HPC (under Chapter 14 of Guidance; will be referred to HPC for decision 3/20/2025 531 S. College Ave Minor Amendment: Addition of an elevator tower; complication of Floodplain Register of Historic Properties; Tower seems to meet SOI Standards. 3/28/2025 Historic Property Survey Results City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for various reasons, usually in advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized 2000 N. Giddings Rd (east) Not Eligible Yes 2/14/2025 420 W. Willox Ln Not Eligible Yes 2/28/2025 430 W. Willox Ln Eligible Yes 3/11/2025 Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 5 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 Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment 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 43 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 17 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 23 Headline Copy Goes Here Feb. 19, 2025 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 718 W. Mountain Ave. – J.M. Morrison House & Carriage House • Front porch project based on historic photo documentation • J.M. Morrison, a local carpenter and contractor, built this home in 1904 with a prominent front porch • That porch was removed in 1950 and replaced with a small portico-style entryway • Design Assistance Program funding leveraged for a concept sketch by architect Per Hogestad based on the 1948 Tax Assessor photo • Morrison design modified slightly to accommodate a healthy, mature tree on site (upper left – 1968 Tax Assessor photo; upper right – Recent photo; lower left – 1948 Tax Assessor Photo; lower right – plan drawing) 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 Headline Copy Goes HereDevelopment Review Highlight – 531 S College, First Presbyterian 3 Colorado Register of Historic Properties (2024) Criterion C, Architecture, 1959-1988 (Modern Movement; William Robb, Harold Wagoner) 1959: Education Wing (Robb) 1976: Sanctuary (Wagoner, “Colorado Modern”) 1988: Office and Fellowship Hall (Boer, Johnson, Roberts of Greeley) Minor Amendment – elevator tower Headline Copy Goes Here 4 Education/Outreach Highlight Civil Rights Walking Tour – March 12, 2025 • Compass Community Collaborative School (high school class) • Sites related to various civil rights topics in the Old Town area, including places featured in the recent Civil Rights Historic Context 3 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 Headline Copy Goes Here 5 Upcoming Education/Outreach Opportunities May is Historic Preservation and Archaeology Month! May 4, 2025 – Friend of Preservation Awards, Center for Creativity, 4-6pm May 16, 2025 – FCMoD Member Night - After Hours, 5-8pm May 29, 2025 – Building History: The Life and Work of Montezuma Fuller, FCMoD Digital Dome, 6:30-8:30pm Headline Copy Goes HereJoin Our Newsletter! 6 • 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! 5 6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 712 SCENIC DR. STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager INFORMATION Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. Community members receive notice about that demolition through a posted sign on the property, the City’s weekly newsletter “This Week in Development Review” and monthly “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter, and on the City website at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for approval to demolish a single-unit dwelling through either a demolition permit or written request from the owner accompanied by current photos of the property proposed for demolition and confirmation that the proposed new construction would be another single-unit residence. The property is included in the next available discussion agenda at a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark. The code allows for three or more residents of the City, the Historic Preservation Commission (by motion), or any City Councilmember (by written request) to initiate the process for landmark designation. 712 Scenic Dr. Historical Background The dwelling at 712 Scenic Dr. was built in 1975, according to Tax Assessor records. This property was located outside of Fort Collins city limits until it was annexed in 2006 as part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation Phase 3. For this reason, City building permit records and other documentation is limited. The first known residents of this property were John and June Havekost. John worked for Kodak as a systems analyst or administrator, then he and his wife, June, had a horse breeding business that became known as Havekost Quarter Horses. They lived at the property until they sold it in 1990 to Thomas and Jennifer Shoemaker. The Shoemakers sold the property in 2024 to the current owner, Brenda Iwamura. There is no historical survey record available for this property. There are also no known historic photographs of this property. Construction History – Building Permit Records DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 8/25/2014 B1406234 Shoemaker Family Revocable Trust Reroofing 8/8/2017 B1704037 Shoemaker Family replace with new in same size, Packet Pg. 27 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 9/14/2018 B1807962 Shoemaker Family Revocable Trust Reroofing Residents to 1990 YEAR NAME(S)NOTES 1976 John W. and June Havekost John - Systems analyst Kodak 1977 same same 1978 same Employers not listed in edition 1979 same No emp listed 1981 same John - Administrator Kodak; June – Horse breeder 1982 same same 1983 same same 1984 John Havekost Horse breeder Havekost Quarter Horses; June not listed 1986 same same 1987 same same 1988 same; Nicole Havekost John - same; Nicole - student 1989 John and June Havekost; same John - same; Nicole - same; June listed again, no emp listed 1990 same John - same; Nicole - same; property sold via warranty deed from June Havekost to Thomas and Jennifer Shoemaker 7/20/1990 (Reception #19900031537) and then stayed in Shoemaker family until sold to current owner, Brenda Iwamura 6/17/2024 via warranty deed (Reception ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Photos 2. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 East Elevation Packet Pg. 29 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 South and East Elevations Packet Pg. 30 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 North and East Elevations Packet Pg. 31 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 North and West Elevations, Barn, and Yard Packet Pg. 32 Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 712 Scenic Dr. 4-16-2025 Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Division Manager 2What is Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification? Required for proposed demolitions of single-unit residences over 50 years old and not designated as a City Landmark or otherwise subject to historic preservation review through a development review process under LUC Sec. 5.8.1. Purpose: • Informs neighbors of a potential change coming to their neighborhood • Provides an opportunity to identify potentially important historic, architectural, or cultural resources • Landmark designation procedures can be initiated under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III by: the owner(s) of record, any City Councilmember by written request, three residents together by petition and submission of a complete nomination form, and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) by motion Includes: • Posting of yellow “Notice of Demolition” sign at property • Posting on Historic Preservation website (fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review) • Posting in City newsletters (This Week In Development Review and Historic Preservation Matters) • Direct notification to the Historic Preservation Commission Demolition notification is considered complete following the HPC meeting at which the notification item appears. Provided that no eligible parties have initiated a Landmark designation procedure, and all other permit review has been completed, demolition permits could be issued as soon as the day following the HPC meeting. 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 33 3Role of the HPC Tonight, Commission may: • Acknowledge the demolition notification, but take no further action; or • Make a motion to initiate a Landmark designation procedure against the wishes of the property owner 4Location – 712 Scenic Dr. Aerial Map 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 34 5Property Background • Construction Date of 2-story frame house: 1975 • Barn on property built 1979 • John and June Havekost lived at 712 Scenic Dr. for about 15 years, working for about a decade as horse breeders. • Sold to Thomas and Jennifer Shoemaker in 1990, then to current owner in 2024. Known Construction History: DESCRIPTIONNAMEPERMIT #DATE Reroofing Shoemaker Family Revocable TrustB14062348/25/2014 Deconstruct existing rear deck and replace with new in same size, footprint, reusing footers Shoemaker Family Revocable TrustB17040378/8/2017 Reroofing Shoemaker Family Revocable TrustB18079629/14/2018 6Current Photos East Elevation (façade) South and East Elevations 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 35 7Current Photos North and West Elevations, Barn, and Yard North Elevation 8Role of the HPC Tonight, Commission may: • Acknowledge the demolition notification, but take no further action; or • Make a motion to initiate a Landmark designation procedure against the wishes of the property owner 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 36 Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 712 Scenic Dr. 4-16-2025 Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Division Manager 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 37 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 125 W. TRILBY RD. STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager INFORMATION Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. Community members receive notice about that demolition through a posted sign on the property, the City’s weekly newsletter “This Week in Development Review” and monthly “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter, and on the City website at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for approval to demolish a single-unit dwelling through either a demolition permit or written request from the owner accompanied by current photos of the property proposed for demolition and confirmation that the proposed new construction would be another single-unit residence. The property is included in the next available discussion agenda at a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark. The code allows for three or more residents of the City, the Historic Preservation Commission (by motion), or any City Councilmember (by written request) to initiate the process for landmark designation. 125 W. Trilby Rd. Historical Background The dwelling at 125 W. Trilby Rd. was built in 1963, according to Tax Assessor records. This property was located outside of Fort Collins city limits until it was annexed in 2006 as part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation Phase 1. For this reason, City building permit records and other documentation is limited. City Directories also do not list this property until 1975. The first known residents of this property were George O. and Genevieve L. Moedy. George worked in the 1970s for the shop at Seder Plastics, then briefly for HP, then for Woodward Governor as a machine operator in the 1980s before retiring. Genevieve worked for Woodward Governor until she and her husband retired in 1984. They lived at 125 W. Trilby Rd. until 1988, when Beth Bean, and Dell Bean, who worked at McDonald Farms, moved in. There is no historical survey record available for this property. There are also no known historic photographs of this property. Construction History – Exterior Building Permit Records DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 7/22/2009 B0904190 Patton Weller Development Co Packet Pg. 38 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 Residents to 1990 YEAR NAME(S)NOTES 1963-1971 Trilby Rd. not listed 1972-1973 125 Trilby not listed 1975 George O. and Genevieve L. Moedy George - Shop foreman Seder Plastics; Genevieve - employee at Woodward Governor 1976-1979 same George - Tool and die maker Seder Plastics; Genevieve - same 1980 same George - emp HP; Genevieve - same 1981-1983 same George - Machine operator Woodward Governor; Genevieve - same 1984-1988 same George and Genevieve - retired 1989-1990 Beth and Dell Bean Beth - No emp listed; Dell - emp McDonald Farms ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Photos 2. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 39 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 43 Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 125 W. Trilby Rd. 4-16-2025 Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Division Manager 2What is Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification? Required for proposed demolitions of single-unit residences over 50 years old and not designated as a City Landmark or otherwise subject to historic preservation review through a development review process under LUC Sec. 5.8.1. Purpose: • Informs neighbors of a potential change coming to their neighborhood • Provides an opportunity to identify potentially important historic, architectural, or cultural resources • Landmark designation procedures can be initiated under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III by: the owner(s) of record, any City Councilmember by written request, three residents together by petition and submission of a complete nomination form, and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) by motion Includes: • Posting of yellow “Notice of Demolition” sign at property • Posting on Historic Preservation website (fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review) • Posting in City newsletters (This Week In Development Review and Historic Preservation Matters) • Direct notification to the Historic Preservation Commission Demolition notification is considered complete following the HPC meeting at which the notification item appears. Provided that no eligible parties have initiated a Landmark designation procedure, and all other permit review has been completed, demolition permits could be issued as soon as the day following the HPC meeting. 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 44 3Role of the HPC Tonight, Commission may: • Acknowledge the demolition notification, but take no further action; or • Make a motion to initiate a Landmark designation procedure against the wishes of the property owner 4Location – 125 W. Trilby Rd. Aerial Map 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 45 5Property Background • Single story, frame house constructed c. 1963 • Shed/office building also on parcel, built c. 1990 • Longest known residents to 1990: George and Genevieve Moedy, 13 years per City Directories. • George worked in shops for Seder Plastics, HP, and Woodward Governor, and Genevieve also worked for Woodward Governor. Known Exterior Building Permit History: DESCRIPTIONNAMEPERMIT #DATE Reroofing Patton Weller Development Co LLCB09041907/22/2009 6Current Photos North Elevation (façade) East Elevation 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 46 7Current Photos South (rear) Elevation West Elevation 8Role of the HPC Tonight, Commission may: • Acknowledge the demolition notification, but take no further action; or • Make a motion to initiate a Landmark designation procedure against the wishes of the property owner 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 47 Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 125 W. Trilby Rd. 4-16-2025 Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Division Manager 9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 48 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 616 W. OLIVE ST. STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager INFORMATION Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. Community members receive notice about that demolition through a posted sign on the property, the City’s weekly newsletter “This Week in Development Review” and monthly “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter, and on the City website at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for approval to demolish a single-unit dwelling through either a demolition permit or written request from the owner accompanied by current photos of the property proposed for demolition and confirmation that the proposed new construction would be another single-unit residence. The property is included in the next available discussion agenda at a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark. The code allows for three or more residents of the City, the Historic Preservation Commission (by motion), or any City Councilmember (by written request) to initiate the process for landmark designation. 616 W. Olive St. Condition Information This residential building is in poor condition, with missing siding, wall material, and interior partitions, serious foundation damage, known asbestos, and other issues. A related stop work order was issued by a City of Fort Collins Building Inspector 2/23/2024, and a notice of violation was issued 5/14/2024. The applicant, Megan Sebren, has provided the following statement to provide some context and an attachment of photographs demonstrating the existing conditions of the house: “Here are some images showing how structurally unsound the house is due to unsafe demolition. The city discovered the unauthorized demolition being done without a permit and without owner knowledge: the house was red tagged by the city in May 2024. Structural engineers have been out to the house and it is in danger of collapse. The owners wanted to salvage the house, but unfortunately trying to fix the extensive damage will be prohibitively expensive. Taking the house down will be the quickest way to eliminate the risk this structure poses to others.” Historical Background The Craftsman residence at 616 W. Olive St. in the Loomis Addition was built in 1923 for Charles B. Dickinson, according to historic building permit records. Dickinson was the proprietor of a tire and battery shop. The first known residents of this property were Arthur and Margaret Sheely. Arthur worked at the Hall Motor Company at the time. They also were the longest residents of this home up to 1975, living in this house for about seven Packet Pg. 49 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 years, from 1925-1931 according to existing City Directory records. While Arthur Sheely later became a prominent local car dealership owner and developed into an influential statewide Republican Party leader, the Sheelys’ occupation of this property predates those activities. Additionally, another residential property, the Arthur Sheely House constructed in 1955 at 1608 Sheely Drive, more appropriately preserves Sheely’s legacy, as it was their family home for twenty years during the height of Sheely’s local influence. Since 2000, 1608 Sheely Drive has been a designated Fort Collins Landmark within the neighborhood (now a historic district) named in honor of him. A reconnaissance-level survey was completed for this property in 2016 as part of the Loomis Addition survey project. The survey found the property eligible for Landmark designation for its Craftsman architecture and the historic integrity the property possessed at that time; that survey record is attached for reference. The demolition proposed includes the 1923 residence and 1961 garage with breezeway. Construction History – Exterior Building Permit Records DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION 3/10/1923 69 Chas. B. Dickinson 5 room frame bungalow 11/1/1927 1856 J.P. Larson Remodel front frame porch into sun room 10/5/1933 3549 Madge McCarty Reshingle dwelling 10/9/1961 5105 Beth Romer Build 2 car garage and breezeway. General repairs 11/22/2004 B0407130 Roy G. Quinlan Reroofing Residents to 1976 YEAR NAME(S)NOTES 1925-1930 Arthur C. and Margaret H. Sheely Arthur - Salesman at Hall Motor Co. 1931 same Arthur - sales manager Hall Motor Co. 1933 Fern L. Yard Teacher at junior high school 1936 Louise Scilley Stenographer with US Resettlement Administration 1938 Garnet D. and Velma N. Chipman Garnet - pharmacist with Stamper Drug Co. 1940 George and Hazel Goldsberry George - Salesman with Ford Motor 1948 Henry M. and Iva Haldeman; Iva Haldeman Iva - visitor - Larimer County Department of Public Welfare 1950-1952 Martin Clark and Elsie Coker Martin - Director of Larimer County Public Welfare Department 1954 same Martin - same; Elsie - substitute teacher 1956 William D. and Ruby C. Stegmeier William - Student; Ruby - Service system assistant MST&T 1957 James R. and Norma E. Lowell James - Station attendant Glitz Texaco 1959 same James - Markley Motors; Norma - Avon rep 1960 Gale E. and Beth J. Romer Gale - Lineman MST&T Co 1962 Beth J. Romer Widow Gale, no emp listed 1963 same Clerk Prospector Drug 1964 Himayet Naqvi No emp listed Packet Pg. 50 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 1966 Thomas B. and Carol L. McCurdy, Daniel A. Disalle, Michael Mariner, Larry Larry - student; Randy - student; Michael - student; Thomas - student; Carol - Operator MST&T; Daniel - 1948 Tax Assessor Photo Packet Pg. 51 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 1967 Tax Assessor Photo 1979 Tax Assessor Photo ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Photos and SUDDN Process Request 2. Condition Photos 3. 2016 Recon Survey 4. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 62 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Loomis Addition Survey Historical and Architectural Reconnaissance Form IDENTIFICATION 1.Current Property Name:QUINLAN, ROY G/KAREN G TRUST Historic Property Name UNKNOWN 2.Resource Classification: Building 3.Ownership:Private Owner(s) contact info:QUINLAN, ROY G/KAREN G TRUST 7376 S BANNOCK DR LITTLETON, CO 80120-4204 LOCATION 4.Street Address:616 W OLIVE ST 5.Municipality:Fort Collins, Colorado 6.County:Larimer 7.USGS Quad (7.5’):Fort Collins NAD 83 WGS84 8.Parcel Number:9711314003 9.Parcel Information:Lot(s): E 46 Ft of Lots 10, 11, 14 & 15 Block:269 Addition: Loomis 10.Acreage:Not required 11.PLSS information: Not required 12.Location Coordinates: Lat: 40.584674135999997 Long:-105.08713370700001 WGS 84 DESCRIPTION 13.Construction features (forms, materials) Property Type: Single Dwelling Stories: 1 Architectural Style/Type: Craftsman Foundation:Concrete Walls: Exterior walls are sheathed with horizontal wood clapboard siding with cornerboards and friezeboards. The attached garage and the small addition on Eligibility Evaluation (OAHP use only) Date _____________ Initials _______ ____ Determined Eligible – NR ____ Determined Eligible - SR ____ Needs Data ____ Eligible District – Contributing ____ Eligible District - Noncontributing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 69 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 the north side have horizontal wood drop siding with cornerboards. Wood shingles line gable ends on original portion of house. Windows: South façade has two large individual 1-over-1 double-hung windows. West side has three 1-over-1 double-hung windows. East side has two small awning windows, two 1-over-1 double-hung windows, and three casement windows on the small addition. Awning windows to the basement are located in the concrete foundation. All windows are made of wood and have wood trim and slipsills. Roof: Front-gabled roof is sheathed with composition roofing and has exposed rafter tails in the overhanging eaves. Gable ends have wood knee braces. What was originally the porch roof shares the east slope with the main gabled roof but the porch roof’s west slope is slightly lower than the main roof. The porch roof’s gable is clipped. The small rear addition and attached garage have their own gabled roof that is significantly lower than the main roof. The garage and addition are separated by a single-bay carport. The addition, carport, and garage all share one continuous roof. Chimney(s): A brick exterior chimney extends up the east side. A second brick chimney projects from the ridge of the main gable of roof. Porch(s) / Doors: A partial-width front porch with clapboard-sided knee walls and a single square wood pier is inset under the clipped gable roof. The porch was originally full- width and had its own gabled roof that projected from the south façade (see above). Much of the porch has since been enclosed and incorporated into interior living space. Front door is paneled wood with a rectangular light. The attached two-bay garage on the north side has two overhead wood doors with three lights each. 14.Landscape (important features of the immediate environment) Garden X Mature Plantings Designed Landscape Walls Parking Lot Driveway X Sidewalk Fence Seating 14a.# of ancillary buildings : 0 (form 1417b attached for each ancillary building) HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS (based on visual observations and/or review of secondary sources) 15. Historic function/use:Single Dwelling Current function/use:Single Dwelling 16. Date of Construction: 1923 Estimated X Actual Source: Building Records/Permits 17. Other Significant Dates: 18. Associated NR Areas of Significance Agriculture X Architecture Archaeology Art Commerce ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 70 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 Community Planning & Development Conservation Economics Education Engineering Entertainment/Rec. Ethnic Heritage Exploration/ Settlement Health/Medicine Industry Invention Landscape Architecture Law Literature Maritime History Military Performing Arts Philosophy Politics/Gov’t.Religion Science Social History Transportation Other 19.Associated Historic Context(s) (if known):Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015. 20.Retains Integrity of:X Location X Setting X Materials Design X Workmanship X Association X Feeling 21.Notes on integrity:The property retains good integrity in all seven aspects. Integrity of materials and workmanship are retained because the house has original wood clapboard siding and wood windows. Most windows are likely original, with the exception of the one large 1-over-1 double-hung window on the south façade that was added when the porch was enclosed. Although the porch enclosure occurred 50 years ago, it detracts from integrity of the house’s Craftsman design. The addition and attached garage at the rear are over 50 years old and do not impose on the overall design. The property retains integrity of association and feeling and is clearly recognizable as a 1920s Craftsman home with its wood siding and windows, wood shingles in gable ends, clipped gable porch roof, exposed rafter tails, and wood knee braces. 22.Sources: Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015; Fort Collins History Connection Website, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/; Larimer County Assessor Records ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 71 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 FIELD RECOMMENDATIONS: POTENTIAL ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION Note: eligibility recommendation based solely on architectural reconnaissance except as noted above. Full evaluations of historical significance require additional property-specific research beyond the scope of this form and typically require completion of the OAHP Historical / Architectural Properties: Intensive Level / Evaluation form (OAHP form # 1403). Individually Eligible - Local Landmark? X no needs data officially designated Individually Eligible - State Register? X no needs data Individually Eligible - National Register? X no needs data Contributes to a Potential National, State and/or Local Historic District? X no needs data RECORDING INFORMATION Recorded by: Luke Anderson Date: August 9, 2016 Affiliation/Organization: Humstone Consulting Phone Number: 970.420.5275 Report title: Loomis Addition Survey Report Project Sponsor: City of Fort Collins/Historic Preservation Division Photo Log: woliv616.01.la, woliv616.02.la, woliv616.03.la ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 72 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 SKETCH PLAN based on 2014 GIS data, field checked from public ROW ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 73 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 PHOTOGRAPHS 616 W Olive St., south façade and east side (Luke Anderson, August 2016) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 74 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 616 W Olive St., west side and south façade (Luke Anderson, August 2016) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 75 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 616 W Olive St., east and north sides showing rear addition, carport and garage (Luke Anderson, August 2016) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 76 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 USGS Fort Collins Quadrangle (NAD83; WGS84) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 77 OAHP Site #: 5LR.8333 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 78 Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 616 W. Olive St. 4-16-2025 Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Division Manager 2What is Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification? Required for proposed demolitions of single-unit residences over 50 years old and not designated as a City Landmark or otherwise subject to historic preservation review through a development review process under LUC Sec. 5.8.1. Purpose: • Informs neighbors of a potential change coming to their neighborhood • Provides an opportunity to identify potentially important historic, architectural, or cultural resources • Landmark designation procedures can be initiated under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III by: the owner(s) of record, any City Councilmember by written request, three residents together by petition and submission of a complete nomination form, and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) by motion Includes: • Posting of yellow “Notice of Demolition” sign at property • Posting on Historic Preservation website (fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review) • Posting in City newsletters (This Week In Development Review and Historic Preservation Matters) • Direct notification to the Historic Preservation Commission Demolition notification is considered complete following the HPC meeting at which the notification item appears. Provided that no eligible parties have initiated a Landmark designation procedure, and all other permit review has been completed, demolition permits could be issued as soon as the day following the HPC meeting. 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 79 3Role of the HPC Tonight, commissions may: • Acknowledge the demolition notification, but take no further action; or • Make a motion to initiate a Landmark designation procedure against the wishes of the property owner 4Location – 616 W. Olive St. Aerial Map1925 Sanborn Map 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 80 5Property Background • Construction Date: 1923 • Single story, frame house; garage with breezeway to house built 1961 • First and longest know residents to 1975: Arthur and Margaret Sheely (1925 – 1931, according to City Directory records). Arthur worked for Hall Motor Co. in sales at the time. Known Exterior Building Permit History: DESCRIPTIONNAMEPERMIT #DATE 5 room frame bungalowChas. B. Dickinson693/10/1923 Remodel front frame porch into sunroomJ.P. Larson185611/1/1927 Reshingle dwellingMadge McCarty354910/5/1933 Build 2 car garage and breezeway. General repairsBeth Romer510510/9/1961 ReroofingRoy G. QuinlanB040713011/22/2004 6Historic Photos 1948 Tax Assessor Photo 1967 Tax Assessor Photo 1979 Tax Assessor Photo 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 81 7Current Photos South Elevation (façade)West Elevation, South Side 8Current Photos West Elevation, North Side, View 1 West Elevation, North Side, View 2 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 82 9Current Photos East Elevation East Elevation, at Breezeway 10Current Photos East Elevation, Breezeway and Garage East Elevation, Garage 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 83 11Current Photos North Elevation, Garage 12Current Photos West Elevation, Garage West Elevation, Breezeway 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 84 13Role of the HPC Tonight, commissions may: • Acknowledge the demolition notification, but take no further action; or • Make a motion to initiate a Landmark designation procedure against the wishes of the property owner Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 616 W. Olive St. 4-16-2025 Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Division Manager 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 85 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME REPORT - LAUREL AND COLLEGE HISTORIC SURVEY STAFF Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist INFORMATION Laurel Street and College Avenue. This area was selected for survey as it includes a high concentration of older commercial buildings and a number of small businesses that may be subject to the City’s Land Use Code and historic survey requirements for adaptive reuse projects. In addition, the area is within the City’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and is expected to see more development pressure and infill in the coming decades. As such, the goals of this project are to remove the cost of a third-party survey for small businesses and to provide more accurate and up-to-date information to property owners along the corridor to help facilitate future development planning and real estate transfers. Each of the forty-eight (48) sites was intensively documented on a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory form which included locational data, site description, site history, and a field assessment of the property’s eligibility to be listed as Local Landmark by the City of Fort Collins and for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, properties were evaluated for their ability to contribute to a potential Landmark Historic District or potential National Register Historic District. Out of the documented sites, seventeen were found eligible to be listed as local landmarks under Significance Standards 1, 2, and 3 (Chapter 14, Section 22). City Staff assigned to this project will be presenting a short history of the area, highlighting historical themes and development patterns. Comments are invited from the Historic Preservation Commission as well as members of the community attending in-person and online. More information on this project will be available on the City of Fort Collins website at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/research-projects. The community may share that feedback with staff via email to preservation@fcgov.com. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Survey Report Packet Pg. 86 1 The City and the College Laurel Street and College Avenue Historic Survey Project Report City of Fort Collins 202 5 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 87 2 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Laurel and College – A Brief History ............................................................................................................................ 5 Highlighted Properties ................................................................................................................................................... 8 120 W. Laurel Street – Campus Jewelry .................................................................................................................... 9 122-124 W. Laurel Street – Chris Music ................................................................................................................. 10 203 W. Myrtle Street – East-West Cultural Center .................................................................................................. 11 634-640 S. College – College Avenue Strip Mall .................................................................................................... 12 635 S. Mason – John C. Davis Residence ............................................................................................................... 13 634 S. Mason – R. Q. Tenney Home ....................................................................................................................... 14 647-649 S. College – Campus Shop ........................................................................................................................ 15 Historic Themes ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Women’s History ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Laura Leete – 630 S. Mason ................................................................................................................................ 16 Elizabeth Fickett – 628 S. Mason ........................................................................................................................ 17 Maude Sheridan - 632 S. Mason .......................................................................................................................... 18 Charlotte Baker – 128 W. Laurel ......................................................................................................................... 19 Jessie Atterberry – 203 W. Myrtle and 609 S. Mason .......................................................................................... 20 Local Architects ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Joseph Moresi ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 William Robb ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 Virgil Magerfleisch .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Façade Evolutions ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 622 S. College...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 644-646 S. College .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 648-650 S. College .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 130 W. Laurel ...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 126 W. Laurel ...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Sororities and Fraternities ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Survey Information ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 Introduction ............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Project Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Research Design and Methods ................................................................................................................................. 30 Context ................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 34 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 Appendix A: Survey Log ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix B: Maps ................................................................................................................................................... 36 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 88 3 Appendix C: Resources for Property Owners .......................................................................................................... 36 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 89 4 Introduction Over the course of eight days in November 1874, two local builders constructed the first building on the Colorado Agricultural College campus. Located at the corner of Laurel Street and College Avenue, the so-called Claim Building kept the college from being relocated to another town in Colorado Territory by showing an effort of good faith to establish the college after four years of inaction.0F 1 The small building served as a tool shed, granary, dwelling unit, and chemical laboratory before it was torn down in 1890. Although the agricultural college, now Colorado State University, has grown to many times its original size in 1874, the area around the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection continues to function as a locus of student activity. Rallies and parades assembled along West Laurel; Bach or Rock, the local record shop at 126 W. Laurel, sold tickets for student performances; and both professors and undergraduates rented rooms in the area. Students in 1912 went so far as to claim ownership over parts of those streets - a snippet in the Rocky Mountain Collegian reminded freshmen: “The campus extends to the middle of Laurel street, also to the middle of College avenue. NO SMOKING ON THE CAMPUS”.1F 2 The closely intertwined histories of the university and this area of the city reflect the needs, desires, and trends of students, faculty, and campus employees over the past 125 years. The first businesses on West Laurel provided important services for students in the early twentieth century - lunch counters, laundry care, shoe repair, and barbering. Residential properties, originally developed as single-family homes, transformed over the years to accommodate a student population that grew from hundreds to tens of thousands. The shift in neighborhood needs in the 1950s and 1960s led property owners to demolish or convert more homes into commercial properties that sold students outdoor gear, watches, records, camera accessories, and books. Although student needs have long influenced the businesses and property owners near the university, flipping our perspective allows us to see this commercial node as a small business incubator with access to a built-in customer base located across the street. Hundreds of locally owned establishments have opened and operated in this relatively compact section of the city. 1 CSU's Sense of Place: A Campus History of Colorado's Land-Grant University, by James E. Hansen, Gordon A. Hazard, and Linda M. Meyer. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, 2018. https://libguides.colostate.edu/c.php?g=1186582&p=8825856 2 “Remarks.” Rocky Mountain Collegian, Vol. 22, No. 10, November 15, 1912, pg 7. Figure 1: Colorado Agricultural College claim building. James R. Miller Papers, Series 6, Box 6, Folder 5, Colorado State University Archives. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 90 5 Notable successes include the long-running Rainbow Café (opened at 109 E. Laurel in 1947, now at 212 W. Laurel), Harry Dimmitt’s Campus Shop (1922-1976), Lee’s Cyclery (202 W. Laurel, 1963-2018), and Alpine Haus (opened at 634 S. College and later at 628 S. College and 4637 S. Mason, 1963-2003). Several successful Fort Collins’ businesses located elsewhere in town opened branch stores near the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection, hoping to increase their sales to college students including Fishback Camera (700 S. College), Kyle’s Music Company (122 W. Laurel) and Wolfer-Cahill Foods (648-650 S. College). The area around the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection remains a student-oriented commercial hub into the twenty-first century. Although laundromats and shoe stores have given way to tattoo studios and vape shops and single-unit homes have been replaced with apartment buildings or converted to businesses, the area’s long association with Colorado State University continues to be visible through the physical landscape. Between 2023-2025, the City of Fort Collins’ Historic Preservation Services division studied the area around this intersection and looked for stories of important individuals, interesting historic trends, and great examples of local architecture. Some of the properties studied are eligible to be City Landmarks. For more details about the project turn to page ##, to learn more about the Fort Collins Landmark program, visit the Historic Preservation Services website. Laurel and College – A Brief History In the early twentieth century, the area around the Laurel and College intersection was mostly residential, with only a few businesses located on W. Laurel to serve students and the surrounding neighborhood. Small brick and frame dwellings lined W. Laurel and S. Mason, while several larger homes, occupied by the city’s wealthier citizens, were erected along College Avenue, the main north-south thoroughfare. Residents along College Avenue included Captain William Post, a Civil War veteran; Harry Scott, vice-president of the Commercial Bank and Trust; Nathan Moody, president of Moody-Warren Commercial Company and four-term State Senator; and William Rist, County Surveyor and City Engineer. One of the earliest homes constructed in this area was the two-story residence of Edward and Violette Hall. The Hall’s came to Fort Collins in 1882 and constructed this home at 627 S. College c. 1885. Edward organized the Colorado Loan Association with several others, including Franklin Avery, and operated the large Poudre Live Stock Company. He served as a city alderman in the 1890s, as president of the school board from 1900- 1910, chaired the YMCA building committee, and worked for the county assessor’s office for six years. After Figure 2: 627 S. College, photograph c. 1900. Image ID# H01525. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 91 6 Edward’s death in 1921, Violette continued to live in this house until 1943 when the building was converted into apartments. The home was demolished in 1964 and replaced with a bakery; the bakery was later demolished and the site once occupied by this home is now a parking lot. The smaller homes on S. Mason and W. Laurel Street housed working- and middle-class residents, many associated with the nearby college. Laborers, electricians, salesmen, assistant professors, contractors, and nurses occupied these houses. Because the area was so close to the college, property owners often constructed small apartments on their lots for students or took in boarders for extra income. In 1903, the Vosler’s shared their home at 203 W. Myrtle with two college students and a teacher at CAC. Across the street, at 622 S. Mason, William and Ester Feldman constructed an additional dwelling unit behind their house in 1927 that continues to function as a dwelling in 2025. One of the first commercial properties in the area was a grocery at 648 S. College that opened in 1903; the two-story brick building contained a grocery store, a meat market, baked goods department, and a selection of crockery.2F 3 A few other stores oriented towards students operated in the early part of the century: the Campus Shop and the College Barber Shop. Harry Dimmitt’s Campus Shop first opened at 128 W. Laurel in the 1910s; he sold candy, cigars, stationary, tobacco, coffee, sandwiches, and pie. As his advertisement in Rocky Mountain Collegian asked: “What’s the use of going downtown? The Campus Shop can supply your every want”.3F 4 The store moved a half block to the east (649 S. College) in 1922 and continued to supply every need of college students until 1976. Although only a handful of commercial properties operated near the college in the mid-1920s, a proposal to construct an automobile garage alarmed neighborhoods who worried about the changing nature of the area. Miles House and F. O. Humphrey put forward plans to build a garage, tire shop, and filling station on the 600 Block of S. College Avenue in 1926. The proposal drew protests from ninety-four nearby residents including members of the Kappa Alpha Theta sorority (KAT, 639 S. College) and Dr. Charles Lory, then president of CAC, who believed the business would be detrimental to residential property values and increase vehicle traffic. Business owners adjacent to the proposed garage, 3 “H. B. Cave…” Fort Collins Express, March 4, 1903, pg 7. 4 “What’s The Use.” Rocky Mountain Collegian, Vol 22, No 27, March 28, 1913, pg 3. Figure 3: 622 1/2 S. Mason, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1948. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 92 7 including Harry Dimmitt (Campus Shop), George Charkey (College Cleaners), and G. D. Graham (Electric Shoe Shop) supported the new construction.4F 5 City Council denied the permit, noting that the garage would interfere with the residential use of the area and endanger students who frequently crossed College Avenue.5F 6 Despite this concern, several new commercial buildings were constructed nearby a few years later. College Cleaners (116 W. Laurel) and the College Electric Shoe Shop (112 W. Laurel) replaced their frame buildings with more substantial brick structures designed by local architect Joseph C. Moresi in 1930; that same year a service station was erected next door (108 W. Laurel, demolished 1968). A bakery constructed at 609 S. Mason opened in 1929 selling both wholesale and retail baked goods. The early 1930s also brought new off-campus recreational opportunities to students. A short- lived mini-golf course was constructed at 645 S. College in 1930. The Green and Gold Miniature Golf Course included a driving range, a “mashie” (9-hole) course, and shuffleboard courts. In 1931, a building formerly used as a church at 628 S. College became a local community center used for church-supported forums, lectures, and activities. Figure 5 (left): 114 and 116 W. Laurel Street, 2023. Figure 6 (middle): Campus Service Station, 108 W. Laurel, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1949. Figure 7 (left): Express-Courier, July 25, 1930. Construction across the city slowed significantly during the Great Depression and World War II as building materials were conserved or diverted for the war effort. Only four new buildings were constructed in this area between 1931-1949. The Beebe Clinic at 605 S. College opened at the tail end of the depression in 1939 and three homes were constructed in 1946 (608 S College; 619 and 615 S. Mason - now demolished). Despite this slowdown in new construction, some commercial additions and home renovations occurred in the 1940s, hinting at the modifications to come in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. After fifteen years of minimal changes due to Depression and wartime, the area around the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection transformed significantly in the post-World War II era. Returning servicemembers took advantage of the reduced cost of education at colleges and universities provided by the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act and many moved with their families to the American West. Colorado A&M’s, and subsequently, Fort Collins’ population grew 5 “Questions of Business Blocks Near College is Involved in Garage Plan.” Express-Courier, August 18, 1926, pg 1. 6 “City Council Refuses Garage Building Permit.” Coloradoan, August 19, 1926, pg 1. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 93 8 dramatically; between 1950-1975, student population at the College jumped from approximately 4,000 students to 16,809 students, an increase of more than 300%. Businesses and homeowners around the Laurel and College intersection responded to the population increase in different ways. Some homeowners added residential units, subdividing existing homes into duplexes or apartments, while other homes were demolished and replaced with larger apartment buildings, like those at 109 and 113 W. Myrtle. Many homeowners added commercial uses while keeping existing residential units. Some erected separate commercial buildings in front of older residences and others attached a single-story commercial addition to the front of their homes. In some cases, the homes were later demolished or entirely converted to commercial use. Interestingly, only a handful of homes were completely demolished and replaced with new commercial buildings between 1945-1975. It seems that most property owners creatively reused their buildings for new purposes or slowly transitioned from residential to mixed use to commercial use over the course of several years. Since 1975, the steady trend towards more commercial use has continued and only a few residential properties remain along S. College Ave and S. Mason Street. Highlighted Properties Fort Collins is full of places that tell important stories about our shared past - stories about how our city developed, about why people made buildings look a certain way, and stories about the diverse range of people who have lived, worked, studied, and played here. These stories are often not visible on the surface of the buildings and streets we frequent. It usually takes some research to uncover them. The City regularly does this research to help identify important stories and places. Our goal is to share that information with property owners to better prepare and plan for the future. This section contains information about several properties near the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection. Read on to discover the city’s first strip mall, a business owned by a three-time Olympian, and a cultural center that introduced Asian food and traditions to Fort Collins. Interested in a property near the Laurel and College intersection that isn’t included in this section? Contact the Historic Preservation Department to request information, email us at preservation@fcgov.com or call 970-224-6078. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 94 9 120 W. Laurel Street – Campus Jewelry Individually Eligible for listing as a Local Landmark If you look closely at 120 W. Laurel you can see how this street changed from a block of homes to a commercial area serving college students. Peeking above the 1956 single-story addition is the front of a residence constructed in 1916. From 1922-1940, the building served as a boarding house and was a home for a long list of residents, many of whom were college students or professors. In 1950, Steve and Emma Shirley purchased the home. The Shirley's lived here and operated their jewelry and watch repair business from the front half of the building. Campus Jewelry was successful and in 1956, the Shirley’s added a single-story commercial addition to the front of their home. When the addition was complete, it was subdivided into two business spaces occupied by Campus Jewelry and Rudy’s Barbershop. The building is still both a home and a set of businesses in 2024. Figure 8: 120 W. Laurel, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1952. Figure 9: 120 W. Laurel, 2023. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 95 10 122-124 W. Laurel Street – Chris Music Individually Eligible for listing as a Local Landmark This building began its life c. 1914 as a duplex and for more than thirty years housed residents who worked as barbers, salesmen, stenographers, and gas station attendants. Half of the building converted to a bookstore in 1940, the other half remained a residence until 1956. In 1957, Chris Music opened in the east half of the building; operated by Chris Eala, a Filipino-American, the store sold and repaired musical instruments. Born Cresensio Eckobiza Eala in the Philippines in 1914, Chris came to the United States prior to 1940 and graduated from Texas A&M with a degree in music; he served in the Air Force during WWII. After the war, he moved to Wyoming, where he opened his own music repair shop and by 1956 he had relocated to Fort Collins. Chris was also involved with the Filipino Baranggay, a Filipino student organization established in 1964. The group included approximately twenty-three Filipinos living and studying in northern Colorado along with their spouses and was one of several student affinity organizations that also accepted non-student members from the community. Chris was elected president of the group in 1965 and that year, organized a lechonada (a celebratory pig roast) to celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. The event featured roast pig and Filipino rice cakes along with traditional folk dances as entertainment. In 1967, Chris Music moved to 957 Riverside Avenue and later to 2406 W. Stuart where it continued to operate through 1990. Figure 11: 122-124 W. Laurel, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1956. Figure 10: Coloradoan, November 19, 1959. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 96 11 203 W. Myrtle Street – East-West Cultural Center Individually Eligible for listing as a Local Landmark Constructed more than 120 years ago, the large building at the corner of Myrtle and Mason has been a home, a bakery, a hair salon, a tattoo parlor, and for thirty-two years, it was the location of an Asian cultural center and import store. Japanese-born Choko Oshima owned and operated the East West Cultural Center (later East-West Imports) and introduced Fort Collins residents to the cultural traditions, food, languages, and art of Asia. The center offered classes in cooking, language, tea ceremonies, origami, and martial arts along with a range of imported goods for sale including Asian grocery items, books, jewelry and toys. Figure 13: Coloradoan, October 27, 1977. Figure 14: 203 W. Myrtle, 2023. Figure 12: Coloradoan, February 5, 1978. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 97 12 634-640 S. College – College Avenue Strip Mall Individually Eligible for listing as a Local Landmark While we often think of strip malls as common, ugly, or unexciting, residents in the mid- twentieth century viewed this building type as the peak of modernity and a symbol of community progress. This is Fort Collins’ first strip mall, built in 1958 for developers Tom Gleason and Don Smith. Originally designed to hold four connected stores, the building cost $20,000 and was squeezed into a small space along College Avenue between the street and two occupied homes. Strip malls were a significant departure from previous decades of commercial development. The booming post-WWII economy and a new reliance on automobiles changed the way in which developers designed commercial structures; one strip mall could replicate the services provided by multiple buildings in a downtown area at a significantly cheaper cost. The first tenants included a real estate dealer, an insurance agent, a women’s sporting good store, and a pet shop. Today, strip malls continue to be important incubators for new small businesses in many communities, including Fort Collins. Figure 15: 632-640 S. College, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1959. Figure 16: 632-640 S. College, 2023. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 98 13 635 S. Mason – John C. Davis Residence Individually Eligible for listing as a Local Landmark Although it’s the lonely remaining residence on this side of the block, the home at 635 S. Mason was once a part densely populated neighborhood. Local builder John C. Davis erected this brick, one-story cottage at 635 S. Mason in 1901 for $1,000. The Davis family occupied the home for a short while after its construction but moved to 129 W. Magnolia in 1903. John Davis was a well-known contractor who built both elaborate residences and commercial blocks as well as smaller, more modest homes. Many of his smaller homes have been demolished; only a few along Cherry Street and this one remain. John’s son, Orton, followed him into the trades and became a well-known contractor in own right. Like other houses on S. Mason Street, the owners added an additional dwelling unit to the back yard of this home. Originally constructed as a garage, the building was converted to an upholstery and drapery shop in 1948 and then remodeled into a dwelling unit in 1952. Eventually, the unit was attached to the main house. Figure 18: 1917 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map depicting 635 S. Mason. Figure 17: 635 S. Mason, 2023. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 99 14 634 S. Mason – R. Q. Tenney Home Contributing to a potential Local Landmark District Between 1903-1931, this vape shop and tattoo parlor was the home of inventor and engineer, R. Q. Tenney. A Civil War veteran, Tenney came to Fort Collins in 1871 and became an expert in farming and irrigation engineering. He grew the first sugar beets in Larimer County, organized the first local Grange, and developed several reservoir and ditch systems including Terry Lake and Long Pond. Tenney also worked as a road overseer for Larimer County, kept weather records that he sent to the Smithsonian Institution, and was instrumental in the establishment of Roosevelt National Forest. After his death in 1928, the home passed to his daughter, Helen Greenamyre who lived here until 1961. In 1972, the residence converted to a commercial enterprise – The Bike Broker. Figure 20: 634 S. Mason, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1968. Figure 21: 634 S. Mason, 2023. Figure 19: R Q Tenney, 1894. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 100 15 647-649 S. College – Campus Shop The Campus Shop was one of the longest running businesses in the Laurel / College area. Harry Dimmitt first opened the store at 128 W. Laurel in 1919, but moved into a larger building at the corner of Laurel and College in 1922. The store was a local hangout for students and served many functions; over the years the building supported a soda fountain, restaurant, typewriter repair, and bookstore in addition to selling general school supplies. The store was a family affair and after Harry’s death in 1957, his wife, Helen took over operations; later, their daughter Betty Dimmitt Fyre and her husband Karl owned and operated the store. The Campus Shop closed in 1976; Betty Frye noted that the general movement of the CSU campus to the west and south and the construction of the University Bookstore had slowed their business and cut down on student traffic. Figure 23: 647-649 S. College, 2023. Figure 22: “Campus Shop, exterior.” Coloradoan Collection, 1968. Image ID #C01591. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 101 16 Historic Themes Women’s History In the first decades of the twentieth century, more women began to take on leadership roles in politics, business, and education. Colorado women had won the right to vote in 1893 and women nationwide gained that right in 1919. Partially due to the influence of the local college, Fort Collins women were particularly prominent and influential in social, political, business, and educational work. Fort Collins history cannot be understood without recognizing how important women’s leadership has been to the direction of the city. The area along South Mason Street and West Laurel Street had a particular concentration of women educators and business owners. Neighbors Laura Leete, Elizabeth Fickett, and Maude Sheridan all lived on the east side of South Mason around the same time and likely knew each other. Laura Leete – 630 S. Mason Between 1906-1922, Laura Leete operated a millinery in downtown Fort Collins, a shop for the design, manufacture, and sale of headwear. Laura made frequent trips to Denver to stock her store with the latest styles and employed several other women in her establishment. Her husband, George Leete, worked as the store’s bookkeeper. The Leete’s lived at 630 S. Mason for one short year in 1922, they both sadly died in 1923. Figure 25: Weekly Courier, September 15, 1910. Figure 24: 630 S. Mason, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1968. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 102 17 Elizabeth Fickett – 628 S. Mason Elizabeth Dean Fickett came to Colorado in 1919 after her husband’s death. She taught at Colorado Agricultural College in the education department and served as a faculty advisor for several clubs and associations. A graduate of Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, Fickett worked actively with many local organizations including the Young Women’s Christian Association and the Colorado Mountain Club. She also served as a house mother for several sororities and worked as a missionary in Wyoming and Colorado. Figure 26: Elizabeth Fickett, Colorado Agricultural College Yearbook, 1923. Figure 27: 628 S. Mason, 2023. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 103 18 Maude Sheridan - 632 S. Mason Born in Kansas, Maude Sheridan took a position with the Colorado Agricultural College extension department in 1916 where she worked with the Boys and Girls Clubs, an after-school program that taught skills and provided recreation for students. In her work, Maude gave demonstrations of canning, sewing, and gardening, and judged club entries at fairs. In 1922, Maude’s Canning Club won a trip to Europe for best canning in a national championship; Miss Sheridan and the girls traveled to France and demonstrated American home canning methods. Her home at 632 S. Mason was demolished in 1988 and replaced with the current building, now Mayor of Old Town. Figure 28: Miss Maude E. Sheridan - extension, leader of Boys and Girls Clubs, 1926. University Historic Photograph Collection, Image ID# UHPC_4783, Colorado State University Archives. Figure 29: 632 S. Mason, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1948. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 104 19 Charlotte Baker – 128 W. Laurel Charlotte Baker, Colorado Agricultural Library librarian, lived at 128 W. Laurel from 1909-1914. Educated at New York State College in Albany, Baker came to Fort Collins in 1906 to work as an assistant librarian. Miss Baker worked at the library until 1936 and during her time added more than 50,000 books. She also oversaw the construction of a dedicated library building in 1928 (now used as The Institute for Learning and Teaching, TILT). Her home was converted to a business in 1919 and continues to stand at 128 W. Laurel although many additions have been made since she lived there. Figure 30: “Miss Charlotte Baker – librarian,” January 1923. Colorado State University, Archives and Special Collections, University History Photograph Collection, Series 1, Subseries 7. Figure 31: “Laurel Laundry - 128 W. Laurel,” 1966, Coloradoan Collection, Image ID#C01032. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 105 20 Jessie Atterberry – 203 W. Myrtle and 609 S. Mason After her husband died in 1923, Jessie Atterberry moved to Fort Collins with her four children and opened a bakery in her home at 203 W. Myrtle. The Home Bakery was successful and in 1929, Atterberry had a new bakery building constructed around the corner at 609 S. Mason. The bakery offered walk-in retail sales, custom baked goods for special occasions, and distributed wholesale baked goods to local grocery stores and restaurants. Atterberry remarried in 1931, sold the business, and moved to Sterling, Colorado. The bakery expanded several times and continued to operate as a bakery until 1975. In 1993, it was connected to the building to the north; it is now the south half of Avogadro’s Number restaurant. Her home at 203 W. Myrtle was eventually acquired by Choko Oshima and developed into the East-West Cultural Center (see page ##). Figure 33: 203 W. Myrtle, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1948. Figure 34: 609 S. Mason, 2022. Photo by Ron Sladek. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 106 21 Local Architects Several of Fort Collins’ most well-known architects modified or designed new buildings in this area. Joseph Moresi Born in Switzerland, Joseph Carl Moresi came to the United States in 1907 with his family and settled in St. Louis, Missouri. He received his education in architecture at a technical college in Switzerland and spent time touring Italy, Greece, and France with his classmates, these trips likely influenced his later architectural designs. In 1929, Moresi passed his Colorado architecture examinations and soon after designed the pair of Mediterranean-Revival style buildings at 112 and 114-116 W. Laurel. Moresi went on to design other properties in similar styles including the J. B. Cahill residence at 300 Jackson Avenue and the Holy Family Church at 326 N. Whitcomb. Mediterranean-Revival style architecture is part of the Eclectic movement that drew inspiration from European architecture. These styles were popularized after many veterans returned home from serving abroad during WWI. By 1940, Moresi had relocated to St. Louis, Missouri, where he continued to work as an architect; he passed there in 1975. Figure 36: 114 and 116 W. Laurel Street, 2023. Figure 35: Express-Courier February 28, 1932. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 107 22 William Robb One of Fort Collins’ most prolific architects, William Robb came to Fort Collins in 1951 to open a branch office for Boulder-based architect Robert Ditzen at 510 S. College. He struck out on his own in 1953 and continued to work as an architect through 1987. Robb designed hundreds of commercial, religious, governmental, and educational buildings across Northern Colorado. The firm he started remains headquartered in Fort Collins on E. Mountain Avenue as RB+B Architects. In the area around the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection, Robb designed two new commercial buildings at 514 S. College and 700 S. College, both have been significantly remodeled since their original construction. He also remodeled the former sorority and residence at 639 and 633 S. College; Robb’s design connected the two buildings through an addition on the front and converted them into one fraternity building. These alterations have since been removed. To learn more about William Robb, head to our website. Figure 37: 633 S. College, “Garment District,” Image ID# H23166, c. 1980. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. Figure 38: 700 S College, Larimer County Tax Assessor photograph, 1969. Image ID# 700col69. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 108 23 Virgil Magerﬂeisch Virgil Magerfleisch came to Fort Collins with his wife, Barbara came in the 1950s after graduating from the University of Colorado. He first worked as a draftsman for notable Fort Collins architect William Robb but opened his own firm in 1958. Magerfleisch and his partner, Robert Burnham designed several projects in Fort Collins including the Mosher Manor (113 W. Myrtle), an addition to St. John’s Lutheran Church (305 East Elizabeth), and the Lemay Medical Center (demolished in 1992 for additional hospital parking). He also served on the Planning and Zoning Board and the Landmark Preservation Commission in 1973. In 1977, Magerfleisch was appointed chief architect for Cole Associates in South Bend, Indiana; he resided there through his death in 1997. Figure 40: 113 W. Myrtle, 2023. Figure 39: Coloradoan, April 22, 1973. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 109 24 Sororities and Fraternities Fraternities and sororities began as the social equivalent of academically focused literary societies. They met regularly and hosted social events for members and by the 1890s many Greek letter organizations established chapter houses where their members could live; these off- campus houses soon became a central part of Greek life. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Colorado Agricultural College (CAC) administration struggled with whether or not to support student participation in Greek letter societies. One of the benefits was that students could live in chapter houses located near campus rather than the College needing to provide housing directly. At the time, CAC had no student housing men and fraternities could fill that room-and-board void (female students had on-campus accommodations beginning in 1881). Greek letter societies could also support the social development of students, while the university nurtured them academically. On the other hand, fraternities were exclusive clubs that could be seen as opposed to CAC’s principles as a land-grant university. Charles Lory, university president in 1909, supported Greek letter organizations and had himself belonged to a fraternity in college.6F 7 Several large homes along S. College Avenue and W. Laurel St. were converted into Greek chapter houses in the early- and mid-1900s. In 1908, the Epsilon Fraternity rented the house at 612 S. College, later that decade Alpha Kappa Epsilon and Tau Alpha occupied the house. One of the longest running Greek chapter houses in the area is 639 S. College which housed the Kappa Alpha Theta Sorority from 1923-1963. Apparently, the sorority was very popular and overflow housing had to be acquired at 500 S. College, known as the Kappa Alpha Theta Annex. Many more sororities and fraternities were located in large homes further west along W. Laurel Street or to the east along Remington, Lake, and Plum Streets. 612 S College 1908-1913 - Alpha Kappa Epsilon 613 S College 1950-1961 – Alpha Tau Omega 621 S College 1956-1963 – Kappa Kappa Gamma 633 S College 1946-1969 – Sigma Kappa, FarmHouse 639 S College 1923-1963 – Tau Epsilon Tau, Kappa Alpha Theta 212 W Laurel 1926-1929 and 1949-1954 – Delta Delta Delta, FarmHouse 500 S College 1959-1966 – Kappa Alpha Theta Annex (overflow housing) 202 W Laurel 1922-1926 – Zeta Tau Omega, Beta Phi Alpha 7 Barbara Fleming, “Early Greek Life at CSU,” Coloradoan, March 29, 2015, https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2015/03/30/early-greek-life-colorado-state-university-fort- collins/70642792/. The previous two paragraphs are adapted from Reyana Jones’ Fort Collins Landmark Designation form for 201 East Elizabeth, December 2019. Document on-file with City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 110 25 Figure 41: “Kappa Alpha Theta – Homecoming decorations, “we’ll reap u’ll weep”,” 639 S. College, 1940. Image ID# M1487A. University Historic Photograph Collection, Colorado State University Archives. Figure 42: “Room at T.E.T. House” 639 S. College, 1917. Image ID#UHPC_1172, University Historic Photograph Collection, Colorado State University. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 111 26 Figure 43: Sigma Chi Fraternity House, Image ID #H22745, Cahill Collection, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. Figure 44: “Alpha Kappa Fraternity, 1923”645 S. College (demolished c. 1930). Image ID#AK_23_1a, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. Figure 45:Kappa Kappa Gamma, 621 S. College, 1925. Image ID#UHPCSNP_11022, University Historic Photograph Collection, Colorado State University. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 112 27 Survey Information In 2023-2025, the City of Fort Collins’ Historic Preservation Services division completed this historic survey of forty-eight (48) properties near the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection. Historic survey helps the City to proactively identify properties important to the community’s history, culture, and identity and partner with property owners to preserve them. In addition, the City is required under its codes, and a federal certification the City carries, to conduct regular survey of potentially historic places. The project was internally supported through completion by City Historic Preservation staff via the City’s general fund. This particular area was selected as it includes a high concentration of older commercial buildings that may be subject to the City’s Land Use Code, has a high number of small businesses that are more likely to face historic survey requirements for adaptive reuse projects, and rests within the City’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay. Essentially, this area is expected to see development pressure, more small-scale projects where historic survey fees may be disproportionate to proposed project effects, and has a strong historical connection between the city and university. The Code requires preservation of properties designated as or eligible to be designated as City Landmarks. Completion of this research will provide more accurate and up-to-date information for property owners along the corridor to help facilitate future development planning and real estate transfers. City of Fort Collins staff photographed the properties in the survey area in September 2023 and over the following year and half researched and completed an intensive architectural inventory of each site. The project documented forty-eight sites within the survey area and found seventeen to be eligible for listing as a local landmarks; staff believes four of those are also eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A potential City Landmark District was also identified during the course of study. Ten properties on W. Laurel St. and S. Mason St. made dramatic changes to their buildings in response to the significant expansion of Colorado State University’s student population after World War II. Between 1950-1975, six properties in the potential historic district converted from residential to commercial or mixed-use functions, three properties underwent significant remodels or added large additions, and one new commercial building was constructed. Project Area The project area encompasses one full block and portions of four other blocks surrounding the intersection of Laurel Street and S. College Avenue. Old Town Fort Collins is several blocks to the north and Colorado State University abuts the project area along a portion of the southern boundary. Irregular in shape, the project area includes the 600 block of S. Mason Street, 500-700 blocks of S. College Avenue, the 100 block of E. Laurel Street, and the 100 and portions of 200 blocks of W. Laurel Street. The area is densely built up with a mixture of residential and commercial buildings dating from the late nineteenth century through the early 2000s. A few paved parking areas are interspersed ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 113 28 between the one- and two-story buildings. Some buildings directly abut the sidewalk and street, while others are set back with a front yard. Map 1: Laurel Street and College Avenue Survey Area on aerial imagery. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 114 29 Map 2: Laurel Street and S. College Avenue Survey Area on USGS Quadrangle Map ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 115 30 Research Design and Methods The project was undertaken as part of the City’s ongoing effort to document, identify, and preserve its historic resources and provide information valuable for planning and redevelopment efforts to local property owners. In addition, the survey fulfilled requirements established under City Code and the Certified Local Government (CLG) program to conduct regular historic survey of potentially historic places. The project was designed to inventory the area surrounding the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection. This part of the city supports a concentration of small businesses that may be likely to seek minor building/development permits from the city, likely focusing on adaptive reuse and incremental modifications. The survey is intended to support small business equity by providing information regarding landmark eligibility prior to redevelopment and by removing the cost of a third-party survey. The typical $1250 survey fee would likely have a disproportionate and negative influence on the success of these small businesses in a commercial node known as a successful local/small business incubator. Forty-eight properties within the area were selected by city staff for survey; several properties were excluded based on existing local landmark status or a recently completed survey. Three properties in the project area are already designated historic landmarks (605, 612, 613 S. College Avenue) and six properties had been intensively surveyed within the past five years (112, 202, 212 W. Laurel Street, 605 and 609 S. Mason Street, and 609 S. College). Although these properties were not surveyed during the current project, the relevant historic information has been included within the historic context above. All properties, regardless of building age were documented and empty lots for which the City had no information on file were also researched. In these cases, the site’s documentation includes information about buildings that have been demolished. This process allows staff to better understand the development and redevelopment pattern of the area. Empty parcels or vacant lots have not been assigned SITS numbers and were not submitted to the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Prior to the survey, city staff reviewed the information on-file within the city’s documents to identify previous projects and landmarks within the project area. Many properties within the surveyed area had been previously documented in the 1990s or 2000s as part of the city’s ongoing effort to identify historic places. A formal files search with Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation was not requested. The survey was conducted on September 11th, 2023 by City staff members Rebekah Schields and Jim Bertolini. Working from the previously developed site list, Schields and Bertolini recorded building details and took digital photographs of buildings on each site from the right-of-way. As the area is a developed residential and commercial neighborhood, archaeological potential was not evaluated. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 116 31 Staff spent time in the archives researching each property, developing ownership histories, and learning when people made changes to the building and what kinds of businesses operated here. These questions were answered by a variety of sources. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were reviewed to determine building additions, demolitions, and changes to the neighborhood over time. City directories identified residents and their occupations; in several cases directories pinpointed dates for transitions of single-unit dwellings to multi-unit or residential to commercial conversions. Newspapers supplied details, photos, and advertisements related to residents, new construction, grand openings, or large-scale neighborhood changes. Census records accessed through Ancestry.com provided detailed information about marriages, children, occupations, and movements across states or countries. Each site was recorded on a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and includes locational data, site description, site history, and a field assessment of the building’s eligibility to be listed as Local Landmark by the City of Fort Collins and for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, properties were evaluated for their contributing or non-contributing status to a potential Landmark Historic District or potential National Register Historic District. Results Forty-eight historic resources were documented for the current project and include a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Construction dates for these properties range across three centuries from c. 1894-2004. The distribution of construction dates appears fairly even across the decades with an expected dip in construction during the 1930s and 1940s. Interestingly, three pre-1900 buildings remain extant along with four additional buildings constructed at or around the turn of the 20th century. As expected for buildings constructed between the 1890s and early 2000s, they display a wide range of construction types and architectural styles from simple hipped roof boxes to 21st Century commercial techniques. Buildings dating to the early twentieth century represent the variety of styles popular in Colorado at that time including Bungalows, Classic Cottages, Art Moderne, Colonial Revival, Mediterranean-Revival, and Foursquares. All three apartment buildings in surveyed area are Modern Movement in style and five other Modern Movement commercial properties are present. The surveyed area also supports five houses with commercial additions. The high concentrations of Modern Movement style and homes with commercial additions underscores the area’s dramatic transition from residential to commercial in the mid- century period. One of the most significant themes revealed by the survey involves the transition of this area from mostly residential to mostly commercial in the mid-century period. As the student and city population rose after WWII, many residential properties transitioned to or incorporated commercial and retail uses. Twenty-five of the 48 surveyed properties either converted entirely to commercial or added a commercial use in addition to residential uses between 1950-1975. Several other properties inside the survey area, but not studied as part of this project, also made this transition. Interestingly, only four residential properties were completely demolished for new commercial uses in that twenty-five-year period. This is not to say that older residences were not ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 117 32 removed during this time period, but instead indicates that most residential properties had a period of mixed residential and commercial use prior to demolition. Mixed-use properties were found on every block in the survey area and the mixed use was accomplished in several different ways. Some buildings supported both residential and commercial use within the original residential footprint. Robert and Ruth Widdows, for example, resided at 504 S. College and operated Widdows Sew-Vac from the first floor of their duplex; their next-door neighbor, Trevor Hayes, also lived and operated the Trevor Gift Shop from the first floor of his half of the duplex. Many other sites added a single-story addition to the front of their residences to add the new use; the area has a particular concentration of extant Houses with Commercial Additions. A few other residential sites had a separate commercial building constructed on their lots, typically between the residence and the street. Single-story commercial buildings were erected in front of older residences at 510 S. College, 528-530 S. College, and 630-640 S. College. The homes were later demolished leaving only the extant commercial buildings. Seventeen properties were found eligible to be listed as local landmarks. These properties are significant for their association with events and trends, important people, and for their architecture or building type, representing City of Fort Collins’ Significance Standards 1, 2, and 3. In general, properties eligible for local landmarking under Significance Standard 1 were found to illustrate trends of community development and commerce in Fort Collins. Several properties are associated with the early twentieth century expansion and increased population of the city due to the establishment of the sugar beet factory (500-502 S. College; 522 S. College). The city’s mid- century expansion is also represented by four Landmark eligible properties that represent both the growth of commercial along the West Laurel corridor (120 W. Laurel and 122-124 W. Laurel) and the increased construction of apartment buildings around the campus area (109 and 113 W. Myrtle). Two properties were found to be eligible for listing as local landmarks under Significance Standard 1 for their association with local Asian-American history. Chris Eala operated a musical instrument repair shop at 122-124 W. Laurel from 1954-1967. Eala immigrated from the Philippines prior to the 1940s and was active with Filipino Baranggay, a Filipino student organization established in 1964. Japanese immigrant Choko Oshima first opened her East-West Cultural Center at 619 S. College in 1970, the store later moved to 203 W. Myrtle where it operated until 2015. Four properties were found eligible for local landmarking due to their association with significant persons. An early real state developer, James Brown, is associated with the construction and subsequent rental of the high-style Colonial Revival (as defined by OAHP) duplexes at 500-502 S. College and 504 S. College. An office building to the south at 530 S. College is eligible for its Usonian architecture and for its association with John Nicol, a realtor who established and chaired the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission in 1953. Lastly, 628 S. College is significant for its association with Peter Lahdenpera, a three-time Olympian who opened an alpine ski shop in Fort Collins in the 1960s. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 118 33 Under Significance Standard 3, thirteen properties were found eligible for listing as local landmarks. These properties represent the works of locally significant builders and architects including Edson Cole (500-502 S. College; 504 S. College), Virgil Magerfleisch (113 W. Myrtle), Joseph Moresi (116 W. Laurel), and John C. Davis (635 S. Mason). Other important examples of building types and styles are represented including the Usonian-style building at 528-530 S. College, Moresi’s Mediterranean-Revival style building at 116 W. Laurel, and the southern-most extant oblong box service station in Fort Collins at 730 S. College. The city’s first strip mall at 634-640 S. College is also eligible for listing as a local landmark under this standard. City staff recommends believes four properties are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; all four are recommended eligible as excellent examples of their architectural style or building type under Criterion C. The buildings represent the Usonian, Colonial Revival (as per OAHP classifications), and Mediterranean-Revival architectural styles. Although no National Register Historic Districts were found during the survey process, the potential for a local landmark historic district does exist along W. Laurel Street and S. Mason Street. Between 1950-1975, ten properties made dramatic changes to their buildings in response to the significant expansion of the CSU student population and the development of a new, competing commercial corridor. These properties underwent significant remodels or expansions, converted from residences to commercial storefronts, and in one case, a residence was demolished and replaced with a new commercial building. This is one of the only places within the city where this pattern occurred at this scale and has survived into the present day. These adaptations stand out especially when compared to the other commercial corridor associated with the expansion of CSU in the 1960s, near the intersection of W. Elizabeth Street and S. Shields Street which was newly built in the mid-late 1960s. Between 1950-1975, five properties in the potential historic district converted from residential to commercial or mixed-use functions (120 W. Laurel, 130 W. Laurel, 202 W. Laurel, 204 W. Laurel, 212 W. Laurel, 634 S. Mason). This transition was mostly accomplished through significant alterations or the addition of single-story commercial fronts; only one residence (130 W. Laurel) was demolished to support a new commercial building. One commercial building was newly constructed on an empty lot (120 1/2 W. Laurel). Three properties within the potential historic district were already functioning as commercial spaces in 1950; these three properties underwent significant remodels or added large additions during the period of significance (122- 124 W. Laurel, 126 W. Laurel, 128 W. Laurel). Many of these new commercial enterprises situated their expansion or construction in direct relation to the expanding student population. Almost every business advertised in the university's newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian. The new branch of First National Bank in the remodeled home at 212 W. Laurel noted their new office would be, "a new convenience for neighborhood residents, businesses, CSU students and faculty”.7F 8 (Coloradoan, September 7,1969). While Campus Jewelry, the Aggie Barbershop, and Ram's Bookstore took a more direct approach to catching the attention of university students. 8 “First National Builds.” Coloradoan, September 7, 1969, pg 21. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 119 34 Map 3: Boundary of potential historic district. Recommendations The project findings will be used to support and inform future development projects around the Laurel Street and College Avenue intersection. Under City Code, local landmarks or properties that are eligible to be listed as local landmarks must be preserved, adaptively reused and incorporated into future development (see Land Use Code 5.8.1). Current and historic images documented as part of this project will also be useful for future design compatibility between proposed developments and historic resources. The City of Fort Collins will publish and make the survey results available to all property owners and interested parties. A digital copy of the report will be published on the city’s website. Each site form will be transmitted to property owners in hard copy and will be kept on-file with Historic Preservation Services to be used in future research and adaptive reuse projects. In addition to publishing the overall findings, specific information related to the City’s Full Story Fort Collins project will be added to the relevant educational materials. The City also recommends that all seventeen properties individually eligible for local landmarking, the potential landmark district, and the four properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places be officially designated at their respective levels. See Appendix A for a list of eligible properties. Under City Code, the Fort Collins landmark or landmark district designation process may be initiated by property owners, three or more city residents, a member of City Council, or by motion of the Historic Preservation Commission. For more information on local landmarks and the benefits of designation visit https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/landmarks. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 120 35 Bibliography Appendix A: Survey Log SITS# Address Local Landmark Eligibility NRHP Eligibility 5LR.2965 105 E. Myrtle St. 5LR.2665 109 E. Laurel St. 1, 3 5LR.12783/5LR.8177 109 W. Myrtle St. 1, 3 112 E. Laurel St. 5LR.8178 113 W. Myrtle St. 1, 3 5LR.7653 116 W. Laurel St 3 C 5LR.7654 120 W. Laurel St 1, 3 120.5 W. Laurel St 5LR.7655 122-124 W. Laurel St 1, 3 5LR.7656 126 W. Laurel St 5LR.7656 128 W. Laurel St 5LR.7657 130-140 W. Laurel St 203 W. Myrtle St. 1 5LR.7659 204 W. Laurel St 5LR.1503 500 S. College Ave. 2, 3 C 5LR.1504 504 S. College Ave. 2, 3 C 5LR.2272 510 S. College Ave. 5LR.2273 514 S. College Ave. 5LR.2274 516 S. College Ave. 5LR.1505 522 S. College Ave. 1 5LR.1506 526 S. College Ave. 1 5LR.2275 530 S. College Ave. 2, 3 C 5LR.2276 602 S. College Ave. 604 S. Mason St. 615 S. Mason St. 5LR.7929 616 S. College Ave. 616 S. Mason St. 5LR.7257 619 S. College Ave. 5LR.2278 622 S. College Ave. 5LR.7930 622 S. Mason St. 5LR.2279 624-626 S. College Ave. 625 S. Mason St. 5LR.2280 628 S. College Ave. 2 5LR.7932 628 S. Mason St. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 121 36 5LR.7933 630 S. Mason St. 632 S. Mason St. 5LR.1563 633 S. College Ave. 5LR.7935 634 S. Mason St. 5LR.2281 634-640 S. College Ave. 3 635 S. Mason St. 3 5LR.1512 639 S. College Ave. 1 5LR.2282 642 S. College Ave. 5LR.2283 644-646 S. College Ave. 5LR.7259 647-649 S. College Ave. 5LR.2284/5LR.3694/5LR.2374 648-650 S. College Ave. 5LR.2285 700 S. College Ave. 5LR.2286/5LR.2287 706-714 S. College Ave. 5LR.2291 730 S. College Ave. 3 Appendix B: Maps Appendix C: Resources for Property Owners ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 122 Headline Copy Goes Here Laurel and College Area Survey • 04/16/2025 • Survey Project Results • Rebekah Schields – Historic Preservation Specialist Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Project Background • Historic Preservation Specialist position creation • Requested and approved (by Council) for 2023-2024 BFO cycle • Primary goal is pro-active survey • Laurel Street and College Avenue commercial node • Supports small businesses, many located in older commercial buildings • Remove the cost of survey ($1250) for small business owners • Increased development pressure and density •Downtown Zone District •Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone Survey Area in Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone 1 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 123 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Project Overview • September 2023 - March 2025 • 48 properties intensively surveyed • 17 eligible for listing as local landmarks • 1 potential historic district • with 7 contributing properties Survey Area in Red Potential Historic District in Blue Headline Copy Goes Here 4 History pre-1930 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1917 622½ S. Mason 628½ S. Mason 3 4 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 124 Headline Copy Goes Here 5 History pre-1930 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1917 Headline Copy Goes Here 6 History 1930-1940 College Cleaners – 116 W. Laurel, 1930 Electric Shoe Shop – 114 W. Laurel, 1930 Campus Service Station – 110 W. Laurel, 1930 (demolished 1968) Beebe Clinic – 605 S. College, 1939 (landmarked 2005) 5 6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 125 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 History 1950-1975 634 S. Mason109 and 113 W. Myrtle 117-129 W. Myrtle, 1927 Headline Copy Goes Here 8 History 1950-1975 120 W. Laurel500 Block S. College 634-640 S. College 7 8 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 126 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Eligible for Local Landmarking 500 S. College 504 S. College 522 S. College 526 S. College 530 S. College 628 S. College 634-640 S. College 639 S. College 730 S. College 109 E. Laurel 116 W. Laurel 120 W. Laurel 122-124 W. Laurel 109 W. Myrtle 113 W. Myrtle 203 W. Myrtle Headline Copy Goes Here 10 203 W. Myrtle 1948 1978 1977 2023 Eligible for local landmarking under Standard 1: Ethnic Heritage – Asian, 1977-2015 9 10 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 127 Headline Copy Goes Here 11 120 W. Laurel 1952 1956 2023 Eligible for local landmarking under Standards 1 and 3: Commerce – 1956; Architecture - 1956 Headline Copy Goes Here 12 Potential Historic District 11 12 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 128 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 Laurel and College Survey Project Open House Avogadro’s Number 605 S. Mason February 26th, 2025 Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Final Report - Forthcoming Charlotte Baker – CSU Librarian Resided at 128 W. Laurel 700 S. College, 1969 Designed by William Robb 639 S. College, 1940 Kappa Alpha Theta 13 14 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 129