HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/2025 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting08/20/2025 Agenda Page 1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 20, 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
August 20, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM
Online via Zoom or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Council Chambers
08/20/2025 Agenda Page 2
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
August 20, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM
Online via Zoom or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Council Chambers
08/20/2025 Agenda Page 3
Commissioners:
Bonnie Gibson, Chai
Location:
Margo Carlock, Vice Chai This meeting will be held
Chris Conway In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Ave.
Jenna Edwards And remotely via Zoom
Jeff Gaines
aron Hull
Jim Rose Staff Liaison:
David Woodlee Maren Bzdek
Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager
• 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 JUNE 18, 2025
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Packet Pg. 3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 20, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM
Online via Zoom or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Council Chambers
08/20/2025 Agenda Page 4
• 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
August 20, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM
Online via Zoom or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Council Chambers
08/20/2025 Agenda Page 5
3. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1617 PERSON CT.
DESCRIPTION: 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.
STAFF:
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
4. THE LINDEN, 360 LINDEN STREET – FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: Development application at 360 Linden Street to include two (2) five-story buildings,
the larger of which will be mixed-use. The project includes approximately 2,500ft2 of
commercial space and a total of 160 housing units. Of those 160 units, a submitted
affidavit indicates 20%, or 32 units, will be affordable.
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
STAFF:
Realty Capital Residential (Spencer Long, representing)
909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Ste 150
Irving, TX 75039
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
5. 1000 W. PROSPECT ROAD – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: Development application at 1000 W. Prospect Rd to include adaptive reuse of the
existing historic house (Landmark Eligible), relocation and incorporation of the
historic garage, and construction of a new six story multi-unit residential building on
the east half of the site.
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
STAFF:
Kurt Basford (Design professional); Ezra H. Headrick South Dakota, LLC (owner)
1000 W Prospect Rd
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Packet Pg. 5
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 20, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM
Online via Zoom or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Council Chambers
08/20/2025 Agenda Page 6
• 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 JUNE 18, 2025 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. HPC June 18, 2025 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 7
6/18/25 – MINUTES
Historic Preservation Commission
REGULAR MEETING
June 18, 2025 – 5:30 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave
Also via Zoom
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gibson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
•ROLL CALL
o Commission Members Present –
Bonnie Gibson (Chair)
Margo Carlock (Vice Chair)
Chris Conway
Jeff Gaines
Aaron Hull
Jim Rose
David Woodlee
o Commission Members Absent –
Jenna Edwards
o Staff Members Present –
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Manager
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Heather Jarvis, Assistant City Attorney
Melissa Matsunaka, HPC Admin
o Guest(s) –
None
•AGENDA REVIEW
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager, 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
6/18/25 – MINUTES
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2025.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 21, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Vice Chair Carlock moved, seconded by Commissioner Rose, to approve the Consent Agenda.
Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Gaines, Hull, Rose, Woodlee, and Gibson. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
• STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
• 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).
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated staff hosted a table at the Fort Collins Pride
celebration on June 1st and were in attendance for the Pride Proclamation at Council on June 3rd.
Additionally, the Big Splash event was held at the Water Works building on June 14th and there are
many events and programming forthcoming for Juneteenth. He provided a reminder about the Historic
Preservation newsletter.
3. LAND USE CODE UPDATES – THE FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS AND CENTERS
Building on the foundation of the City’s first round of Land Use Code updates,
which were adopted by the City Council in May 2024 and focused on
housing-related updates, The Future of Commercial Corridors and Centers
project is exploring a broader range of topics focused on
commercial areas. These updates are focused on commercial zone
districts, corridors and development standards to ensure they align with
current city policies and community needs, specifically.
STAFF:
Megan Keith, Senior City Planner
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Policy and Project Manager
DRA
F
T
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
6/18/25 – MINUTES
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sylvia Tatman-Burress, Policy and Project Manager, noted the first phase of the Land Use Code
updates focused on housing and this second phase is focused on commercial corridors and centers
in terms of advancing the City’s 15-minute city goals, aligning with adopted policy plans, balancing
desired outcomes, and adding clarity to the Development Review Process. She outlined the
timeline for the project and discussed the community engagement activity that has been conducted
to date. She provided the specific Council priorities that are being used as guidance for the
updates, including operationalizing resources toward affordable housing, 15-minute city goals, an
intentional approach to economic health, and accelerating active modes.
Megan Keith, Senior City Planner, discussed the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
zone which modifies the underlying zone districts to encourage land uses and densities that
enhance and support transit, particularly near the MAX line. She noted there are currently many
auto-centric uses allowed in the TOD overlay zone. She outlined the recommended Land Use
Code changes for the TOD overlay zone, including allowing 5-story residential buildings, limiting
some auto-centric uses through proximity standards or additional form and design standards,
segmenting the overlay zone to include more context responsive standards, and eliminating parking
minimums and retaining surface parking maximums.
Keith stated the second area of Code updates relates to the Harmony Corridor and Employment
Zones, and the guiding principle for those changes is about creating resilient commercial and
employment centers that are adaptable to future needs. She noted there is currently a 75/25 land
use split requiring 75% of uses to be primary uses such as offices, medical centers, and light
industrial, and 25% of uses to be secondary uses such as residential, childcare, and restaurants.
She stated recommended Land Use Code changes for this area include adjusting the primary and
secondary use ratio to 50/50, introducing additional flexibility in the zones, codifying how to
calculate primary and secondary uses, and incentivizing more housing by allowing stand-alone
secondary uses to be developed if they are replacing an existing surface parking lot.
Keith outlined the third area of Code updates for Building Types and Design Standards to help
create clear building and site design standards that are supportive of transit use, walking, and
rolling in corridors with frequent bus service. She stated recommended Land Use Code changes
include refining the mixed-use building type and developing new non-residential building types, and
consolidating, clarifying, and updating building standards to include more user-friendly illustrations
and tables.
Keith outlined the fourth area of Code updates related to the Change of Use Process. She stated
the guiding principle for this section relates to improving predictability of the Land Use Code,
particularly to support small business owners. She stated businesses are currently often required
to comply with the Land Use Code completely with only a few exceptions, which has felt
burdensome when it comes to site upgrades. She stated recommended Land Use Code changes
include eliminating the concept of a separate change of use and considering whether site or
building changes are proposed. She noted fire code and life safety upgrades would still apply.
Additionally, it is recommended that the Code include requirements for specific site improvements
based on the level of review required.
Keith stated next steps in this process include distribution of the draft Code, a work session with
Council on July 8th, visits to Boards and Commissions over the summer, and ultimate adoption in
the fall.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None.
COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
Commissioner Conway asked if staff has considered eliminating commercial parking minimums
altogether. Keith replied that conversation has occurred and staff will likely present to Council a
recommendation for at least eliminating parking minimums in the TOD overlay with the option to
make that change city-wide.
Commissioner Gaines asked for additional information on the plan for segmenting the TOD overlay
zone and what kinds of things might vary between segments. Keith replied the focus will be on the
area south of Prospect and the segments may be north and south of Swallow Road potentially with
the northern area having slightly stronger guidelines around design and uses. She noted there are
many differing opinions among the groups from which feedback has been sought.
DRA
F
T
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
6/18/25 – MINUTES
Commissioner Conway asked about the rationale for having a ratio between primary and secondary
uses in the employment corridors and whether there has been consideration given to eliminating
that ratio altogether. Tatman-Burruss replied that has been considered, particularly given the need
for housing across the city. She stated there has been a desire to keep some of the employment
land available, though changes could also be made in the future to allow for more residential uses.
She stated staff is attempting to balance allowing other uses while still honoring the existing
Harmony Corridor Plan.
Chair Gibson asked how sufficient parking is going to be ensured for those who are auto centric.
Keith replied recent State regulations prevent municipalities from being able to require parking in
multi-family developments; however, staff has heard from the development community that parking
is often determined by lenders, and projects do not often get built if there isn’t enough parking
provided.
Chair Gibson asked if some of the more auto centric uses would be expected to phase out. Tatman-
Burruss replied existing uses would be allowed to remain as non-conforming should proximity
standards be put in place; however, redevelopment would then necessitate the business type
change.
Commissioner Conway asked why the proposed TOD changes are not proposed to be expanded
to the rest of the city given the 15-minute city goals. Keith noted that question has also been posed
by Council and staff is working to understand the associated State legislation as to whether the
TOD boundary will need to be extended in the future. Tatman-Burruss also noted the Land Use
Code is a living document and changes can be made over time as more information comes in from
the State and as additional bus rapid transit lines are added.
Chair Gibson noted a letter has been drafted regarding eliminating parking minimums and asked
the Commissioners if they would like to vote to send that on to Council.
Commissioner Conway summarized a Commission conversation about the Laurel and College
historic survey and associated discussion about the impact that commercial parking minimums had
on the vibrancy of commercial corridors and in terms of forcing the destruction of historic properties.
As a result, staff looked into some of the historic buildings that were demolished in the mid-20th
century to make way for parking. He stated the draft letter discusses the importance of flexibility in
the Land Use Code that commercial parking minimums do not provide.
Commissioner Gaines stated creativity and adaptation, as outlined in the letter, are important
considerations. He stated parking can be somewhat self-regulating and associated standards often
lag behind trends or cause unwanted trends.
Commissioner Rose commended the proposed Land Use Code language related to the TOD
overlay zone. He stated the Commission is suggesting something a bit more specific as it has seen
what has happened as a consequence of those decisions made at a different time with different
points of view. He stated there is the potential to mitigate future building losses.
Chair Gibson concurred and stated the elimination of parking minimums will benefit climate goals
and housing goals.
Commissioner Conway moved, seconded by Commissioner Rose, that the Historic
Preservation Commission send a letter to Council recommending the proposed changes to
the Land Use Code to end commercial parking minimums city-wide in order to promote
creativity and adaptation, prevent the destruction of historic properties, and further the
preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of historic properties across the city. Yeas:
Carlock, Conway, Gaines, Hull, Rose, Woodlee, and Gibson. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
DRA
F
T
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
6/18/25 – MINUTES
4. THE LINDEN, 360 LINDEN STREET – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION:
the larger of which will be mixed-use. The project includes approximately 2,500ft2 of
commercial space and a total of 160 housing units. Of those 160 units, a submitted
affidavit indicates 20%, or 32 units, will be affordable.
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
STAFF:
Realty Capital Residential (Spencer Long, representing)
909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Ste 150
Irving, TX 75039
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
STAFF PRESENTATION
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this is a Conceptual Development
Review for a project at 360 Linden Street. He noted staff is not requesting a final recommendation
to the decision maker, which in this case is the Community Development Director given the
affordable housing component of the project. Bertolini stated the project proposes two 5-story
mixed housing and commercial buildings with a first-floor commercial tenant and 160 residential
units, 34 of which will be designated as affordable at 80% AMI. He noted the property is in the
Downtown (D) Zone District and he outlined the 200-foot area of adjacency that will be considered
for design compatibility. He stated abutting historic buildings include the Union Pacific Railroad
Freight Depot and the Harmony Mill. Other significant buildings in the area include the Lindell Mill,
the Godinez Block, and the Ginger and Baker building.
Bertolini provided renderings of the current proposed site plan and noted there are likely to be
changes made based on City staff review. He also provided elevation renderings and conceptual
images and summarized staff’s analysis of the Code requirements for design compatibility in terms
of width and massing, stepbacks, the use of durable materials, dominant materials, windows and
fenestration, horizontal/vertical alignment, and visibility.
Bertolini discussed the specific River District guidelines and outlined the main concerns of Planning
staff, including the use of cement fiber panel siding, the white stucco color, the 3D cornice
treatment, primary entrances, and building variation. He noted there are four interpretive signs
installed by the City in the area, though discussions have occurred about updating the content and
design. Additionally, he noted an archeological monitor will be required during site excavation.
Bertolini outlined some potential discussion questions for the Commission.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Lupe Cantu, Davis Partnership Architects, commented on the importance of contextual
preservation and noted that is why the lap siding was included in the material palette. He also
stated the primary façades were pulled back beyond the masonry to allow the masonry to be read
three-dimensionally. He discussed other components of the building façades, windows, and
primary entry. Additionally, he commented on the relationship between the Depot and Harmony
Mill building and the new building.
COMMISSION QUESTIONS
Chair Gibson requested clarification on the building cornices. Cantu replied cornices are provided
in areas where there is a stepback with no activated balcony or deck, per applicable Land Use
Code standards.
Chair Gibson asked if there has been any thought about paying homage to the fact that the site is
that of the original Fort. Cantu replied in the negative.
Commissioner Rose asked about the decision to move the central entry point to mid-block rather
than the corner. Cantu offered an explanation of the mid-block chamfered entrance and stated the
primary entry is actually at the corner of Willow and Linden.
Commissioner Rose commended the overall design, but stated there may be an opportunity to do
a bit more with the corner in terms of prominence. Cantu concurred that could be examined.
DRA
F
T
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
6/18/25 – MINUTES
Commissioner Gaines commended the creation of the second prominent corner between this
building and the Depot building; however, he concurred with Commissioner Rose that the entrance
hierarchy appears backwards. Cantu noted design is not limited just to the building’s form and
stated landscape, ground treatment, and other considerations can be used to accentuate the
primary corner.
Commissioner Gaines asked about plans for landscaping and streetscaping. Russell Lee, Ripley
Design, replied the plan is for an enhanced streetscape, particularly on Willow. He stated planting
pockets will be created with a 10-foot-wide meandering sidewalk. On Linden, Lee stated the
landscaping will be more hardscape as it is difficult to get plantings to grow on that elevation.
Commissioner Gaines encouraged activating Chestnut as much as possible if it is extended
through to Willow. Lee replied they are not able to get a pure pass through on Chestnut, per City
staff, and there have been talks of doing something with the architecture to highlight where the
Chestnut right-of-way would go. Additionally, he noted there will be an enhanced pedestrian mid-
block crossing.
Commissioner Gaines commended the way the building has been broken up in terms of massing,
but stated there is a strong checkerboard effect with the white stucco and suggested there be
reinforcement of the stepbacks with various different materials. Cantu replied that could be
considered but noted he does not want to create an elevational village.
Commissioner Gaines suggested the fin feature seems a bit out of place with the context and
concurred with comments regarding creating more verticality with windows. He also noted the back
side of the building will be quite visible and is currently very blank compared to the front side of the
building. He suggested carrying brick around the back.
Vice Chair Carlock concurred with Commissioner Gaines’ comments, particularly as related to the
back side of the building. She noted that will be the most visible component of the building from
the downtown area. She asked about the design considerations and decision-making with the
white stucco and navy material. Cantu replied it was included to contextually react to the Godinez
Building at 404 Linden. He noted the colors could be altered to be richer and less stark.
(**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chair Gibson suggested comments should begin with massing and building articulation.
Commissioner Rose stated the two historic structures that must be considered are of such a
different scale. He stated the articulation does a good job of keeping the scale relevant to the
historic resources. He concurred with Commissioner Gaines’ comment about the material palette
and stated the massing component is achieved by virtue of the fact that the buildings have
components that match the scale of the historic resources.
Commissioner Gaines stated the brick mass that is adjacent to the Depot does a decent job of
scaling down that chunk of the building.
In terms of building materials, Chair Gibson stated she concurs with Planning staff’s discussion on
page 42 of the packet regarding the lap siding. She stated she would have liked to have seen a
reference to agriculture or the warehouse district rather than the checkerboard design that is
currently pictured. She stated the white stucco is an appropriate material, particularly given the
white used across the street at Ginger and Baker.
Vice Chair Carlock disagreed stating the proposed design includes too much white and will be
extremely visible from downtown. She suggested the amount of white could be toned down.
Commissioner Gaines stated the building design is positive from a massing perspective, but stated
the materials are falling short of potential and should better align with River District standards.
Regarding design details, Commissioner Gaines stated there is a great deal to take in with the size
of the building. He also noted the design is at a conceptual stage. He stated one of the details that
stands out as being incompatible is the thin wing on the corner.
Chair Gibson stated she would like to see the treatment of the entryway on the corner be a bit more
developed.
Commissioner Gaines commented on the upper story treatment at the chamfered corner and stated
it seems a bit awkward as it gets above the street level mass.
DRA
F
T
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
6/18/25 – MINUTES
Vice Chair Carlock commended the deck design feature on the building’s corner.
Regarding visibility of historic features, Chair Gibson concurred with the staff assessment that the
new building does not obscure them.
5. CLAY FAMILY HISTORY PRESENTATION – IN HONOR OF JUNETEENTH
Juneteenth is a federal, state, and local holiday that commemorates June
19, 1865, when Major General Gordon Granger led Union soldiers into
Galveston, Texas, bringing news that slavery in the United States had
ended by executive decree. In 2025, the City of Fort Collins will recognize
the Juneteenth holiday on Thursday, June 19 by closing all City offices.
The free community Juneteenth celebration will take place at the Foothills
Mall on Friday, June 20 and Saturday, June 21 at Foothills Mall. The event
is presented by the Black Professionals Network, in collaboration with the
Foothills Mall, the City of Fort Collins, and United Way of Larimer County.
Event information is at https://www.focojuneteenth.com/.
In honor of Juneteenth, Meg Dunn, Vice President of Historic Larimer
County, will present her research on a formerly enslaved early Fort Collins
resident, Charlie Clay, and his family. Clay was an early Northern Colorado
pioneer and the first African American to settle in what became Larimer
County. His story is full of adventure, tribulations, and an entrepreneurial
spirit. Meg Dunn has been fascinated by Charlie’s story ever since she first
heard of him, and she is eager to share his tales of daring do, brushes with
fame, and his all-around congenial spirit.
STAFF:
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
Meg Dunn, Historic Larimer County Vice President and Fort Collins Historical Society President,
provided a history of Charlie Clay, a formerly enslaved early Fort Collins resident. She discussed
his work as a cook in various Denver area and Blackhawk hotels. Additionally, she commented on
Clay and another individual opening one of Larimer County’s first craft breweries in Laporte, which
served a meal to General Grant after the close of the Civil War. Clay also became the County’s
first barber when he lived in Laporte.
Dunn discussed Clay’s marriage and children and noted he ran for a trustee position when he
was likely the only Black man in the County. She noted his obituary explained that Clay cooked
in several of Fort Collins’ early hotels, including the Windsor Hotel which is where Clothes Pony
exists today. Clay and his family moved to Fort Collins, near Shields and Laporte, around 1876.
Dunn discussed the growing African American community in Fort Collins in the late 1870’s and
commented on Clay’s various side jobs. She stated the Clay’s house caught fire in 1882 and
everything was destroyed, including their barn. She noted his wife was pregnant at the time and
they had four small children. In October of 1882, the Clay’s purchased the Tony House, a hotel
which was right next to the train depot. Clay renamed the property the Bonanza Restaurant and
took in boarders on the second floor; however, Dunn noted most white clientele would not stay in
a Black owned hotel and therefore the business only lasted about a year. After that time, the
Clay’s moved to 317 Maple Street.
Dunn stated Clay’s last child was born in 1882, and in 1885, Charlie Clay was found passed out
in the street and the associated newspaper article indicated he may have had his hands and/or
feet amputated due to frostbite. In 1888, Clay was hired as the city scavenger, essentially a one-
man garbage service, a job which he maintained until his death in 1910. In April of 1890, Clay
ran for mayor and received only one vote. In 1892, Charlie Clay’s wife, Anna, passed away.
Dunn went on to discuss Clay’s children and their involvement in local events. One of the
children was the only African American to appear on ‘I Love Lucy.’ Dunn noted the children were
DRA
F
T
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
6/18/25 – MINUTES
popular local performers as well. In March of 1908, it was announced that a mission church was
being set up in Fort Collins, some of the land for which was donated by some of Clay’s daughters.
Dunn noted all of the pallbearers for Clay’s funeral in 1910 were City Council members. His
biography had been published in the newspaper in 1904, 1909, after his death, 1920, 1923, 1930,
and 1931. Dunn noted his importance to the community was made clear by Pioneer Association
skits which occurred after his death, a portrait taken by a noted Fort Collins photographer, and he
was included in the biographies in Ansel Watrous’ History of Larimer County.
Dunn suggested Clay’s story should be memorialized with some type of monument, perhaps by
changing the name of Washington Park to Charlie Clay Park as his home was located right next
to the park.
Commissioners commended Dunn on the presentation and research.
Bzdek noted Clay’s name has been part of regular conversations around civic center campus
planning, including recognizing the Clay family and area in general with some type of
interpretation or memorial.
Commissioner Rose stated the way Clay was treated by the Fort Collins community gives him
faith we are on the right track in terms of civility. Dunn noted there were some negative articles
about Clay in the early 1900’s.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Bzdek shared a video entitled ‘Buried But Not Forgotten: A Juneteenth Reflection.’
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Gibson adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.
DRA
F
T
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING JUNE 5 TO AUGUST 6)
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
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. 16
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
The Big Splash Foundation; City of at the 1883 Water Approx. 40 June 14, 2025
Community Black Professionals
Network community celebration Approx. 130 June 21, 2025
Approx. 28 July 31, 2025
Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision
250 N. Mason St. (C&S
Railroad Freight
Depot/Downtown
In-kind roof replacement (TPO
membrane). City Landmark. Reviewed by
staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approval June 5, 2025
526 Remington St.
(Calloway House)
building to Laurel School Historic District
(NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Report Issued June 10, 2025
531 S. College Ave.
(First Presbyterian
Church)
screen wall, removal of AC units from
window openings and replacement with
salvaged sashes, replacement of some
light fixtures, some asphalt
removal/repair, transformer and electric
box replacement. Property on State
Register of Historic Properties. Reviewed
by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article
Approved July 3, 2025
201 Linden St. (Linden
Hotel)
Town Historic District (Landmark and
NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Approved July 7, 2025
323 Garfield St.
egress windows. Contributing property to
Laurel School Historic District (NRHP).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code
Report Issued July 9, 2025
419 Mathews St. (H.W.
Schroeder Property)
and steps with stacked sandstone. City
Landmark and contributing building to
Laurel School Historic District (NRHP).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code
Approved July 9, 2025
Packet Pg. 17
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 3
329 Edwards St.
porch posts to connect to existing door
hood. Contributing property to Laurel
School Historic District (NRHP).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code
Approved July 9, 2025
317 E. Laurel St. (C.E.
Simpson House)
building to Laurel School Historic District
(NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Report Issued July 10, 2025
East Mountain Avenue
& Remington Street
(Trolley Tracks)
likely to require some removal of historic
trolley track material buried under planted
median. Contributing feature to Old Town
Landmark District. Reviewed by staff
Approved July 11, 2025
334 E. Elizabeth St.
(334 E. Elizabeth St.)
Contributing building to Laurel School
Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by Report Issued July 15, 2025
201 S. College Ave.
(Old Post Office)
Landmark and SR/NR property.
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved July 22, 2025
924 W. Magnolia St.
(Elizabeth Collins
House)
clear polycarbonate roof with slight pitch.
City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV (COA
Approved July 25, 2025
400 Peterson St.
(Hurdle/Coy/Streit
Residence)
building to Laurel School Historic District
(NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Report Issued July 31, 2025
450 N. College Ave.
(Power Plant) Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved July 31, 2025
608 Peterson St.
(Littlefield Residence)
top addition. Project does not meet
Standards, but compliance is not required
(NRHP). Contributing property to Laurel
School Historic District (NRHP).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code
Report Issued July 31, 2025
Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 4
Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 5.8.1
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision /
Recommendation
2000 Stover – St.
Luke’s Episcopal garden with new street trees along Recommend Approval 6/5/2025
250 N Mason St –
Downtown Transit
Center
Conceptual Development Review:
Installation of electric bus charging
towers, transformer, and conduit
location, process (HPC
Review), & key preservation 6/12/2025
St – Korean Conceptual Development Review:
Single-family or duplex conversion survey requirement & 7/22/2025
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 surveys
Address
1000 W. Prospect Rd Eligible Yes July 1, 2025
1501 S. Lemay Ave Not Eligible Yes July 9, 2025
The table below includes historic property surveys for the reporting period for any historic surveys that are
underway but not yet complete. HPC members and members of the public with information are encouraged to
Address Age of Property Proposed Use/Outcome Status of Survey
1185 Westward Dr 1960 Demolition for 4-story apartment bldg. Underway
1207 S. Shields St. 1949 Demolition for 4-story apartment bldg. Underway
1211 S. Shields St 1923 Demolition for 4-story apartment bldg. Underway
1215 S. Shields St. 1914 Demolition for 4-story apartment bldg. Underway
4305 E. Harmony Rd 1920 Underway
4325 E. Harmony Rd 1971 Demolition for commercial development Underway
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.
Packet Pg. 19
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
Lead Agency & Property
Location Description of Project Staff Comment
Date
Comment
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)
As noted above, Preservation staff does not provide substantive comments regarding these undertakings.
Within this period, staff processed a total of 35 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 9 seen for the first time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 20
Headline Copy Goes Here
August 20, 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
531 S. College Ave. – First Presbyterian Church
(State Register of Historic Properties; Reviewed
under MC 14, Article IV and LUC 5.8.1)
Project includes:
• Addition of elevator tower
• Removal of AC units and replacement with
salvaged window sashes, or matching new if
needed
• Exterior light fixtures
• Ductless AC system with associated screen wall
• Asphalt repair
• Replacement of transformer and electric meter
1
2
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 21
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Education/Outreach Highlight
The Big Splash – June 14, 2025 Juneteenth Celebration – June 21, 2025
Headline Copy Goes HereUpcoming Education/Outreach Opportunities
•Historic Homes Tour Preview Lecture
Event – Monday, September 8, Senior
Center
•Poudre Landmarks Foundation Historic
Homes Tour – Saturday, September 13,
10-4
•City HPS sponsoring the Watson-Sarchet
House, 930 W. Mountain
•Landmarked in 1980
3
4
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 22
Headline Copy Goes HereJoin Our Newsletter!
5
• 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
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 23
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT August 20, 2025
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1617 PERSON CT.
STAFF
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
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.
1617 Person Ct.
Historical Background
Person Court was annexed into the City of Fort Collins on October 12, 1955 as part of the Gray-Strecker
Annex. The dwelling at 1617 Person Ct. was constructed c. 1947. Person Court did not appear in City
Directory records until 1950, and appeared as “Persons Court” until it de-pluralized in 1956. The first known
residents of 1617 Person Ct. were Frank and Madeline Marquiss. Frank worked as a motor route driver in
1950 and appears to have passed away around that time; Madeline was listed as a widow in the 1952
directory. The longest known residents of this property prior to 1975 were Reinholt and Elizabeth Peil. The
Peils lived at 1617 Person Court for about ten years. Reinholt had a variety of different jobs during his and
Elizabeth’s time there, but he worked most consistently as a ditch rider. There is no survey record available for
this property.
The proposed demolition includes only the single-story residence on this property, not the two-story attached
garage.
Construction History – Exterior Building Permit Records
DATE PERMIT # NAME DESCRIPTION
6/8/1994 91705 Steven Erthal
After the fact permit for 2 sheds, 96
square feet each. One shed had to
Packet Pg. 24
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 2
be moved to conform to setback
requirements.
9/14/1995 952840 Steven Erthal to existing dwelling.
6/18/1996 962113 Steven Erthal Replacing water line
8/5/2024 B2405891 Daisy Erthal Reroofing
Residents to 1975
YEAR NAME(S) NOTES
1950 Frank and Madeline Marquiss
Street does not appear in Directories until 1950, and
appears as "Persons Court"; Frank - Motor Rte
1952 Madeline Marquiss Widow of Frank
1954 Reinholt and Elizabeth K. Peil Reinholt - Farmer
1956 Same
Listed in Directories as "Person Court" starting 1956;
Reinholt - Ditch rider
1957 Same
Reinholt - Factory worker for Forney Manufacturing
Company
1959 Same Reinholt - odd jobs
1960 Same Reinholt - Ditch rider
1962 Same Same
1963 Same Reinholt - Ditch rider Loudon Ditch
1964 Same Reinholt - Ditch rider
1966 Vacant
1969 William and Jewel Roberts William - employee Peter Klevit
Estimated Demolition Metrics2
Buildings represent an investment of carbon in the energy consumed to produce their materials and complete
their construction. When demolitions are necessary, there is an environmental and economic cost. These
metrics are provided as an introductory step to estimate those costs.
Square footage: 891
Total Embodied Energy: 24.057 tons
Total Salvageable Volume: 225,423 lbs.
Total Salvageable Value: $10,852.38
ATTACHMENTS
1. Current Photos
2. Staff Presentation
2 Particular metrics for this house based on results of a Place Economics study for the City of San Antonio:
https://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-Edits_Treasure-in-the-Walls_small.pdf
Packet Pg. 25
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 26
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 27
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 28
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 29
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 30
Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 1617 Person Ct.
8-20-2025
Yani Jones
Historic Preservation Planner
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. 31
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 – 1617 Person Ct.
Aerial Map
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 32
5Property Background
• Single story, concrete block/masonry house constructed c. 1947
• 2-story garage constructed 1995
• Longest known residents to 1975: Reinholt and Elizabeth Peil (c. 1954–1964)
• Reinholt held a variety of jobs during this ten year period, but most often worked as a ditch rider.
According to the Poudre Heritage Alliance, a ditch rider is “an individual who patrols and
inspects irrigation systems and distributes water to farmers.”
• There is no existing survey record for this property.
• There are no known historic photos of this property.
• This property does not appear on any available Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
Exterior Building Permit History:
DESCRIPTIONNAMEPERMIT #DATE
After the fact permit for 2 sheds, 96 square feet each. One
shed had to be moved to conform to setback requirements.Steven Erthal917056/8/1994
Two story attached garage addition to existing dwelling.Steven Erthal9528409/14/1995
Replacing water lineSteven Erthal9621136/18/1996
ReroofingBernard and Daisy ErthalB24058918/5/2024
6Current Photos
East Elevation/Facade North Elevation
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 33
7Current Photos
South Elevation
West/Rear Elevation
(obscured by 2-story garage)
8Estimated Demolition Metrics
Buildings represent an investment of carbon in the energy consumed to produce their materials
and complete their construction. When demolitions are necessary, there is an environmental and
economic cost. These metrics are provided as an introductory step to estimate those costs.*
Total Embodied Energy Calculation: .027 tons (55.1 lbs) of embodied energy per square foot
Total Salvageable Volume: 253 lbs per square foot
Total Salvageable Value: $12.18 per square foot
1617 Person Ct.
Square footage: 891
Total Embodied Energy: 24.057 tons
Total Salvageable Volume: 225,423 lbs.
Total Salvageable Value: $10,852.38
*Estimates are based on results of a Place Economics study for the City of San Antonio:
https://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-Edits_Treasure-in-the-Walls_small.pdf
7
8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 34
9Role 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
Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification – 1617 Person Ct.
8-20-2025
Yani Jones
Historic Preservation Planner
9
10
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 35
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
Historic Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
THE LINDEN, 360 LINDEN STREET – FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
buildings, the larger of which will be mixed-use. The project includes
approximately 2,500ft2 of commercial space and a total of 160 housing units. Of
those 160 units, a submitted affidavit indicates 20%, or 32 units, will be
affordable.
APPLICANT/OWNER:
CONSULTANT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is forwarding this item to the HPC to provide a recommendation to the decision maker. Staff’s analysis is that
in general the requirements of 5.8.1 are met. Because this project includes affordable housing, it is processed as
a Basic Development Review under City Code, a staff review process that typically does not include public
meetings.
COMMISSION’S ROLE:
Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (City staff) regarding the proposed alterations, relative to
their compliance with Section 5.8.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
The HPC already provided a conceptual review of this item at its June 2025 meeting and provided feedback to
the applicant. The submittal materials for this meeting reflect the applicant’s response to that feedback.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT SUMMARY:
This project proposal is for a 160-unit housing development with incorporated commercial space (totaling 2,473ft2
at this time) in two buildings. The project will demolish two buildings on the site that both date from the 1980s
and thus are not old enough to be considered for potential historic status. Staff (Planning and Preservation) have
been working with the applicant team for several months on conceptual design.
During initial staff conversations, this project did not have an Affordable Housing component. Since that time, as
part of the formal submission, an Affidavit confirms that 20%, or thirty-two (32), of the units will be rented at
affordable rates for 80% of the area median income (AMI).
Packet Pg. 36
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 2
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
The project is within the Downtown zone district with a portion of its proposed new construction within the Old
Town Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. There are no known historic
resources on the development site. However, the development site overlaps with the confirmed location of the
original military fort, Fort Collins. As part of the development, an archaeological monitor would be required during
site work for Building 1 since the level of site disturbance to date is unknown. A Collections Agreement with the
Museum of Discovery would need filed before permits for site work would be released, since the Museum is the
repository for any inadvertent finds.
There are several historic buildings within 200 feet of the development site. The primary reference sites for the
application of design compatibility requirements in Land Use Code 5.8.1 have been identified by staff as the Union
Pacific Freight Depot at 350 Linden Street, and the Harmony Mill at 131 E. Lincoln Avenue, since both buildings
directly abut the site. Below is a full list of historic buildings in the 200ft area of adjacency, with the two primary
references bolded:
- 350 Linden Street, Union Pacific Railroad Freight Depot, Listed (NRHP, Old Town Historic District)
- 131 E. Lincoln Avenue, Harmony Mill, Listed (City Landmark)
- 546 Willow Street, Lindell Mill, Ranch-Way Feed Mill, Listed (City Landmark)
- 359 Linden Street, Poudre Valley Elevator Co./Northern Colorado Feeder’s Supply, Listed (NRHP, Old
Town Historic District)
- 404 Linden Street, Godinez Block/El Burrito, Eligible for designation as a City Landmark
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
For the purposes of this evaluation, staff has generally focused on design compatibility with the abutting UPRR
Freight Depot at 350 Linden Street for the Linden Street-facing elevation, and compatibility with the abutting
Harmony Mill at 131 E. Lincoln Ave. for the Willow Street-facing elevation.
This project falls within the applicable boundaries for the City’s River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District.
A summary of Planning staff’s current evaluation of the project related to those design standards, especially
related to anticipated changes to the project that may occur before final approval, are included after the
analysis table.
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General
Land Use Code 5.8.1(F)(1)(c)
NOTE: This section has been completed by staff referencing the
historic properties at 350 Linden Street (the UPRR Freight Depot)
Complies/Does
Not Comply
Massing and
Building
Articulation
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated
into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources
on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
Focusing on the north/Linden Street-facing elevation, the two-story
base treatment includes a projection of similar size and scale as the
TBD (Staff Y)
Packet Pg. 37
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 3
It appears articulated into massing reflective of the historic resources
on the development site.
Moving to the north/Willow-facing elevations, the two new buildings
include articulation along the facades that is reflective of the Harmony
Mill, especially regarding width at the street level. Brick sections
referencing the Mill are interspersed with stucco sections referencing
the Godinez Block/El Burrito.
At conceptual review, the HPC recommended the applicant consider
avoiding the checkerboard pattern of the alternating colors and
materials. The applicant has addressed that and aligned colors and
materials to each massing section.
Massing and
Building
Articulation
2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to
create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story
above the height of historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone
district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown
zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest
to historic resources.
This standard appears met. Relating to the Freight Depot, northern
sections of building one include a step-back at the second story, one
story above the one-story Depot. Moving to the Willow Street
elevations, referencing the Harmony Mill, the intent of this Standard
appears met, since the new building, at five stories, is only one story
above the four-story Harmony Mill.
TBD (Staff Y)
Building
Materials
The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise)
must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials (brick,
stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast concrete, wood,
cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards.
Staff finds the proposed materials for both buildings on their lower
facades (brick, cement fiber flush horizontal siding, and cementitious
stucco) appear to meet this standard.
TBD (Staff Y)
Building
Materials
New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate
material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or
across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the
primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or the lower
story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2)
TBD (Staff Y)
Packet Pg. 38
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 4
Both primary reference buildings are almost exclusively red brick
masonry. This means the primary materials on the lower stories (before
stepbacks) should reference red brick masonry in at least two of the
above-listed ways. However, staff acknowledges the presence of
several different historic materials on nearby buildings, along with the
need for articulation under Standard 1 above, and has considered that
in our evaluation.
The two “primary” materials on the lower stories appear to be red brick
and cementitious stucco. The red brick clearly meets this Standard.
The cementitious stucco is intended to reference the Godinez Block/El
Burrito, a Landmark-eligible building to the north across Willow Street,
as well as the Northern Colorado Feeder’s Supply building at 359
Linden Street. Based on the importance of those buildings to Fort
Collins history, the complexity of corner building design, and the need
for articulation on a large building served by the use of variable
materials, staff considers this standard met with the stucco as well.
At conceptual review, the HPC expressed concern about the use of
lapboard siding since none of the nearby historic industrial or
transportation-related buildings include that feature. The applicant has
elected to use stucco (both white and blue) instead. This appears to
Fenestration Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar
window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as
found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or
across a side alley.
The two historic buildings have similar historic window treatments to
serve as references. The Harmony Mill has six-over-six wood sash
windows in singular, symmetrical locations, with concrete lintels and cut
stone sills. The Freight Depot has singular nine-over-nine wood sash
windows concentrated on the west street-facing portions of the
building.
On the west/Linden-facing elevations, banks of three 1x3 bronze-
colored vinyl windows in metal storefront framing have been selected
for lower elevations, with taller paired configurations for the apartments
above. In most cases, it appears this Standard is met relative to option
2 for similar window proportion of height to width.
At conceptual review, staff and the HPC noted that the Willow Street
elevations include some larger picture windows that don’t appear to
meet the Standard. The applicant has addressed this and altered the
window patterning to meet the window proportion standard.
TBD
Design
Details
Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as
rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side
TBD (Staff Y)
Packet Pg. 39
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 5
Based on the submitted materials, there appears to be good alignment
with the proposed stepbacks, windowsills, and other architectural
elements with the cornice lines and sill/lintel lines of abutting historic
buildings.
At conceptual review, the HPC noted that there were some
weaknesses in the design, specifically that the references did not carry
over to side and rear elevations in most cases, and that at the Linden &
Willow corner, the corner entry did not replicate other downtown
buildings in a way that supported both the historic compatibility
requirements and the River District guidelines. The applicant has
chamfered that corner at the intersection, similar to the same treatment
that exists on Building 1 where it abuts the UPRR Freight Depot.
Visibility of
Historic
Features
New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining
architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side
alley.
While distant views of the Harmony Mill and Lindell Mill/Ranch-Way
Feeds will certainly be affected based on the large size and scale of the
project, the visibility of these resources will not be obstructed as viewed
from nearby rights-of-way (Linden [for the UPRR Freight Depot], Willow
TBD (Staff Y)
River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District Design Guidelines
For the downtown area bounded by Jefferson Street, College Avenue, the Cache la Poudre River, and the
southeast frontage of Lincoln Avenue, the City has specific standards and guidelines governing redevelopment
projects contained within the Land Use Code and these guidelines. These guidelines acknowledge the historical
relationships to agriculture and industry that much of this area had, and encourage infill design that relates to
that tradition, while looking forward to a more dense, mixed use, downtown environment.
Planning staff for the project have provided the following evaluation notes and requests related to primary
Planning concerns with the 360 Linden Street / The Linden project. Preservation staff has provided some
annotated notes regarding the interrelation of these River District guidelines and standards with the Historic
Preservation section of the Land Use Code. Preservation staff has removed those items that were addressed
completely by the applicant since conceptual review, such as removing the proposed use of lapsiding. These
are provided to inform the HPC of design changes that are most likely between this stage of the design review
and final approval.
1. White Stucco Color: The overuse of white as the main body color is problematic due to high reflectivity.
Explore muted gray tones like Sherwin Williams "Stamped Concrete" to align with the ag-industrial
character of weathered steel and concrete.
a. Preservation staff would note that the use of cement stucco is appropriate in this
circumstance, due to its historic use on the Poudre Valley Feeders Supply building, Lindell
Mill, and Godinez Block, all of which are non-abutting but within 200ft of the development site.
Cement stucco meets the material compatibility requirements in LUC 5.8.1 as noted above,
however, the use of a specific color is not required, since there are four other options for
Packet Pg. 40
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 6
material compatibility met by matching the material, and only three options need met.
Preservation requirements, in this case, are not in opposition to Planning’s design comment.
2. Building Variation: Much of the River Subdistrict Standards and accompanying Guidelines focus on
requiring architecture that is varied, interesting, is scaled to pedestrians, and respects the history and
design vision of the River Subdistrict. There are currently [two] areas of concern, the two ends of the
building that face the main drive into the site and the building edge that faces east.
a. For the easternmost portion of the second building, enhance the architecture to address the
lack of details.
b. For the portions of the building facing the internal drive consider wrapping enhanced
architectural features (such as the continuation of the brick facade) around both building
corners, continuing halfway down the facade before articulating to stucco. Consider the use of
awning or canopies per River District Design Guidelines (p. 63) and Downtown Land Use
Code Standards.
5.8.1(F)(3): Plan of Protection
Staff is requiring archaeological monitoring for the site work related to Building 1, due to its overlap with known
building sites of the original Fort Collins military post from the 1860s. This will be documented via a Request for
Collections Agreement with the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery who would be the repository for anything
discovered during excavation work.
Otherwise, a Plan of Protection covering incidentals will be required prior to the release of Building Permits as a
contingency related to accidental damage during construction to the UPRR Freight Depot.
Packet Pg. 41
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 7
SAMPLE MOTIONS
Staff Recommended Motion:
I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the two five-
story buildings for housing and commercial uses, known as The Linden project at 360 Linden Street. This
recommendation is based on review of the findings in the staff report, the applicant materials and presentation,
and information received at this hearing, and specifically the Commission finds:
The Project complies with the requirements under Land Use Code Section 5.8.1(F) finding that all
seven of the design compatibility requirements in 5.8.1(F)(1)(c), Table 1 are met.
[The Commission may elaborate on its recommendation or on these basic findings, propose additional
findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation.].
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval:
I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the two five-
story buildings for housing and commercial uses, known as The Linden project at 360 Linden Street. This
recommendation is based on review of the findings in the staff report, the applicant materials and presentation,
and information received at this hearing, and specifically the Commission finds:
The Project complies with the requirements under Land Use Code Section 5.8.1(F) [list the Land Use
Code 5.8.1(F) criteria affecting this decision and summarize your rationale] __________________
[The Commission may elaborate on its recommendation or on these basic findings, propose additional
findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation.].
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial:
I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the two five-
story buildings for housing and commercial uses, known as The Linden project at 360 Linden Street. This
recommendation is based on review of the findings in the staff report, the applicant materials and presentation,
and information received at this hearing, and specifically the Commission finds:
The Project does not comply with the requirements under Land Use Code Section 5.8.1(F) [list the
Land Use Code 5.8.1(F) criteria affecting this decision and summarize your rationale ______________
[The Commission may elaborate on its recommendation or on these basic findings, propose additional
findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation.].
Sample Motion for a Continuance:
I move that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this item to the next meeting to seek additional
information regarding the following code requirements: [insert] [or insert other reasons for a
continuing the item].
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applicant Development Review Application
2. Applicant Conceptual Review materials (for reference)
3. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 42
IT
E
M
4
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 43
IT
E
M
4
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 44
IT
E
M
4
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 45
IT
E
M
4
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 46
IT
E
M
4
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 47
IT
E
M
4
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 48
IT
E
M
4
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 49
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 50
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 51
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 52
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 53
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 54
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 55
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 56
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 57
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 58
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 59
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 60
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 61
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 62
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 63
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 64
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 65
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 66
Headline Copy Goes Here
August 20, 2025Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Jim Bertolini
The Linden, 360 Linden St:
Final Development Review
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
HPC Role
•Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 5.8.1
•Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker
(Community Development Director) regarding compliance with Section
5.8.1 of the land use code.
1
2
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 67
Headline Copy Goes HereProject Summary
3
•Mixed Office/Commercial
‒ 5 stories
‒ 164 ft at parapet
‒ 1 commercial space on
ground floor (Linden St)
‒ 160 units
‒ 32 affordable
‒80% of AMI
Headline Copy Goes HereSite
4
Historic Area
of Adjacency
(200ft)
3
4
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 68
Headline Copy Goes HereNearby Historic Buildings – Primary Buildings (abutting)
5
• Union Pacific Railroad Freight Depot
• Listed in NRHP (Old Town HD, 1978)
• Built 1910-1911
• Freight service until 1975
• Included some regional/Amtrak passenger
service in last few years
• Various businesses including New Belgium
brewing 1994-1996
• Since then, has been a construction materials
yard (Cotlier Construction and now Mawson
Lumber)
• Harmony Mill
• Landmarked 1994
• Built 1886
• Built by the Farmers’ Protective Association,
primarily for grain processing
• Closed by 1901 due to poor financial
management
• Served many functions since, including a local
grocer, and now an art collective (Petrichor)
UPRR Depot, 2021
Harmony Mill, 2019 (L) and 1969 (B)
Headline Copy Goes HereNearby Historic Buildings – Secondary (non-abutting)
6
• Lindell Mill / Ranch-WayFeeds, 546 Willow St.
• Landmarked 1994
• Built 1869, with major
updates/expansions in 1887,
and 1966
• Godinez Block, El Burrito,404 Linden St.
• Built 1947
• No up-to-date determination,
but likely Eligible
• Hispanic Heritage & Godinez family
• Poudre Valley Feeder’sSupply, 359 Linden St.
• Listed in NRHP 1978 (Old
Town HD)
• Built 1911
• Various iterations of grain processing, including livestock feed, since construction
• Switched to restaurant in
mid-2010s
From L to R,
Rocky Mountain
Grain & Coal,
Harmony Mill,
and Lindell Mill,
c.1910
Godinez
Block,
404
Linden,
2021
Poudre Valley Feeder’s Supply, 359 Linden St.
Lindell Mill, 2018
5
6
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 69
Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Site Plan
7
Headline Copy Goes HereElevations – Building 1 (West)
8
7
8
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 70
Headline Copy Goes HereElevations – Building 2 (East)
9
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Concepts
9
10
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 71
Headline Copy Goes HereLUC 5.8.1(F) Item #1, Width & Massing – Staff Analysis
11
• Linden St - Approx 112ft wide (articulated into 36ft to 48ft sections
• Willow St – Approx 330ft wide (articulated into 50ft & 36ft sections)
•Staff Analysis: Met; façade massing broken up into similar height and width as historic mill and/or freight depot
•HPC Comment Addressed – Align blue upper story sections withbrick massing to avoid “checkerboard”
• 350 Linden St. – Approx 42ft wide (Linden St)
• 131 E Lincoln Ave. – Approx 50ft wide (Willow St)
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #2, Stepback – Staff Analysis
• Staff Analysis: Appears met in both directions
• Toward UPRR Freight Depot, two stories, slightly above historic building (one story above)
• Toward Harmony Mill, 5 stories (one story above)
11
12
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 72
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #3, Durable Materials – Staff Analysis
• Staff analysis: Appears met
• Brick, cement stucco (non-EIFS), are
listed as approved
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #4, Dominant Materials – Staff Analysis
• Staff analysis: Appears met
•Note: Only applies up to stepbacks
• Dominant historic material for primary
references is red brick
• Dominant historic material for
secondary references is light/white
concrete stucco and painted brick
• Primary new material above and below
stepbacks is brick and cement stucco
•Brick meets this
•Non-EIFS cement stucco appears to
meet this
•Lapboard siding has been removed and
replaced with blue stucco
13
14
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 73
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #5, Windows/Fenestration – Staff Analysis
• Only 1 option
needs met
• In most
cases, similar
proportions
from either
Harmony Mill
or Freight
Depot appear
incorporated
•Staff
comment
addressed:
Upper floor
windows
now broken
up to reflect
historic
window
pattern
• Staff Analysis: Proportion option (height to
width) appears met
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #6, Horizontal/Vertical – Staff Analysis (cont)
• HPC & Staff Concern – wrapping brick and other
design features to rear elevation
• Staff has provided a visual to show simulated visibility of the rear
elevation from likely sidewalk views nearby.
• Simulated view from Chestnut shows visibility will be low. Similar
visibility appears expected at Linden or Mountain/Lincoln
15
16
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 74
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #6, Horizontal/Vertical Alignment – Staff Analysis
• Staff Analysis: Met
• Horizontal features are incorporated, although they don’t
visually align
• Replication of concrete sills
• Use of banding and cornicing along brick sections
•HPC Comment Addressed –concern about corner
treatment at Willow & Linden; applicant has
chamfered the corner and provided a more
traditional corner entry
Headline Copy Goes Here
18
LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #7, Visibility – Staff Analysis
• Staff Analysis: Appears met
• Primary perspectives of concern are Linden Street (for the freight depot), and Lincoln Avenue (for the Harmony Mill)
• UPRR Depot & Linden?: No concerns – setbacks and alley appear adequate to achieve this
• Harmony Mill & Lincoln?: No concerns – however, prominence of the Harmony Mill as currently viewed from Linden will be diminished
17
18
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 75
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
Planning Staff – River District & Main Concerns (Remaining)
• Use of lapsiding (cement fiber)
• White stucco color
• 3D cornice treatment
• Primary entrances
• Building Variation and
corners/sides
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
HPC Requests for Information
-Interpretation in area?
-Archaeological monitoring process?
N corner – Ft Collins/Military E corner – Arapahoe/Native S corner – Native Pre-Contact
/ River
W corner – Industrial History
19
20
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 76
Headline Copy Goes Here
21
Potential Discussion questions
• Are the horizontal and vertical references between the proposed and historic buildings appropriate or do they
need adjusted to align more precisely?
• Have the HPC concerns about design compatibility, such as the rear elevation treatments, corner treatments at
Willow & Linden, etc., been sufficiently addressed?
• Does the overall project meet the requirements of LUC 5.8.1 for design compatibility?
Headline Copy Goes Here
22
Public comments
• As of 8/3 – none
21
22
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 77
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
HPC Role
•Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 5.8.1
•Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker
(Community Development Director) regarding compliance with Section
5.8.1 of the land use code.
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
24
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 78
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 1
STAFF REPORT Au ust 20, 2025
Historic Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
1000 W. PROSPECT ROAD – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development application at 1000 W. Prospect Rd to include adaptive reuse of
the existing historic house (Landmark Eligible), relocation and incorporation of
the historic garage, and construction of a new six story multi-unit residential
building on the east half of the site.
APPLICANT OWNER: Kurt Basford Desi n professional ; Ezra H. Headrick South Dakota, LLC owner
1000 W Prospect Rd
Fort Collins, CO 80526
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
At this time the project is too conceptual in nature for a final recommendation, and staff does not recommend
proceeding to final review at this meeting.
Staff will likely bring this item to the HPC at a later date to provide a recommendation to the decision maker, once
complete plans for the project are available as part of a formal BDR (Basic Development Review) application.
Because the applicant has indicated that this project will include affordable housing, it is likely to be processed as
a Basic Development Review under City Code, a staff review process that typically does not include public
meetings. The affordable housing component will be confirmed via an Affidavit once a formal application is
received.
COMMISSION’S ROLE:
Conceptual review is an optional first phase of the development review process when Landmark-eligible
(undesignated) historic resources are on or near the development site, and is an opportunity for the applicant
to discuss requirements, standards, design issues, and policies that apply to the project with the Commission.
Conceptual review of any proposed alteration may be limited to certain portions of the work as the Commission
deems appropriate. The applicant is not required to have a conceptual review for development projects and
may proceed directly to final review and recommendation. If sufficient information is available to make a
recommendation, the Commission may move to complete a final review at the same meeting as the
Commission’s conceptual review of the application or at a subsequent meeting. During final review, the
Commission considers the application and any changes made by the applicant since conceptual review.
BACKGROUND:
This project is a six-story multi-unit residential building on the parcel for 1000 W. Prospect Rd, the historic
Claude & Clara Coffin House, determined Eligible for Landmark designation on June 30, 2025 under
Standards 2 (Persons/Groups) and 3 (Design/Construction). The property is a significant reflection of the
contributions of Claude Coffin in particular, a prominent local judge and the discoverer and booster for the
Packet Pg. 79
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 2
Lindenmeier archaeological site, which transformed early twentieth century understandings of human
occupation in North America and is now listed as a National Historic Landmark. The property is also a
significant example of Craftsman architecture in the neighborhoods abutting the Colorado State University
campus. The 2025 determination of eligibility included the house and garage and several landscape features,
including a pond, outdoor fireplace, and decorative stone wall.
The proposal is for a six-story multi-unit apartment building that would be located on the east half of the
property, immediately abutting the historic house. Earlier conceptual site plans for this project involved
relocating the historic house.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The project is currently in a conceptual phase, so details are limited. The proposal includes a narrow, six-story
apartment building that covers most of the east half of this parcel. The current conceptual site plan would avoid the
need to relocate the historic Coffin House and would provide opportunities to salvage and/or incorporate some
historic landscape features.
At present, the conceptual site plan also includes relocation and incorporation of the garage to serve as an outdoor
amenity structure (pool house or similar). An outdoor swimming pool is proposed for the northwest corner, with
access taken from Prospect Road along the east side of the property.
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
Typically, when there are historic resources on the development site, those take precedence when determining
priority of design references for new construction. In this case, design compatibility requirements will be applied in
reference to the Coffin House on the property.
There are ten (10) properties within 200 feet of this parcel, nine (9) of which are over fifty years of age and none of
which have up-to-date historic survey findings. The only property directly abutting the development site is the
Plymouth Congregational Church and its parsonage at 916 and 920 W. Prospect Road to the development site’s
east. This property has historic survey underway as part of a City project assessing mid-twentieth century religious
buildings.
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
[prioritize and emphasize what is most relevant, introduce discussion items in appropriate order; include
direction on order of operations for the discussion to make sure the primary questions]
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
NOTE: This section has been completed by staff specific to the
Coffin House and contributing accessory features at 1000 W.
Prospect Rd.
Complies/Does
Not Comply
SOI # 1
A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that
requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces,
and spatial relationships
The treatment of the main house seems to meet this standard, as well
as the retention of the relocated garage. However, several significant
landscape features dating from the Coffin period will be removed to
accommodate the new buildin . The Commission ma benefit from
TBD
Packet Pg. 80
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 3
discussing the importance of those features and any considerations
that the applicant should take into account to incorporate those
features and/or mitigate for their loss.
SOI #2
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The
removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and
spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
The treatment of the main house seems to meet this standard. There
are historic landscape features that will be relocated or removed as
part of this project, which will alter the spatial relationships of the
contributing features and diminish the overall historic character of the
property, and the presence of a six-story building immediately abutting
the historic house will also not meet this standard. However, staff would
entertain a Modification of Standard for this item on the condition that
the affordable housing is formally committed to via an affidavit upon
submittal of the formal project to the City.
TBD –
Modification of
Standard likely
necessary to
meet.
SOI #3
Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place,
and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development,
such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic
properties, will not be undertaken.
Based on the current concept designs, staff does not have any
concerns about the new construction creating a false sense of history,
although relocating historic features on the site would raise the
potential for confusing future understanding of the historical
development of the site and its existing spatial relationships, so that
history would need to be memorialized in some fashion to meet this
standard.
TBD
SOI #4
Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their
own right will be retained and preserved.
The survey document outlines the evolution of the property. This
largely relates to undated landscape features from the Coffin era that
may be modified or removed as part of the infill property. A Modification
of Standard may be necessary and would be contingent upon the
inclusion of affordable housing (via Affidavit) in the formal development
application.
TBD –
Modification of
Standard May
Be Necessary
SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be
preserved.
Similar to above, treatment of the primary house seems to meet this
standard. Of concern is treatment of the accessory structure and
landscape features, which may require a Modification of Standard,
which would be contingent on the inclusion of affordable housing (via
Affidavit) in the formal development application.
TBD –
Modification of
Standard May
Be Necessary
Packet Pg. 81
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 4
SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive
feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and,
where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Relative to the primary house, this seems as if it will be met. There may
be concern with the loss or relocation of historic landscape features on
the site.
TBD
SOI #7
Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken
using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials will not be used.
This is unknown at this time simply because the specific treatments for
the home are not known. This is likely to be met.
TBD
SOI #8
Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
Based on staff’s knowledge of the site and the historic survey, it is
unlikely that there are significant below-ground archaeological features.
As noted in previous standards, the primary concern here would be the
treatment/salvage of historic landscape features.
TBD
SOI #9
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work
shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
Similar to Standard 2, this standard likely cannot be met with the
construction of a six-story apartment building immediately abutting the
main house to the east. Construction of this infill can likely be
supported under the code via a Modification of Standard based on both
the high-density zone district in which this property is located and
based on the likely inclusion of affordable housing in the project.
Likely unmet –
Will require
Modification of
Standard
SOI #10
New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.
While landscape features will be removed/relocated as part of the
project, staff has encouraged salvage/relocation of those features as
much as possible.
TBD – Met?
Packet Pg. 82
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 5
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General
Land Use Code 5.8.1(F)(1)(c)
NOTE: This section has been completed by staff referencing the
historic property, the Coffin House on the development site.
Complies/Does
Not Comply
Massing and
Building
Articulation
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated
into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources
on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
This has promise based on the code requirements. The block massing
provided shows an attempt to break up the façade facing Prospect into
elements that reflect the general width of the historic house.
TBD
Massing and
Building
Articulation
2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to
create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story
above the height of historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone
district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown
zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest
to historic resources.
This requirement is currently not being met. Staff has discussed with
the applicant that staff would support a Modification of Standard to this
provision, primarily based on the proposed inclusion of affordable
housing in the project (to be documented via an Affidavit in the formal
submittal)
Not Met –
Modification of
Standard May
Be Necessary
Building
Materials
3. The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise)
must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials
(brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast
concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry
standards.
Based on the applicant’s notes, they plan to include wood and stone in
the new building, which would be either a stick-framed building or a
pre-cast concrete building. It seems likely that this provision will be met
in the formal application.
TBD – Likely
Met
Building
Materials
4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate
material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting,
or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to
select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or
the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise):
1 t pe; 2 scale; 3 color; 4 three-dimensionalit ; 5 pattern.
TBD – likely
met
Packet Pg. 83
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 6
Based on the applicant’s notes, the use of wood and stone as exterior
wall claddin on the new buildin will likel meet this Standard.
Fenestration 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2)
similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void
pattern as found on historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley.
This conceptual application does not include information addressing
this Standard.
TBD
Design
Details
6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such
as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new
construction to historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley.
This conceptual application does not include information addressing
this Standard.
TBD
Visibility of
Historic
Features
7. New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining
architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features
of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a
side alley.
While the projection of the new building forward in front of the historic
house will technically obscure the historic property from view from
Prospect Road, the property is already obscured due to the presence
of so many mature trees along the south property boundary. Since
many of the mature trees on the site will have to be removed, it is likely
that the main house will be more visible from the right of way than it is
toda , after the pro ect is complete.
TBD – Likely
met
5.8.1(F)(3): Plan of Protection
Staff will require a Plan of Protection be completed prior to the City issuing Building Permits. In this case, this
will generally document material staging plans, use of equipment near the historic house, plans to keep the
house protected while the apartment tower is built, and communication plan in case issues arise during
construction.
SAMPLE MOTIONS
Note: Although the Commission is considering this item as a conceptual matter at this time, the Commission may
find that the application is sufficient to offer a final recommendation to the decision-maker for the development
project at this time, rather than requiring the applicant to return a second time. Should the Commission choose to
take action, these are sample motions for several potential scenarios:
Staff Recommended Motion:
This is a conceptual development review. Staff is not recommending that the HPC take action at this time, so no
staff-recommended motion has been provided.
Packet Pg. 84
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 7
Sample Motion to Proceed from Conceptual to Final Review: I move that the Historic Preservation
Commission proceed to Final Design Review of the proposed work for 1000 W. Prospect Road and to
determine a recommendation to the Decision Maker as to whether the proposed work complies with Section
5,8.1 of the Land Use Code and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code.
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval:
I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the adaptive
reuse of the existing historic house, relocation and incorporation of the historic garage, and construction of a
new six-story multi-unit residential building at 1000 W. Prospect Road. This recommendation is based on
review of the findings in the staff report, the applicant materials and presentation, and information received at
this hearing, and specifically the Commission finds:
The Project complies with the Secretary of the Interior standards [List the Secretary of the Interior
Standards affecting this decision and summarize your rationale] ______________________________
And the Project complies with the requirements under Land Use Code Section 5.8.1(F) [list the Land
Use Code 5.8.1(F) criteria affecting this decision and summarize your rationale] __________________
[The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these
proposed findings according to its evaluation.].
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial:
I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the adaptive
reuse of the existing historic house, relocation and incorporation of the historic garage, and construction of a
new six-story multi-unit residential building at 1000 W. Prospect Road. This recommendation is based on
review of the findings in the staff report, the applicant materials and presentation, and information received at
this hearing, and specifically the Commission finds:
The Project does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards [List the Secretary of the
Interior Standards affecting this decision and summarize your rationale] ________________________
And the Project does not comply with the requirements under Land Use Code Section 5.8.1(F) [list the
Land Use Code 5.8.1(F) criteria affecting this decision and summarize your rationale] _____________
[The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these
proposed findings according to its evaluation.].
Sample Motion for a Continuance:
I move that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this item to the next meeting to seek additional
information regarding the following code requirements: [insert] [or insert other reasons for a
continuing the item].
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applicant submission
2. Historic Survey Form – 1000 W. Prospect Rd
3. Applicant Presentation
4. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 85
AU
G
U
S
T
2
0
,
2
0
2
5
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 86
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
B
-
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 87
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 88
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 89
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 90
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 91
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 92
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 93
re
f
l
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 94
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 95
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
tr
e
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 96
IT
E
M
5
,
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
Packet Pg. 97
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6078
preservation@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/historicpreservation
Historic Preservation Services
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION:
FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Historic Building Name: Claude and Clara Coffin Property
Property Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd.
Determination: ELIGIBLE
Issued: July 1, 2025
Expiration: July 1, 2030
Ezra H. Headrick South Dakota, LLC
1000 W. Prospect Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Dear Property Owner:
This letter provides you with confirmation that your property has been evaluated for Fort Collins
landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14, Article II of the Fort Collins Municipal
Code, and has been found Eligible for landmark designation.
An intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form was completed by a third-party historic
preservation consultant. This form serves as the basis for staff’s evaluation of the property’s historic
and/or architectural significance and its integrity, both of which are required for landmark eligibility as
per Article II, Section 14-22.
Staff has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity,
and landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached form.
Significance
Consultant’s evaluation:
Standard 1 (Events/Trends) – This property is not associated with any specific event or pattern of
events that might have made a recognizable contribution to local history.
Standard 2 (Persons/Groups) – This property is directly associated with Judge Claude Coffin, its
first and longtime occupant from 1930 to 1954. Prominent in the history of the community,
Coffin’s contributions are identified and documented through a wealth of sources, both published
and unpublished, that go far beyond the bibliography included in this site form…. The
significance of this property is in part related to Coffin’s long and distinguished career, from
1910 to 1954, as an attorney in private practice, city attorney, and longtime district court judge
who was renowned for his expertise in western water law. He was working in this field the entire
time he lived in the house. Additional research into that subject is likely to uncover details about
the body of his work and the major legal cases that he decided.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 98
Coffin is also widely known as a serious avocational archaeologist who was not just interested in
locating sites and artifacts, but in advancing knowledge about historic and prehistoric peoples. In
1924, he and his son Lynn and brother Roy discovered and began to excavate and study the
Lindenmeier Site north of Fort Collins. However, they soon realized that the find was something
unusual and important. Over the following years, Coffin repeatedly appealed for professional
assistance, eventually drawing the attention of the Smithsonian Institution and Denver Museum of
Natural History. Starting in the mid-1930s, these organizations began to methodically excavate
the site. Through detailed analysis, archaeologists confirmed the site to be one of the most
important discoveries about Ice-Age Folsom culture in North America. The Coffins remained
involved in its study for many years. Today the property is listed as a National Historic
Landmark.
Standard 3 (Design/Construction) – The property is also associated with the identifiable
characteristics of a type, period and method of construction and represents the work of a master
local architect. Constructed in 1929-1930, possibly by Claude Coffin himself, the historic house
and detached garage are largely unchanged from when they were built except for some relatively
minor alterations…. Although there are other Craftsman bungalows in Fort Collins, this is a
unique example of the style due to its design characteristics, particularly the application of rock
and stucco cladding and the façade with its prominent central entry flanked by projecting gabled
features….
… The house and garage were designed by George F. Johnson, a noted architect who was based
in Fort Collins from 1924 to 1929. While that period was relatively short, he prepared plans for
various buildings in the community and other locations in northern Colorado, southeastern
Wyoming, and western Nebraska. Most of those were commercial or educational buildings, so
this is a rare and very fine example of his residential work. A small number of his projects,
including the Coffin House, remain standing in and near Fort Collins, representing the high
quality of his design work from the period.
Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance under Standards 2 and
3 based on the following findings.
• The property’s statement of significance is supported by a discussion of historical context and a
comparative analysis that is appropriate for the property. Relevant context reports and
comparative examples have/have not been referenced and cited.
• Each significance standard is addressed in the statement of significance, even if not applicable.
• For eligible properties, a period of significance is provided and justified based on the available
records.
Integrity
Consultant’s evaluation:
Location – The house and garage have not been moved and are in their original locations. The
aspect of location is excellent.
Setting – When the property was developed in 1929-1930, it was in the countryside south of the
city of Fort Collins and consisted of seven acres of land. Parts of the property were later sold,
reducing it to its current size. This included the area to the east, which in 1964 was transferred to
the Plymouth Congregational Church for the construction of a church and house. The
surrounding properties were developed, primarily during the post-World War II decades, as the
city of Fort Collins expanded into the area. Despite these changes beyond the property lines, the
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 99
setting of the property itself, complete with its historic buildings, gardens and landscape
elements, remains intact and sheltered from its surroundings. The aspect of setting is somewhat
altered but still very good.
Design – Almost all of the early design elements on the house and garage are intact from when
they were built. These include their concrete and wood-frame construction, rock cladding and
stuccoed exterior walls, three-over-one double-hung sash windows, and primary gabled roofs.
The only noted non-historic changes have involved enclosure of the front open porch at the entry
and the previously screened porch to the east on the house’s façade, along with replacement of
the original wood doors on the front of the garage. Despite these alterations, some of which
might be historic themselves, the design elements appear to be minimally impacted.
Consequently, the aspect of design is excellent.
Materials – The building’s historic materials remain intact and visible. The aspect of materials
is excellent.
Workmanship – The skills that it took to construct the building remain clearly apparent today.
The aspect of workmanship is excellent.
Feeling – The property continues to read as a historic single-family home dating from the period
around 1930 and evokes a strong sense of that era’s aesthetic. The aspect of feeling is excellent.
Association – The house continues to convey a strong association with its original architectural
style, ownership, and period of construction, along with its decades of use as a single-family
home. The aspect of association is excellent.
Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s integrity based on the following
findings.
• Essential physical features are identified in the integrity analysis and related to period of
significance.
• Discussion of integrity relates to the property’s most relevant aspects of integrity per its
significance.
• Discussion of integrity focuses on the property’s essential physical features, and relates to period
of significance.
• Discussion and conclusion responds directly to previous conclusions and assessments of the
property, whether in opposition or in agreement.
Statement of Eligibility:
Staff concludes that the Claude and Clara Coffin Property at 1000 W. Prospect Rd is eligible for
designation as a Fort Collins Landmark and is an historic resource as defined in Municipal Code 14-3, or
for the purposes of applying Land Use Code 5.8.1.
Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be
appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City.
Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date
of the staff's determination.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at jbertolini@fcgov.com, or 970-416-4250.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 100
Sincerely,
Jim Bertolini
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Attachment: Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated June 26,
2025.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 101
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
1
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eligible- NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not Eligible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
Field Evaluation of Fort Collins Landmark Eligibility
☒ Individually Eligible ☐ Contributing to District ☐ Not Eligible
☒ Likely Eligible for State/National Register
General Recommendations: This property is recommended Eligible for City Landmark
Designation under Standards 2 (Persons/Groups) for association with the Coffin family, and under
Standard 3 (Design/Construction) for its outstanding Craftsman Bungalow-style architecture. It is
also likely eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and Colorado Register of Historic
Properties.
I. Identification
1. Resource number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 102
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
2
2. Temporary resource number: Click here to enter text.
3. County: Larimer
4. City: Fort Collins
5. Historic building name: Claude and Clara Coffin Property
6. Current building name: Click here to enter text.
7. Building address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526
8. Owner name and address: Ezra H. Headrick South Dakota LLC, 1000 W. Prospect Rd.,
Fort Collins, CO 80526
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6th PM Township 7N Range 69W
SE ¼ of SW ¼ of SW ¼ of SW ¼ of section 14
10. UTM reference
Zone 13N; 492018 mE 4490766 mN
11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, Colorado
Year: 1969 (revised 1984) Map scale: 7.5' ☒ 15' ☐ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lot(s): # Block: #
TR IN SW 1/4 OF 14-7-69, COMM SW COR OF SEC 14, TH S 89 51'30" E 441.00 FT ALO S
LINE TPOB; TH N 238.34 FT, TH, N 83 43' 20' E 14.98 FT; TH S 89 51' 30" E 133.83; TH
S 00 04' 00" E 240.01 TPOB; TH ALO N 89 51' 30" W 149 FT TPOB EX 30 FT ROW ALO
S FOR PROSPECT RD, AND ALSO LESS OUT 94078781
Addition: N/A Year of Addition: ####
13. Boundary Description and Justification:
This legally defined parcel (#97143-00-006), clearly delineated by a metes and bounds
description, includes the historic house and garage and their surrounding landscaped
grounds.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular Plan
15. Dimensions in feet: Length 36 x Width 58
16. Number of stories: 1.5
17. Primary external wall material(s): Stucco, Stone
18. Roof configuration: Side-Gabled Roof, Hipped Roof
19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt-Composition Shingles
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 103
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
3
20. Special features:
Dormer, Chimney, Stoop
21. General architectural description:
This 1½-story wood frame residence faces south toward the front yard and Prospect Road,
rests upon a raised concrete foundation enclosing a full basement, and has a rectangular
footprint of 36’ x 58’. Its exterior walls are clad in two materials, with randomly-coursed
moss rocks applied to the lower half and troweled sand-colored stucco above. The stucco
extends upward to cover the gable end walls along with the soffits. The roof is side-gabled
over the front half of the house and hipped behind that, all with boxed eaves. The roof
surface is clad in composition shingles.
Three small front-gabled projections are present on the symmetrical front of the house.
Two of these flank the centered front entrance, and the third is a central roof dormer. A
larger gabled projection is found on the house’s east side facing the driveway. The fascia
boards on the gables terminate at their lower ends in small, curved boards at the eaves
that provide a decorative feature to the house. The building has three chimneys, two of
which project above the roof and are stuccoed. A large moss-rock exterior wall chimney is
present on the west wall. Wide at the main-floor level, it narrows and pierces the eave to
rise above the roofline.
South Wall (Prospect Road facade): The house’s south façade holds the main entrance,
which is centered on the wall and reached by way of a concrete eight-step stoop that is
flanked by low moss-rock walls that are capped by concrete. The walls flare outward
toward the bottom of the stoop. The entrance contains a wood door with a large light.
Flanking the door are two large windows with fixed lights. These rectangular windows have
clipped, curvilinear upper corners, adding a decorative feature to the entryway. The
projections with gabled roofs on either side of the main entrance hold three-part picture
windows, each with a large central light flanked by smaller rectangular lights. In the west
window, the smaller lights are divided into four panes. The roof dormer centered above has
a band of three-over-one double-hung sash windows.
West Wall (side): This side of the house has no entries. Multiple three-over-one double-
hung sash basement windows are in the raised foundation wall, some of them set in pairs.
On the main floor are multiple three-over-one double-hung sash windows, along with a
small three-light window. Most of these are directly above the basement windows, with
some pairs and a single band of three toward the front. The upper half-story also holds a
band of three-over-one double-hung sash windows.
North Wall (rear): The rear wall of the house has no entries. Several three-over-one
double-hung sash basement windows are in the raised foundation wall. The upper wall
holds a three-over-one double-hung sash window with etched glass, two smaller three-light
windows, and a band of three-light windows to the east.
East Wall (side): This side of the house faces the driveway and garage and holds an
entrance. Set mostly in the moss rock wall, it is reached by way of a two-step concrete
stoop faced with moss rock. The entry contains a wood panel door with divided lights in the
upper half. The basement, main floor, and upper half-story all hold multiple three-over-one
double-hung sash windows, most set in pairs and bands of three. A three-part picture
window is present toward the front of the house.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 104
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
4
22. Architectural style/building type:
Craftsman; Bungalow
23. Landscaping or special setting features:
The property is located on the north side of Prospect Road, several lots east of Shields
Street. Modest post-World War II Ranch-style houses occupy the lots to the east, west and
south. Plymouth Presbyterian Church, built in 1964, also stands to the east, and the more
recent Islamic Center of Fort Collins is behind the house to the north.
Various historic landscape features are present on the approximately .8-acre property.
The frontage along Prospect Road is bordered by a historic moss-rock wall, approximately
5’ tall, that runs parallel to the sidewalk and street. The wall curves into the property at its
east end. Just east of there, at the property’s southeast corner, are two battered moss-rock
posts with pyramidal concrete caps. These flank the entrance to the driveway. The gravel
driveway is oval-shaped and initially runs due north along the east property line. It then
curves west toward the detached garage and then again to the south to run along the east
side of the house. From there the driveway extends to the southeast and back to the
entrance. The driveway is lined by trees and shrubs.
The area encircled by the driveway is landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs and low
plantings. Several historic features are also in this area. One is a very small moss-rock and
concrete-lined pond. A handmade birdbath stands on the south edge of the pond. This is
formed of concrete embedded with hundreds of pieces of chert. The chert appears to be
debitage, or waste material, that was collected from a prehistoric stone tool-making site.
This aligns with the historic ownership of the property by a noted avocational archaeologist.
Across a grassed area to the south of the pond and birdbath is a historic outdoor fireplace.
The area in front of this feature is paved with flagstone. The fireplace is composed of moss
rocks with firebrick on the interior, all assembled with concrete mortar. A metal grate fits
over the firebox so it could be used for cooking.
The house’s front yard is grassed and lined by mature evergreens and deciduous trees.
The rear yard and area around the garage are also planted with grass and lined with trees.
The area west of the house is overgrown with plantings.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects:
Detached Garage (built 1930) – This historic double-wide garage stands northeast of the
house, has a footprint of 20’ x 20’, and rests upon a concrete foundation. It faces south
onto the driveway, which is paved with an asphalt apron. The building’s design details
mimic the house, with lower walls clad in moss rocks and upper walls and soffits in
troweled stucco. The front-gabled roof is covered with asphalt shingles, and as on the
house curved fascia boards are present at the eaves on the gable ends.
The building’s south wall holds two wood panel overhead doors for automobile access.
Centered above in the upper gable end wall is a four-light window covered with wood
louvers. The west wall holds a pedestrian entrance that contains a wood panel door, and a
six-light window is present to the north. A concrete sidewalk extends from the west side of
the garage to the house’s east entrance. The north wall holds a centered window that is
boarded closed, along with a smaller attic window above with four lights. Two six-light
windows are located on the east wall. All of the doors and windows are framed with wood.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 105
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
5
Shed (age unknown) – This small building, which appears to be non-historic, stands in the
property’s northwest corner and is hidden from view by thick vegetation. Facing east, it
rests upon bricks and has a front-gabled roof. The exterior walls are enclosed with hard
fiberboard panels. A fiberboard slab door is centered on the east wall.
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: #### Actual: 1929-1930
Source of information: Building Plans, Construction Photographs
26. Architect: George F. Johnson
Source of information: Building Plans
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown
Source of information: N/A
28. Original owner: Claude and Clara Coffin
Source of information: Building Plans
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions):
This property was developed in 1929-1930 when the house and garage were constructed
and the landscaping was started.
30. Original location ☒ Moved ☐ Date of move(s): ####
V. Historical Associations
31. Original use(s): Domestic / Single Dwelling
32. Intermediate use(s): Not Applicable
33. Current use(s): Domestic / Single Dwelling
34. Site type(s): Single-Family Home
35. Historical background:
In 1929, Judge Claude Coffin and his wife Clara launched the construction of a new home
for themselves at 1000 W. Prospect Rd. Since 1912, they had been living 1.5 miles north
at 1006 W. Mountain Ave. with their only child, a son named Lynn. The new house would
be in the countryside just south of Fort Collins, facing south away from the city and across
unpaved Prospect Road. The property consisted of seven acres, 2½ of which would be
occupied by the house and surrounding grounds, and another 4½ would consist of crop
fields. Included with the land were shares of irrigation water from the New Mercer Ditch.
Claude Coffin was born in 1884 on his family’s farm east of Longmont, Colorado. His
parents had migrated there from Illinois two decades earlier. After attending high school in
Longmont, he enrolled at the University of Colorado in 1901 and became a star player on
the football team. Following his graduation in 1905 with a degree in science and
engineering, Coffin entered the US Civil Service and spent a year working for the Bureau
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 106
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
6
of Standards in Washington, DC, followed by the US Patent Office. He then worked for
three years as a special agent with the US General Land Office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In
1907, Coffin married Clara Richey, a fellow graduate of the University of Colorado, and two
years later they had their only child, a son named Lynn. Coffin engaged in the study of law
at night school and earned a degree in 1908.
In 1910, the Coffins moved to Fort Collins where he entered a partnership with attorney
George A. Carlson. Coffin was admitted to the Colorado bar in 1911 and federal court the
following year. The law partnership lasted until Carlson was sworn in as governor of
Colorado in 1914. Over the following decade, Coffin worked as a private lawyer and as
Fort Collins city attorney. In 1924, he was elected to serve as district court judge, a position
he held the rest of his life. From 1937 on, Judge Coffin handled most court matters related
to the Northern Water Conservancy District and its Colorado-Big Thompson Project,
becoming a highly respected authority on water law. Around 1940, he declined an
appointment by the governor to serve on the Colorado State Supreme Court, preferring to
remain in his judicial position and home in Fort Collins.
Judge Coffin had another interesting aspect to his already full life that he shared with his
son Lynn and older brother Roy. Roy had attended the Colorado School of Mines and
became a professor of chemistry and geology at the Colorado Agricultural College in Fort
Collins. Lynn would become a trail superintendent with the Roosevelt National Forest,
followed by stints as a National Park Service ranger at Carlsbad Caverns National Park,
Glacier National Park, Scotts Bluff National Monument, Rocky Mountain National Park, and
finally as chief ranger at Grand Canyon National Park until his retirement in 1965.
However, during the 1920s and 1930s the three men were serious avocational
archaeologists, devoting much of their free time to surveying the northern Front Range for
evidence of historic and prehistoric Native American occupation.
In July 1924, the Coffins discovered a prehistoric site in northern Larimer County that
would change the course of archaeology and our understanding of human migration across
the world. Known as the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site and now a National Historic
Landmark, the Ice-Age find dating from at least 11,000 years ago held evidence that it had
been used for many years by prehistoric people. The extensive array of artifacts they left
behind included distinctively fluted arrowheads and spearheads, along with beads and
other stone tools including scrapers, drills and knives. There was also a profusion of bones
from butchered game animals. The site was studied extensively over many years by the
Coffins, who eventually drew the attention of the Smithsonian Institution and Denver
Museum of Natural History. Starting in the mid-1930s, those institutions sent crews into the
field to conduct larger scientific excavations. Their analysis revealed that the artifacts were
associated with the Folsom culture, the earliest known occupants of North America.
Around 1929, Claude and Clara Coffin hired Fort Collins architect George F. Johnson to
design a house for them on the acreage they had acquired south of town. Born in
Nebraska around 1885, Johnson appears to have initially worked as a carpenter and
house builder. He was then employed around 1916 in the engineering department of the
Sinclair Oil Company, which was building a large oil pipeline from Casper, Wyoming to
Kansas City. That experience provided him with knowledge of working with reinforced
concrete and structural steel. During World War I, Johnson served as a field engineer with
the US Army in France, gaining additional experience with the design of buildings and
engineered structures. In 1922, he married Estella Decker in Ainsworth, Nebraska, and for
a short time they settled in that town.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 107
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
7
In the spring of 1924, the Johnsons relocated to Fort Collins, where he took a job as a
draftsman in the office of architect Montezuma W. Fuller. Later that year, the city adopted
its first building code and Johnson was appointed to serve as the community’s first building
inspector. Fuller died in January 1925 and in his absence, Johnson stepped in to supervise
completion of the Alpert Block in downtown Fort Collins. Concurrently with working as
building inspector, Johnson took advantage of the void left behind by Fuller’s death and in
February 1925 opened an architectural practice with an office in the Alpert Block.
Over the following several years, Johnson prepared plans for various buildings in Fort
Collins and other communities. The first was a demonstration house built in 1925 for the
Fort Collins Express-Courier newspaper at Lake Street and Whedbee Street east of the
Fort Collins High School. In early 1926, Johnson took the Colorado state examination and
received his license as an architect. He then resigned as city building inspector and
devoted the following years to his professional practice. Other projects completed in the
1920s included an automobile garage at College Avenue and Magnolia Street (1926), the
Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity house at Howes Street and Laurel Street (1926,
demolished), a new Moessner School and teacherage near Laporte (1926), the Wyoming
Theater in Torrington, Wyoming (1927), the Broadway Apartments in Scottsbluff, Nebraska
(1927), a community house at the City of Fort Collins’ Poudre Canyon mountain park
(1927), the First Church of Christ Scientist in Fort Collins at Howes Street and Olive Street
(1927, demolished for parking), an addition to Milliken High School (1927), a Masonic
Temple in Johnstown (1928), the Corder Motor Company building at 213-219 E. Mountain
Ave. in Fort Collins (1928, demolished), and a classroom and gymnasium addition to the
Waverly School (1929). A few of those buildings continue to stand today, although most of
his Fort Collins work no longer remains.
In 1929, Johnson accepted a position as chief architect and construction supervisor for the
J.C. Penney Company in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and
western Nebraska. One of his first projects involved a major remodel of the interior of the
Bradley Building in downtown Fort Collins in 1929 so it could be occupied as a J.C. Penney
store. Although they hoped to remain in Fort Collins, in 1930 the Johnsons moved to
Denver, and he continued to work for the company for several years. They might have
relocated to Ogden, Utah in the late 1930s, where George continued to work as an
architect through the 1950s.
During the summer of 1929, while he was working as a prominent district court judge and
pursuing exploration of the Lindenmeier Site, Claude Coffin took the plans prepared by
George F. Johnson and began to build the Bungalow house and matching detached
garage that remain there today. Construction extended into 1930, and it appears that he
did much of the work himself. Because the property was located outside of the city, there
were no building permits or other records associated with its development. When
construction was completed, the Coffins moved into the house and remained there the rest
of their lives. He continued to work as district court judge until shortly before his death in
1954. Claude and Clara, who died in 1959, are buried in Grandview Cemetery.
Following their passing, the property at 1000 W. Prospect Rd. was inherited by Lynn Coffin
and his wife Eloise, who lived there through the 1960s and into the early 1970s. The house
was then acquired and occupied, possibly starting in 1976, by Dr. Freeman and Emily
Smith. They appear to have remained there into the 2010s. He was a professor of forest
and rangeland stewardship with Colorado State University’s Natural Resources Ecology
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 108
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
8
Laboratory and director of the university’s International School of Natural Resources.
Future research will add to information about the Smith family.
36. Sources of information:
Ainsworth Star-Journal (Ainsworth, NE), “Johnson-Decker,” 8 June 1922, p. 1.
Architectural Plans (Incomplete Set), Coffin House, 1000 W. Prospect Rd. Prepared by George
F. Johnson, Architect, circa 1929-1930. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archive, Claude
Coffin File.
City Directory Listings for George F. Johnson, Fort Collins and Denver, Colorado, 1925-1932.
Draft Fort Collins Landmark Designation. Prepared by Lloyd Walker, 2012. City of Fort Collins
Preservation Planning Office.
Fort Collins Coloradoan
“Death Takes Coffin, Senior Judge Here,” 25 August 1954, p. 1.
“Camp 100 Centuries Old Near Here Described by Magazine,” 30 November 1955, p. 10.
“Death Takes Mrs. Coffin,” 24 December 1959, p. 1.
“A. Lynn Coffin,” 1 November 1971, p. 3.
Fort Collins Express-Courier
“Building Inspector Appointed,” 30 December 1924, p. 1.
“New Offices in Alpert Building Are Now Open,” 2 February 1925, p. 3.
“Express-Courier to Build Demonstration Residence,” 24 April 1925, p. 1.
“George F. Johnson is Among Architects Passing State Exams,” 19 January 1926, p. 7.
“New Garage at Magnolia and College,” 15 February 1926, p. 3.
“Fine New Fraternity Home to be Built at Howes and Laurel,” 15 February 1926, p. 3.
“Wellington,” 30 May 1926, p. 4.
“Local Architect is Given Contract for Torrington Theater,” 14 July 1926, p. 1.
“George Johnson Architect for Nebraska Job,” 10 August 1926, p. 4.
“Another Step Taken,” 10 October 1926, p. 1.
“Cornerstone Laid For New Church,” 12 April 1927, p. 1.
“Milliken to Build $25,000 Addition to High School Building,” 25 April 1927, p. 6.
“New Masonic Temple Planned at Johnstown,” 19 June 1927, p. 7.
“George F. Johnson Drew Plans for New Garage Building,” 10 February 1928, p. 4.
“George F. Johnson, Architect,” 22 April 1928, p. 15.
“Notice to Contractors,” 31 July 1928, p. 3.
“George F. Johnson Has Chain Store Position,” 24 February 1929, p. 1.
“Johnson is Planning Penney Store Changes,” 15 April 1929, p. 1.
“Office Work Arranged for Inspectors,” 18 May 1930, p. 5.
“Coffins Found Ancient Camp 2 Years Before New Mexico,” 6 May 1935, p. 3.
Funk, Candace. “The Coffin Family: A Personal Profile.” Prepared for the Fort Collins
Museum, No Date.
Greeley Daily Tribune
“Judge Coffin Power in Diversion Project,” 27 August 1954, p. 6.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 109
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
9
Historic Building Inventory Record, 1000 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, Colorado. Prepared by
Historic Preservation Students, Colorado State University, November 1993. City of Fort
Collins Preservation Planning Office.
Historic Photographs of the Coffin House at 1000 W. Prospect Rd., 1929-1932. Fort Collins
Museum of Discovery Archive, Claude Coffin File.
Larimer County Assessor’s Office, Real Estate Appraisal Cards for 1000 W. Prospect Rd.
(Parcel #97143-00-006), 1949-1984.
National Register Eligibility Letter Regarding the Coffin House, Colorado State Historic
Preservation Office to the City of Fort Collins, 29 March 1994.
Staff Report for the Landmark Preservation Commission, Prepared by Josh Weinberg,
Preservation Planner, 11 July 2012. Topic: Draft Fort Collins Landmark Designation. City
of Fort Collins Preservation Planning Office.
US Census Records, Claude and Clara Coffin, St. Vrain, Weld County, CO, 1910; Fort Collins,
CO, 1920-1950.
US Census Records, George F. Johnson, Lusk, WY, 1910; Central City, NE, 1920; Denver,
CO, 1930.
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: Yes ☐ No ☐ Date of designation: ####
Designating authority: Click here to enter text.
38. Applicable Eligibility Criteria:
Register Register
☐ A. ☐ 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad pattern of our history;
☐ B. ☒ 2. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
☒ C. ☒ 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess
high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable
☐ D. ☐ 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history
or prehistory.
☐ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
☐ Does not meet any of the above criteria
Needs additional research under standards: ☐ A/1 ☐ B/2 ☐ C/3 ☐
D/4
39. Area(s) of significance:
Architecture; Law; Science;
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 110
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
10
40. Period of significance: 1929-1930 (Architecture); 1930-1954 (Law; Science)
41. Level of significance: National ☐ State ☐ Local ☒
42. Statement of significance:
The history of this property indicates that it is eligible for local landmark designation under
two of the Fort Collins criteria. The four criteria are discussed here.
Standard 1 (Events/Trends) – This property is not associated with any specific event or
pattern of events that might have made a recognizable contribution to local history.
Standard 2 (Persons/Groups) – This property is directly associated with Judge Claude
Coffin, its first and longtime occupant from 1930 to 1954. Prominent in the history of the
community, Coffin’s contributions are identified and documented through a wealth of
sources, both published and unpublished, that go far beyond the bibliography included in
this site form. Although he previously lived in a house at 1006 W. Mountain Avenue until
1930, there is no reason that the Prospect Road house, which he had custom designed
and built in 1929-1930, cannot be tied to his work as an attorney and jurist, and as a noted
avocational archaeologist. In addition, the question here is not about the significance of the
Mountain Avenue house, but about the property under study.
The significance of this property is in part related to Coffin’s long and distinguished career,
from 1910 to 1954, as an attorney in private practice, city attorney, and longtime district
court judge who was renowned for his expertise in western water law. He was working in
this field the entire time he lived in the house. Additional research into that subject is likely
to uncover details about the body of his work and the major legal cases that he decided.
Coffin is also widely known as a serious avocational archaeologist who was not just
interested in locating sites and artifacts, but in advancing knowledge about historic and
prehistoric peoples. In 1924, he and his son Lynn and brother Roy discovered and began
to excavate and study the Lindenmeier Site north of Fort Collins. However, they soon
realized that the find was something unusual and important. Over the following years,
Coffin repeatedly appealed for professional assistance, eventually drawing the attention of
the Smithsonian Institution and Denver Museum of Natural History. Starting in the mid-
1930s, these organizations began to methodically excavate the site. Through detailed
analysis, archaeologists confirmed the site to be one of the most important discoveries
about Ice-Age Folsom culture in North America. The Coffins remained involved in its study
for many years. Today the property is listed as a National Historic Landmark.
Standard 3 (Design/Construction) – The property is also associated with the identifiable
characteristics of a type, period and method of construction and represents the work of a
master local architect. Constructed in 1929-1930, possibly by Claude Coffin himself, the
historic house and detached garage are largely unchanged from when they were built
except for some relatively minor alterations.
The house and garage retain a preponderance of their original Craftsman bungalow design
characteristics. These include the house’s rectangular plan, symmetrical form, 1½-story
massing, side-gabled primary roof, and multiple three-over-one double-hung sash
windows. The façade uniquely features a central entry and stoop flanked by prominent
gabled projections. In addition, the lower exterior walls around the entire house were clad
in randomly-coursed moss rocks, with troweled stucco above that extends across the
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 111
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
11
soffits and gable end walls. These features remain in place on both buildings. Although
there are other Craftsman bungalows in Fort Collins, this is a unique example of the style
due to its design characteristics, particularly the application of rock and stucco cladding
and the façade with its prominent central entry flanked by projecting gabled features.
The surrounding grounds were landscaped early in the property’s history, complete with
grass, shrubs, flowering plants, and evergreen and deciduous trees. These have matured
over the past century. Other historic features remaining on the grounds include the oval
driveway, a rock wall along the street frontage, rock posts that flank the entry drive, a rock
fireplace, and a pond with an adjacent birdbath ornamented with archaeological debitage in
the form of chert flakes.
The house and garage were designed by George F. Johnson, a noted architect who was
based in Fort Collins from 1924 to 1929. While that period was relatively short, he prepared
plans for various buildings in the community and other locations in northern Colorado,
southeastern Wyoming, and western Nebraska. Most of those were commercial or
educational buildings, so this is a rare and very fine example of his residential work. A
small number of his projects, including the Coffin House, remain standing in and near Fort
Collins, representing the high quality of his design work from the period. Additional
research into Johnson’s career and body of work might uncover other buildings he
designed and that are still standing in the city.
Standard 4 (Information Potential) - The property is unlikely to yield information important
in prehistory or history, and is not significant under Criterion D.
National Register Evaluation: Based upon the archival research completed for this project,
this house was found to have been constructed in 1929-1930. While it is locally eligible for
designation by the City of Fort Collins under two criteria, the more stringent standards
expressed by the National Register of Historic Places suggest that it is unlikely to be listed
under significance criteria A, B or D. This was confirmed when last evaluated by the
Colorado State Historic Preservation Office in 1994 and that analysis seems to be merited
today. It was based upon the fact that Claude Coffin made his discovery of the
Lindenmeier Site in 1924 while living in a different house in Fort Collins. Although he
continued to be involved with the site’s excavation and analysis while living in the house at
1000 W. Prospect Rd., that initial discovery is not associated with this property and the
Lindenmeier site itself best expresses its own historic significance.
At the same time, the Coffin House is an excellent local example of a Craftsman bungalow
that retains a preponderance of its architectural details from the period in which it was
constructed. The application of native, locally-collected moss rock to the exterior of the
house and garage is of particular interest. In addition, its architect has been identified and
researched and found to have had a short but active career in the region. Few of his
designs appear to have involved houses, so this is a rare representative of his work
applied to a residence. While the SHPO stated in 1994 that it was not a particularly good
example of the bungalow style, the current analysis completed thirty years later disagrees
with that statement. It appears to meet the standard for individual NRHP eligibility under
Criterion C in the area of Architecture. The property also appears to be eligible for the
Colorado State Register of Historic Properties under the same category.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 112
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
12
Evaluation of the property must consider the seven aspects of integrity, as they are defined
by the US Department of the Interior:
Location – The house and garage have not been moved and are in their original locations.
The aspect of location is excellent.
Setting – When the property was developed in 1929-1930, it was in the countryside south
of the city of Fort Collins and consisted of seven acres of land. Parts of the property were
later sold, reducing it to its current size. This included the area to the east, which in 1964
was transferred to the Plymouth Congregational Church for the construction of a church
and house. The surrounding properties were developed, primarily during the post-World
War II decades, as the city of Fort Collins expanded into the area. Despite these changes
beyond the property lines, the setting of the property itself, complete with its historic
buildings, gardens and landscape elements, remains intact and sheltered from its
surroundings. The aspect of setting is somewhat altered but still very good.
Design – Almost all of the early design elements on the house and garage are intact from
when they were built. These include their concrete and wood-frame construction, rock
cladding and stuccoed exterior walls, three-over-one double-hung sash windows, and
primary gabled roofs. The only noted non-historic changes have involved enclosure of the
front open porch at the entry and the previously screened porch to the east on the house’s
façade, along with replacement of the original wood doors on the front of the garage.
Despite these alterations, some of which might be historic themselves, the design
elements appear to be minimally impacted. Consequently, the aspect of design is
excellent.
Materials – The building’s historic materials remain intact and visible. The aspect of
materials is excellent.
Workmanship – The skills that it took to construct the building remain clearly apparent
today. The aspect of workmanship is excellent.
Feeling – The property continues to read as a historic single-family home dating from the
period around 1930 and evokes a strong sense of that era’s aesthetic. The aspect of
feeling is excellent.
Association – The house continues to convey a strong association with its original
architectural style, ownership, and period of construction, along with its decades of use as
a single-family home. The aspect of association is excellent.
VII. National and Fort Collins Register Eligibility Assessment
44. Eligibility field assessment:
National:
Eligible ☒ Not Eligible ☐ Need Data ☐
Fort Collins:
Eligible ☒ Not Eligible ☐ Need Data ☐
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 113
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
13
45. Is there district potential? Yes ☐ No ☒
Discuss: This historic property is located in an area of Fort Collins where it is not adjacent
to other historic properties that might allow for the creation of a Fort Collins or National
Register district.
If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing
☐
46. If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing
☐
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: #28-94
Negatives filed at: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
48. Report title: Intensive-Level Survey of 1000 W. Prospect Rd.
49. Date(s): 26 June 2025
50. Recorder(s): Ron Sladek, President (formatting and minor edits by staff, City of Fort
Collins, Historic Preservation Services)
51. Organization: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
52. Address: P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
53. Phone number(s): 970 / 689-4855
NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource
location, and photographs.
History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 114
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
14
Site Photos and Maps
Site Location Map
USGS Fort Collins 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle
1960 (photorevised 1984)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 115
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
15
Site Diagram
This Diagram is Not to Scale
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 116
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
16
Current Photographs
Coffin House and Garage, View to the Northwest
South Façade, View to the North
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 117
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
17
East Wall, View to the Northwest
North Wall, View to the South
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 118
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
18
South and East Walls of the Garage, View to the Northwest
North and West Walls of the Garage, View to the Southeast
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 119
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
19
Entry to the Property Along Prospect Road, View to the Northwest
Landscaped Front Yard, View to the West
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 120
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
20
Historic Fireplace Southeast of the House
Handcrafted Birdbath East of the House, Ornamented with Chert
Historic Photographs
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 121
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
21
Source: Larimer County Assessor, 1949
(Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 122
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
22
Source: Larimer County Assessor, 1968
(Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 123
Resource Number: 5LR.1795 (State); B3494 (City)
Temporary Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Address: 1000 W. Prospect Rd
23
Source: Larimer County Assessor, 1977
(Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 124
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION PRESENTATION FOR:
1000 W PROSPECT ROAD
AUGUST 20, 2025
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 125
AGENDA
•Introduction
•Existing Context
•Proposal Concept A
•Proposal Concept B - Preferred
•Final Takeaways
•Question + Answer
2
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 126
EXISTING CONTEXT
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 127
1000 W PROSPECT ROAD
•Parcel: 9714300006
•Designated Historic
•Construction: 1930
•Craftsman-Style
•Wood + Stone Construction
•Zoning: HMN
4
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 128
PRESERVATION: EXTERIOR
5
•E: East Entry
•N: Tenant Amenity Acc.
•E: Site conditions
•N: Relocate Bird Bath
•E: Fireplace
•N: Attempt to Relocate
•E: Entry Approach
•N: TBD w/ PFA
•E: Backyard
•N: Relocate Garage
•E: South Facade
•N: Field Paint + Trim, typ.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 129
PRESERVATION IN ADAPTIVE REUSE: INTERIOR
6
•E: Maintain Fireplace
•N: Study Lounge
•E: Sunroom
•N: Study Lounge
•E: Entryway
•N: New Tenant Recep.
•E: Maintain Fireplace
•N: Game Room
•E: Attic
•N: Soft Study Lounge
•E: Sunroom
•N: Leasing Office
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 130
PROPOSED PROJECT
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 131
CONCEPT A: STICK FRAMED
•Adjacent to:
•Islamic Center
•Plymouth Church
•Type IIIB over Type IA
•Reflect adjacent MF architecture
•Home converted to Amenity
•New immediately adjacent to Old
•Wood + Stone Construction
•4:12 roof slopes match existing
•Challenging with PFA
•Fall 2027 Delivery
8
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 132
CONCEPT A: STICK FRAME
•Material
representation
•New windows to
reflect existing
•Need forestry
analysis and meeting
•Student Housing
•Affordable
Component
9
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 133
CONCEPT B: PRECAST CONCRETE
•Adjacent to:
•Islamic Center
•Plymouth Church
•Type IB: Non-combustible
•Reflect adjacent MF architecture
•Home converted to Amenity
•New immediately adjacent to Old
•Cast Panels closely match existing
•4:12 roof slopes match existing
•Best solution for PFA
•Possible Fall 2026 Delivery
10
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 134
CONCEPT B: PRECAST CONCRETE
•Greater material
representation
•Streamlined
construction
•Minimal Site Impact
and Disturbance
•May allow greater
tree protection
11
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 135
THANK YOU
Kurt Lloyd Basford, AIA
Base Creative, LLC
kurt@basecreative.design
303.589.5350
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 136
Headline Copy Goes Here
August 20, 2025Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Jim Bertolini
1000 W Prospect Rd:
Conceptual Development Review
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
HPC Role
•Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 5.8.1
•Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker
(Community Development Director) regarding compliance with Section
5.8.1 of the land use code.
1
2
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 137
Headline Copy Goes HereProject Summary
3
•Multi-family Apts
‒ 6 stories
‒ Retain historic Coffin
House in place (amenity
space)
‒ Relocate & incorporate
historic garage as amenity
‒ Retain/salvage historic
landscape features as
practical
Headline Copy Goes HereSite
4
Historic Area
of Adjacency
(200ft)
Zoning: HMN (High Density Mixed Neighborhood)
Student housing reservoir for campus
3
4
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 138
Headline Copy Goes HereHistoric Resources on the Development Site
5
• Coffin House
• Built over 1929-1930
• Craftsman-style
• Stone & stucco exterior w/ wood windows & trim
• Coffin was a well known local attorney and one of the
key founders & boosters of the Lindenmeier
archaeological site.
• Accessory Historic Resources
• Garage (1930)
• Birdbath & pond
• Stone outdoor fireplace
• Rock wall along south property line
Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Concept Plan
6
5
6
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 139
Headline Copy Goes HereSite Plan (approx.)
7
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Potential Discussion questions
• Are there particular concerns about the degree of landscape modification considering the building size
proposed?
• The project will likely require some Modifications of Standard to accommodate the size of the new proposed
building, its positioning, and the loss of some historic landscape features – are there concerns from the HPC
about supporting such a request for Modifications?
7
8
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 140
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Public comments
• As of 8/3 – none
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
HPC Role
•Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 5.8.1
•Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker
(Community Development Director) regarding compliance with Section
5.8.1 of the land use code.
9
10
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 141
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 142