Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2025 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting09/17/2025 Agenda Page 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 17, 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 September 17, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION for its consideration must be emailed to preservation@fcgov.com at least 48 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to preservation@fcgov.com at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, Staff Liaison’s administrative professional needs to receive those materials via the above email address at least 48 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to preservation@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison’s administrative professional will ensure the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 48 hours prior to the meeting. Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221- 6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Packet Pg. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 17, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Commissioners • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • STAFF REVIEW OF AGENDA o This review provides an opportunity for Staff to review the posted meeting and agenda and provide the Commission with any last-minute updates that may affect the order of agenda items. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW o The Chair will invite public requests for a Commissioner to “pull” any items off the Consent Agenda. This is not the time for public comment on the item. o Any Commissioner, at the Commissioner’s own prerogative or in response to a request from the public, may “pull” an item off the Consent Agenda to be considered as a separate item. o Pulled Consent Agenda items will have the opportunity for public comment and will be considered before scheduled discussion items. • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS REMAINING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW UP FROM COMMISSION • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2025 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 20, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Packet Pg. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 17, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM • ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP o This is an opportunity for Commissioners to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Agenda. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA o This is an opportunity for staff to provide updates on general activities at the City of Fort Collins related to the work of the Commission. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA o This is an opportunity for commissioners to share individual activities and updates related to the work of the commission. • CONSIDERATION OF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS o Any agenda item a Commissioner pulled from the Consent Agenda will be given time for a staff presentation on the item, public comment, and discussion, and the Commission will act on the item at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA Each item on the Discussion Agenda will be given time for a staff presentation, public comment, and discussion, and the Commission will act on the item in its agenda order. 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education and outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commissioners and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission. Packet Pg. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 17, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM 3. HISPANIC HISTORY SITES IN FORT COLLINS – ADDITIONS TO COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Two City-owned Fort Collins properties—the baseball field at City Park associated with the Hispanic League teams and the Romero House—have been nominated to the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties as part of the “Colorado Heritage For All” initiative. This project aims to include and celebrate the histories of all Colorado communities, including underrepresented groups, to correct historical oversights and ensure the Register reflects the state’s rich history. As of 2020, only about 5% of properties in the State Register directly related to the history of women and underrepresented communities. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager 4. 1000 W. PROSPECT ROAD – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Development application at 1000 W. Prospect Rd to include adaptive reuse of the existing historic house (Landmark Eligible), salvage and relocation of some historic landscape features, 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 • OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION o Commissioners may raise new topics that may properly come before the HPC for consideration. • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 5 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 AUGUST 20, 2025 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 20, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC August 20, 2025 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 6 8/20/25 – MINUTES Historic Preservation Commission REGULAR MEETING August 20, 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)  Jenna Edwards  Jeff Gaines  Jim Rose o Commission Members Absent –  Chris Conway  Aaron Hull  David Woodlee o Staff Members Present –  Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner  Heather Jarvis, Assistant City Attorney  Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner  Kai Kleer, City Planner  Melissa Matsunaka, PZC Admin o Guest(s) –  None • AGENDA REVIEW Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, reviewed the published agenda. • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS ON OR NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. Packet Pg. 7 8/20/25 – MINUTES • 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. Vice Chair Carlock made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rose, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gaines, Rose, and Gibson. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, noted the Historic Homes Tour, co-sponsored by the Poudre Landmarks Foundation and the City of Fort Collins, is September 13th. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, highlighted a design review for 531 South College Avenue, the First Presbyterian Church. She noted the project involved the addition of an elevator tower and replacement of air conditioning window units with salvaged window sashes from the area where the elevator tower is being installed. Jones also highlighted some recent educational programs, including the Big Splash at the 1883 Water Works and the Juneteenth community celebration. Upcoming events include a pre-Historic Homes Tour lecture event and the Historic Homes Tour. Jones provided a reminder about the Historic Preservation newsletter. 3. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1617 PERSON CT. Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant STAFF: Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Packet Pg. 8 8/20/25 – MINUTES STAFF PRESENTATION Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, stated this item is a single-unit dwelling demolition notification for the property at 1617 Person Court. She noted these notifications occur for properties that are over 50 years old and are proposed for demolition, but are not otherwise subject to development review historic preservation regulations. She stated this usually occurs for single-unit dwellings that are proposed for demolition and replacement with a new single-unit dwelling, which is the case in this instance. Jones stated these notification processes involve the posting of a notice of demolition sign at the property, posting information on the Historic Preservation website and City newsletters, and HPC notification. She stated the Commission can acknowledge the demolition notification and take no further action or make a motion to initiate a landmark designation process against the wishes of the property owner. Jones showed photos of the site and discussed the limited history of the home. She also noted the staff report contains a summary of the exterior building permits that have been pulled for the property. Jones provided demolition metric estimates of the embodied energy, salvageable volume, and salvageable value of the existing home. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Carrie Kingery, applicant, stated the goal is to make the property more functional by constructing a single-family home that will internally connect to the existing two-story garage. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. Chair Gibson stated the Commission acknowledges the notification and will take no further action. 4. THE LINDEN, 360 LINDEN STREET – FINAL 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 final development review for the project at 360 Linden, The Linden. He stated the role of the Commission is to provide a formal recommendation to the decision maker, which is the Community Development Director in this case. Bertolini outlined the proposed 5-story mixed-use project with office and commercial on the ground floor and apartments above. He noted 20% of the 160 units will be designated as affordable. Packet Pg. 9 8/20/25 – MINUTES Bertolini described the historic area of adjacency and noted this project is largely about design compatibility as there are no historic resources on the development site. He noted the Union Pacific freight depot immediately abuts the site on Linden Street and the Harmony Mill abuts the site as it approaches Lincoln Avenue, and there are other nearby historic buildings. Bertolini provided renderings of the proposed site plan and building elevations. He outlined the applicable Code requirements and discussed the ways in which the plan meets those requirements. He noted the lap siding has been eliminated and replaced with cement stucco, though concerns remain about the extensive use of white stucco and Planning staff have recommended a different color. Additionally, he noted Planning staff have expressed concern about the lack of a recognizable building base and lack of cornice articulation. Bertolini noted there are interpretive panels on all four corners of the intersection; however, they are outdated and need some improvement. He noted they will likely be addressed by a City- funded project in the future. He also noted archeological monitoring will be required as the project site overlaps with the known location of the original Fort Collins military post. Bertolini provided some suggested discussion questions for the Commission and noted no public comments have been received on the project. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Lupe Cantu, Davis Partnership Architects, discussed design work that is being done to articulate the three dimensionality of the parapet sides and to address concerns about the base of the building. He noted the striation that created the previous checkerboard effect has been eliminated. He commented on the activation of the buildings on Linden and Willow and further discussed the articulation of the buildings. Cantu noted work is being done with the landscape team to ensure that elements that carry over within the buildings’ articulation may their way into the landscaping. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Commissioner Gaines asked about the critical constraint on the brick massing width. Cantu replied the primary determination of the overall width is based on the height that is being articulated. He stated the goal is to provide a level of proportionality between the width and the height. He stated the Linden side treatment is in reference to the depot building. Chair Gibson commended the design changes and thanked the applicant for listening to the Commission’s feedback. Commissioner Rose asked about the upper cornice added element. Cantu replied they are continuing to work on that element and have worked through the two-foot difference between the higher parapets and the lower parapets to include an articulated channel. Commissioner Gaines commended the design changes and stated the building seems more orderly. He commented on an area of the elevation that he stated makes the brick mass feel flimsy and stuck on to the building. He suggested the brick mass could be widened to help give the building a stronger sense of base. He commended the idea of building in the planters along the building base and questioned the design of one of the building’s corners. Cantu commented on working through some of the design with Planning staff to make the brick stand out. He stated changes could be made with the stucco and brick. He also commented on the corner component and noted there is a photograph of the original fort showing soldiers sitting on the balcony and looking out, which the crow’s nest corner design is intended to mimic. He also noted there are four inches of pull in on the blue stucco above the brick, but stated the brick could be extended. Commissioner Gaines suggested bringing the brick further out so it has larger sense of mass extending out from the plane of stucco. Cantu replied there is a question as to how to programmatically make that work with the building and drainage plane. Packet Pg. 10 8/20/25 – MINUTES Commissioner Gaines stated expressing a better sense of solidity would help with the building feeling less flimsy overall. Cantu replied he would be willing to do that above the step back; however, building the overall form larger would go against the current formality that is required for the overall bays and would be difficult to achieve. Chair Gibson stated staff has stated all applicable Code standards are met with the possible exception of fenestration. She asked Commissioners if there are any additional concerns about that. No comments were made. Vice Chair Carlock made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rose, 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. Specifically, the Commission finds that the project complies with the requirements under Land Use Code Section 5.8.1(F). Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gaines, Rose, and Gibson. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. 1000 W. PROSPECT ROAD – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 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 STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, stated this item is a conceptual development review for the property at 1000 West Prospect Road. He outlined the proposed six-story apartment project that would retain the existing historic house to be used as an amenity space for the apartment project. Additionally, the project would relocate and incorporate the historic garage and retain and salvage some of the historic landscape features as practical. Bertolini discussed the area of adjacency noting there are no historic structures within 200 feet; however, the Sheely Drive Landmark District is just out of range down Prospect. He stated all design references for the new construction will relate to the historic house on the property. Bertolini noted the property lies within the high-density mixed-use neighborhood (HMN) zone and stated there is a goal to densify housing in the campus area. Bertolini showed images of the historic house and discussed the history of the property and its original owners. Additionally, he noted the garage is also historic as are some landscape features, including a bird bath, stone outdoor fireplace, and a rock wall. He stated staff would like the Commission to provide preliminary feedback about any concerns related to the difference in scale and protection of the historic resources. Bertolini noted one of the major constraints of the site is fire access which will need to be taken along the east property line and is required to be 24 feet in width, thereby pushing the proposed new building to the west closer to the existing house. He discussed previous iterations of designs for the property and discussed staff’s preliminary analysis of applicable Land Use Code provisions. Bertolini outlined the requests from the Commission regarding a site plan, distance between the new building and the historic house, more specificity on the exterior materials, and anticipated Packet Pg. 11 8/20/25 – MINUTES unit count. He also noted there was a mention that archeological monitoring might be appropriate and provided some suggested questions for the Commission to consider. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Kurt Basford, lead design professional, discussed the existing site context and noted the current intent is to retain the historic home at its existing location. He commented on the materiality of the existing home and stated the plan is to turn it into the amenity space for the student housing apartments, including study lounges, a game room, and fitness space. Basford showed one preliminary site plan and noted an analysis of the trees on the site has been completed with Forestry. He stated the plan would be to relocate the garage to be adjacent to the north side of the building and to convert it to another amenity space such as bike parking. He commented on key features that are planned for retention and relocation, including the bird bath, and outdoor fireplace. Basford showed a second site plan option that has more of an articulated east façade, and still relocates the garage, bird bath, and outdoor fireplace. He noted both site plans have a small setback between the historic home and the new building and discussed the plan to ensure the home does not get damaged during construction. Basford stated the plan is for the new building to utilize a precast concrete construction which helps with fire access and eliminates the need for scaffolding to be placed to apply exterior finishes. He stated the planned unit count is between 50 and 60 with a bed count between 100 and 135 and a parking ratio of 0.2 to 0.3 per bed. Additionally, ten to twenty percent of the units will be affordable, which grants the ability for the sixth story. Basford outlined the proposed exterior materiality for the new building that will be part of the precast concrete panels. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. COMMISSION QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Commissioner Gaines asked what is required for fire access. Basford replied the site can be fully accessed from the south and the preferred option would be for two points of access allowing for entry on the east side and exit on the west, though that may not be feasible. He noted fire access would still work from a single point of access. Chair Gibson asked where the 22 to 41 parking spaces would be located. Basford replied they would be below the building with five stories of apartments above at-grade parking. Chair Gibson asked about the distance between the historic home and new building. Basford replied the plan is for two to three feet of separation. Commissioner Carlock asked about the step back of the upper stories. Basford replied they are working on the articulation of the southern façade and noted Poudre Fire Authority has requested a stair core as close to where their apparatuses would locate as possible, which would require a continuous six-story stair core at either the southwest or southeast corner of the building. The south façade would be articulated to work with the precast structural system, therefore it would be a continual vertical plane of six stories without a step back. Commissioner Rose expressed concern about the lack of step backs and the fact that the mass of the new building would dwarf the historic home. He stated visibility of the home would be impossible unless one is coming from the west. He suggested more articulation of the mass and respect of the existing building by including step backs would be necessary. He also stated he could not support modifications of standard given the design at this point. Chair Gibson concurred and stated the design feels as though wedging a six-story building into the space would create a self-imposed problem requiring modifications of standard. She Packet Pg. 12 8/20/25 – MINUTES expressed concern about the integrity of the property in regard to the landscape features. She stated she is not supportive of the design as presented, nor of modifications of standard. Commissioner Gaines stated the proposal does not leave room for designing the relationship between the historic home and the new building in an appropriate manner. He questioned whether the zoning setback on the east side of the property could be decreased to allow for more separation between the buildings and provide a plaza or courtyard for emergency access and outdoor usable space. Commissioner Carlock stated the current design seems to wedge a building onto a site that is not appropriate. She acknowledged a sufficient number of units need to be included to make the project financially feasible, but stated that goal may not coincide with the current site. Commissioner Gaines stated it could be beneficial to do some research as to other projects that included a historic home and a new building of this mass. Bertolini commented on the Apex Haven project that is a few blocks down Prospect, though the main difference is that that property is larger. Chair Gibson stated she would want the requirement for archeological monitoring if the landscape features were to be removed and would also want a plan of protection for the house. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Gibson adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING AUGUST 7 TO SEPTEMBER 3) 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. 14 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 Volunteer Engagement Summit Current and prospective volunteers with City resource fair; provided walking tour on volunteerism including Golden Grape Coffee House (645 S. Whitcomb) and Geller Approx. 50 (plus 20 on the walking tour) Aug. 28, 2025 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 213 Linden St. (Loomis Block) property to Old Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by Approved Aug. 7, 2025 411 E. Elizabeth St. building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Report Issued Aug. 7, 2025 638 Whedbee St. (E.M. Dodd/Frank Ghent Property) aluminum-clad wood windows; replacement of paired windows on rear elevation with French door; addition of rear door. City Landmark. Reviewed by Approved Aug. 13, 2025 430 N. College Ave. (Power House) City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Approved Aug. 15, 2025 218 Walnut St. Contributing property to Old Town Historic District (Landmark and NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Aug. 15, 2025 1111 Remington St. (J.L. Van Horn House) with similar to address settling. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV Approved Aug. 20, 2025 225 W. Oak St. (Masonic Temple) design, salvaging brick material when possible, and installation of ADA compliant entry ramp. Designated on State Register of Historic Properties. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Aug. 21, 2025 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 506 E. Magnolia St. (George O'Hair Residence/Schlagel building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Approved Aug. 28, 2025 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 5.8.1 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 622 S. Grant Ave. Aug. 7, 2025 Aug. 14, 2025 813 W Myrtle St. Aug. 14, 2025 633 W. Lake St. Conceptual Review: Mixed use building with demo of existing. complete; design requirements relative to 625 Aug. 14, 2025 416 Sycamore St. Conceptual Review: Adaptive reuse Aug. 22, 2025 640 W. Prospect Rd Conceptual Review: apartment tower; demo of existing building proposed survey complete; design requirements relative to 720 Aug. 22, 2025 Aug. 27, 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 Dr, and 1207, 1211, & Not Eligible Yes Aug. 15, 2025 622 S. Grant Ave. Not Eligible Yes Sept. 3, 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 4305 & 4325 E. Harmony Rd 1920 & 1971 237-241 Linden St. 1961 Façade modifications proposed 5630 Tilden St. 1974 Demo possible for affordable housing Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Note: Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small cell/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do not appear in the table below. National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment HUD Four-story multi-family building with 45 affordable units Potential Effect and finding of No Historic Aug. 15, 2025 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 8 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 2 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 17 Headline Copy Goes Here Sept. 17, 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 225 W. Oak St. – Masonic Temple (State Register of Historic Properties; Reviewed under MC 14, Article IV and LUC 5.8.1) Project includes: • In-kind replacement of deteriorated front steps, salvaging brick from stair walls when possible and matching details like the concrete cap profiles • Infill of west stair and installation of ADA-compliant ramp/walkway at east stairs • Repair of front doors 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 Headline Copy Goes HereEducation/Outreach Highlight •“Growing Fort Collins: Architecture and the Natural World” -Historic Homes Tour Preview Lecture Event – Monday, September 8, 6pm, Senior Center •Poudre Landmarks Foundation Historic Homes Tour – Saturday, September 13, 10-4 •HPS sponsoring the Watson-Sarchet House, 930 W. Mountain •Landmarked in 1980 Headline Copy Goes HereJoin Our Newsletter! 4 • Get monthly updates and information from Historic Preservation Services directly in your inbox such as: • Upcoming events/activities • Historic Preservation Commission agenda overviews • Notification of historic surveys in progress and completed • Notification of single-family residential demolitions • Local preservation financial support program open/close notifications • Landmark spotlights • And more! • Scan the QR Code, or go to https://www.fcgov.com/subscriptions/#group_id_2, to sign up by toggling on the “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter! 3 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME HISPANIC HISTORY SITES IN FORT COLLINS – ADDITIONS TO COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager INFORMATION teams and the Romero House—have been nominated to the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties as part of the “Colorado Heritage For All” initiative. This project aims to include and celebrate the histories of all Colorado communities, including underrepresented groups, to correct historical oversights and ensure the Register reflects the state’s rich history. As of 2020, only about 5% of properties in the State Register directly related to the history of women and underrepresented communities. The Romero House at 425 10th Street is an adobe residence in the Andersonville neighborhood that was designated a Fort Collins Landmark in 2001 and currently serves as the Museo de las Tres Colonias. The baseball field at City Park was an important site that between 1946 and 1969 served as the home field of the Fort Collins Legionnaires, a sugar beet league team composed of Hispanic and Mexican workers. The State Register listing will be the first formal recognition of the baseball field’s significance as a historic property. Dr. Mali Leyva has completed the State Register nominations for the City Park Baseball Field and the Romero House. While review and comment by the local Historic Preservation Commission is not a required process for listing properties on the State Register, this information is provided to the HPC and to the community at large in recognition and celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month. Dr. Leyva and Damion Pechota, the National and State Register Historian at History Colorado, will present information on the listings. Additional Information about the Colorado State Register: The Colorado State Register of Historic Properties is a listing of the state’s significant cultural resources worthy of preservation for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado’s residents and visitors. Properties listed in the Colorado State Register include individual buildings, structures, objects, districts and historic and archaeological sites. The Colorado State Register program is administered by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation within History Colorado. History Colorado maintains an official list of all properties included in the Colorado State Register. Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places are automatically placed in the Colorado State Register. They may also be nominated separately to the Colorado State Register without inclusion in the National Register. The Colorado State Register formally recognizes properties possessing a documented level of significance and that contribute to the understanding and appreciation of the history or prehistory of a community, the state, or the nation. Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 • Formal recognition of a property’s importance to the history of the community and the state of Colorado. • A body of information for local community planning, tourist promotion, neighborhood revitalization. • A sense of community history and local pride. • Eligibility to compete for grants from Colorado’s State Historical Fund. These grants may be used for acquisition and development, education, and survey and planning projects. • Eligibility to apply for state tax credits for restoration, rehabilitation, or preservation of Colorado State Register properties. • Limited protection from state agency actions that would affect the property. Agencies must solicit the comments of History Colorado to assure that Colorado State Register properties are given consideration in the state planning process. There are no restrictions imposed by History Colorado as to what private property owners may or may not do with their property. Private property owners may alter or demolish a listed property subject only to applicable local government regulations and permitting procedures. Criteria for consideration of properties for nomination and inclusion in the Colorado State Register includes the following: A. The association of the property with events that have made a significant contribution to history; B. The connection of the property with persons significant in history; C. The apparent distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, or artisan; D. The geographic importance of the property; E. The possibility of important discoveries related to prehistory or history. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park – SR Nomination Form 2. Romero House – SR Nomination Form Packet Pg. 21 HISTORY COLORADO COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES NOMINATION FORM SECTION I General Information Name of Property Historic Name: Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park Other Names: Prospect Park Address of Property [ ] address not for publication Street Address: 1500 W Mulberry St. City: Fort Collins County: Larimer Zip: 80524 Present Owner of Property (for multiple ownership, list the names and addresses of each owner on one or more continuation sheets) Name: City of Fort Collins Street Address: 300 LaPorte Ave City: Fort Collins County: Larimer Zip: 80521 Phone: (970) 221-6505 Site #: 5LR.15351 Owner Consent for Nomination Please attach the signed consent from each owner of property - see attached form ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park County: Larimer 2 Why should this resource be included on the State Registry? How is the resource architecturally and/or historically significant? [Provide a brief summary (500 words or less). Please see the accompanying How to Nominate a Property to the State Register document for a definition of terms.] The Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park holds historical significance as a vital gathering space for Hispanic and Mexican American communities during the mid-20th century. From 1946 to 1969, this site served as the regular playing field for the Fort Collins Legionnaires. The Legionnaires began in the 1920s as part of the sugar beet league, an informal baseball association organized by Hispanic and Mexican workers who migrated to northern Colorado as laborers in the sugar beet industry.1 During these early years, the teams played on makeshift and improvised baseball fields. The sugar beet leagues not only provided recreational opportunities, but also a cultural outlet for a marginalized community facing economic hardships and social exclusion. Starting in 1946, the Legionnaires began playing their home games at the baseball field at City Park. For the players, the baseball field was a place to assert identity, build community, and resist discrimination. It offered a rare space for cultural expression and camaraderie, uniting families and spectators from surrounding areas. The games played on the field were often attended by diverse audiences and accompanied by music, food, and celebrations. The field also symbolizes the broader history of labor migration and community-building in the region. It is a testament to the contributions of Mexican and Mexican American workers to the region’s agricultural economy and social fabric. These baseball teams also played a significant role in challenging racism and segregation in the region. As the league grew in popularity, teams began attracting white and Black players and spectators, fostering interracial interactions that were otherwise rare in segregated social contexts.2 Over time, the inclusive spirit of the league helped lay the groundwork for broader social integration in northern Colorado, demonstrating the power of sports as a unifying force in divided communities. Preserving and recognizing the history of the Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park honors the legacy of these communities and their role in shaping local history. 1 Jody L. Lopez and Gabriel A. Lopez, From Sugar to Diamonds: Spanish/Mexican Baseball 1925-1969 (AuthorHouse, 2009), p. 65. 2 Ibid., p. 110-111. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park County: Larimer 3 SECTION II: Significance of Property Nomination Criteria [X] A - property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to history [ ] B - property is connected with persons significant in history [ ] C - property has distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction or artisan [ ] D - property is of geographic importance [ ] E - property contains the possibility of important discoveries related to prehistory or history Area(s) of Significance [Check all that apply to this resource.] [ ] Agriculture [ ] Architecture [ ] Archaeology – prehistoric [ ] Archaeology – historic [ ] Art [ ] Commerce [ ] Communications [ ] Community Planning and Development [ ] Conservation [ ] Economics [ ] Education [ ] Engineering [X] Entertainment/Recreation [X] Ethnic Heritage [ ] Asian American [ ] Black/African American [X] Hispanic/Latino/Chicano [ ] Middle Eastern/North African [ ] Native American/Indigenous [ ] Pacific Islander [ ] Other* ________________________ [ ] Exploration/Settlement [ ] Geography/Community Identity [ ] Health/Medicine [ ] Industry [ ] Invention [ ] Landscape Architecture [ ] Law [ ] Literature [ ] Military [ ] Performing Arts [ ] Politics/Government [ ] Religion [ ] Science [ ] Social History [ ] Individuals with Disabilities History [ ] LGBTQ History [ ] Women’s History [ ] Immigrant History [ ] Other**_____________________ [ ] Transportation [ ] Other __________________________ Period(s) of Significance: __1946-1969______________________ * Other Ethnic Heritage may include groups that self-identify outside of the listed ethnicities. Please provide specific language and terms. ** Other Social Histories may include people-centered social movements, such as those involving individuals impacted by the justice system or individuals experiencing homelessness. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 4 Why is this resource significant to Colorado’s history? [Please provide an explanation for each area of significance identified from the list above. This is your overall argument for why this resource is important related to the area of significance identified.] The Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park is eligible for the State Register of Historic Properties under Criteria A, Ethnic Heritage (Hispanic and Mexican American) with Entertainment/Recreation, for its association with the Fort Collins Legionnaires, a Hispanic/Mexican baseball team that began in the 1920s as part of northern Colorado’s sugar beet baseball league. The period of significance is from 1946, when the team started playing on the field, to the dissolution of the league in 1969. The shift to playing at City Park proved invaluable to the Fort Collins Legionnaires’ development as a team. Prior to 1946, the Legionnaires’ league games were played on makeshift and improvised fields. Once they began playing at City Park, however, the games gained popularity due to the park’s aesthetics and the proximity to Sheldon Lake.3 For over two decades, the Legionnaires played their home games at City Park, building a tremendous fan base within the community. The growing fandom of the Fort Collins Legionnaires had a significant impact on the makeup of the team itself, as non-Hispanic members began to join. To the Legionnaires and other teams in the league, what was important was the ability to play, not the color of a player’s skin.4 Baseball, which had long served as not only a source of recreation but as an important distraction from the hardships of daily life, became an important source of community building and integration as white players began joining the Fort Collins team in the 1950s.5 The Fort Collins Baseball Field at City Park is a significant historic site due to its relationship with the Hispanic/Mexican baseball team the Fort Collins Legionnaires. The Legionnaires were an early example of an integrated sports team at a time when segregation was the norm and Mexicans were frequently prohibited from white spaces. The field at City Park provided a space where the community could gather and play together without the division of racial discord that was prominent in most other environments. What is the period of significance for the resource? What time period is most important to capturing the criteria and area of significance identified above? [Provide a year or range of years and explain why] The period of significance for this resource is 1946 to 1969, which represents the known dates that the Fort Collins Legionnaires played their home games at the City Park baseball field. 3 From Sugar to Diamonds, p. 129. 4 Ibid., p. 111. 5 Ruben Donato, Mexicans and Hispanos in Colorado Schools and Communities, 1920-1960 (State University of New York Press, 2007), p. 47. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 5 What additional contextual information or historic background is needed to understand the significance of this resource? [Please provide additional information to contextualize the supporting history for the argument you outlined above.] Sugar Beet Baseball League The Sugar Beet Baseball League began in the 1920s, as Hispanic/Mexican laborers came to work in the Colorado sugar beet industry. These early baseball teams were so prominent in the lives of the workers that the Great Western Sugar Company used images of workers playing baseball in their recruitment efforts.6 These early teams played games across sugar beet towns in northern Colorado, as Hispanic/Mexican laborers worked to create their own communities. A number of these teams signed with the Rocky Mountain League in 1942, opening up opportunities to play against other regional teams outside of Colorado. The teams maintained their strong association with the sugar beet industry until 1960, when televised professional baseball and college teams slowly led to less interest and support for small, local teams. Eventually, the league was dissolved in 1969.7 Fort Collins Legionnaires The Fort Collins team began in 1920 as part of the Sugar Beet Baseball League.8 For the first 25 years, Fort Collins’s Spanish/Mexican team was very poorly equipped, and they played their games on a variety of makeshift baseball fields and sandlots.9 In 1942, the Fort Collins team, which became known as the Fort Collins Legionnaires, joined other teams in signing with the National Baseball Congress Semi-Pro League. Following World War II, the team was able to get better equipment and uniforms, and they began playing at City Park. With its dual north/south baseball fields and lakeside view, City Park proved to be a very popular location for the Fort Collins home games. The Fort Collins Legionnaires were considered to be one of the most organized local teams in the league at the time (along with the Greeley Grays).10 The 1950s saw several important developments in Fort Collins baseball. First, a second team was created to serve the north side of the city, the Fort Collins Merchants, as well as a youth team called the Fort Collins Rebels that had begun as a boy’s club in 1949.11 Second, the teams in general became more organized and competitive, participating in the Semi-Pro Rocky Mountain League.12 Lastly, the Fort Collins Legionnaires and other teams began to integrate 6 Mexicans and Hispanos, p. 6. 7 From Sugar to Diamonds, p. 61. 8 From Sugar to Diamonds, p. 109. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., 111. 11 Ibid. 114, 116. 12 Ibid., 112. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 6 non-Hispanic players. This integration helped the larger community of Fort Collins to become more inclusive at a time when segregation was rampant throughout the nation. Fort Collins Sugar Beet Industry The sugar beet industry played a pivotal role in shaping the economic and social landscape of Fort Collins, Colorado, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Great Western Sugar Company established a factory in Fort Collins in 1903, solidifying the city’s position as a key center of sugar beet cultivation and processing in the region.13 This industry not only spurred local agricultural innovation but also transformed the city’s demographics, as it attracted a diverse workforce, including Germans-from-Russia immigrants and Mexican laborers, who provided the intensive manual labor required for sugar beet cultivation and harvest.14 The industry’s infrastructure, including beet dumps and railways, became defining features of Fort Collins’ economic geography. While the factory operated until 1955, the legacy of the sugar beet industry remains ingrained in the city's history, influencing its development and contributing to the regional identity of northern Colorado. Colorado Sugar Beet Industry The sugar beet industry was a cornerstone of Colorado's agricultural and industrial development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Introduced in the 1860s, sugar beet cultivation gained momentum in the 1890s with the establishment of processing facilities, including the Great Western Sugar Company, which became a dominant force in the industry. Colorado’s high altitude and irrigation systems proved ideal for beet cultivation, making the state one of the nation's leading producers of beet sugar. The industry shaped rural economies, driving the development of small farming communities and creating a demand for labor that was met by a combination of local farmers, Germans-from-Russia immigrants, Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Mexican laborers.15 While the industry peaked in the mid-20th century, its decline was spurred by shifts in the global sugar market and increasing mechanization. Despite this, the legacy of sugar beet cultivation endures in Colorado's agricultural history, having contributed to the economic foundation and cultural diversity of the state. Fort Collins City Park The park today known as City Park in Fort Collins began as the western portion of the farmland purchased by John Sheldon in 1874.16 In 1904, a group of private citizens purchased part of this 13 Amanda Horvath and Peter Vo, "Fact Finding from the Fields of Fort Collins' history." Rocky Mountain PBS, 17 July 2023. https://www.rmpbs.org/blogs/rocky-mountain-pbs/sugar-beet-fort-collins-memories. 14 Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants, "Work Renders Life Sweet: Germans From Russia in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 - A Historical Context." SWCA Environmental Consultants (2003). 15 Adam Thomas and Timothy Smith, SWCA Environmental Consultants. "The Sugar Factory Neighborhoods: Buckingham, Andersonville, Alta Vista - A Survey Report," (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003). 16 Jean Helburg, An Anecdotal History of the Parks and Recreation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado . ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 7 land to build a recreational area they named Prospect Park.17 In 1907, the city purchased additional land from the Sheldon farm, including Sheldon Lake, to create a new park system adjacent to Prospect Park.18 In 1909, the baseball field at Prospect Park was first established with assistance from the Colorado and Southern Railway, who arranged the park for baseball and laid out the diamond.19 Finally, in 1912, the newly dubbed City Park absorbed the smaller Prospect Park, culminating in the park layout as it is today.20 By 1953, an additional baseball diamond was established north of the original field, which is visible on a map by the Office of the City Engineer that year.21 The new diamond was designated for hardball, while the original baseball field was marked for softball at this time. Today, these designations are reversed. The Fort Collins Legionnaires played on both fields. Due to changes to the northern field, which has seen substantial changes to the layout to best serve modern softball standards, the southern field maintains the best integrity for this nomination. Fort Collins Baseball After 1969 Despite the dissolution of the Rocky Mountain League in 1969, baseball has continued to be an important pastime for Fort Collins residents. In 1961, Fort Collins parents first organized the Fort Collins Baseball Club, a Little League program which has grown tremendously in the intervening decades.22 Today, the Fort Collins Baseball Club operates as a non-profit, overseeing over 250 teams with over 3,300 players, with ages ranging from 4 to 24 years old.23 In 1999, a new Rocky Mountain Baseball League began, with a new Fort Collins team joining in 2005.24 Created and originally owned by Kurt Colicchio, the Fort Collins Foxes operate as a summer collegiate baseball team, allowing college baseball players to spend their summers improving their athletic skills.25 The Fort Collins Foxes continue to the tradition of playing their home games at the City Park Baseball Field. (City of Fort Collins, 2011), p. 7. 17 Ibid., See Also Figure 1. 18 “Map of Fort Collins’ Proposed Park System,” The Weekly Courier (March 27, 1907), p. 18. 19 “Local and Personal,” The Weekly Courier (May 26, 1909), p, 15. 20 An Anecdotal History, p. 9. 21 See Figure 2 for location of the two fields, as well as Figure 3 for the location of the original, southe rn field. 22 Meg Dunn, “Root, Root, Root for the Home Team,” Northern Colorado History (May 20, 2014). https://www.northerncoloradohistory.com/root4baseball/. 23 “About Us,” Fort Collins Baseball Club. https://www.fortcollinsbaseballclub.org/about. 24 “Home Page,” Rocky Mountain Baseball League. https://rockymountainbaseballleague.com/. 25 “Press Release: New Ownership Brings Exciting Changes and to Fort Collins Foxes Baseball Team,” Fort Collins Foxes (September 6, 2023). https://www.fortcollinsfoxes.com/post/press-release-new- ownership-brings-exciting-changes-and-to-fort-collins-foxes-baseball-team. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 9 SECTION III Property Description Use of Property Historic [List all that apply. Any known historical uses should be listed] Baseball field Park Current Use [List all that apply.] Baseball field Park Original Owner [If known] City of Fort Collins Architectural Style Baseball Field Year of Construction: 1909 Source of Information: The Weekly Courier, May 26, 1909 Architect, Builder, Engineer, Artist or Designer [List all that apply] Architect: Unknown Builder: Colorado and Southern Railway Engineer: Unknown Designer: Unknown ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 10 SECTION IV Architectural/Archeological Description and Integrity Photographs A full set of current photographs is required. Please provide a photograph of each side of the resource, interesting features or elements, some interior photographs to convey how the space is used, any additions or changes to the original resource, and any historic photographs that show the use over time. Photographs can be submitted in a PDF or Word document, or in a Google Drive submitted at the same time this form is submitted. For PDFs or Word Documents, please include a label for each photograph provided describing the direction or details necessary to understand the photograph. For Google Drive documents, please provide a short description (i.e. “East Side” or “Close-up of Window”) in the saved image name. Date(s) photos were taken: Locational Status Is the resource(s) in its original location? [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Unknown If no, when was the resource(s) moved to current location? Use online map (such as Google Earth or other online mapping tool) to find the longitude and latitude of the resource. Longitude: -105.106313 Latitude: 40.585437 What is the resource’s boundary? [Please describe the boundary of the entire area proposed for the register. This may be the footprint of the resource, street names surrounding the resource’s area, property lines, or physical features. Please see the accompanying How to Nominate a Property to the State Register document for a definition of terms.] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 11 Resource Description Date(s) site was last visited by the applicant: Overview of Resource [Describe the original and current appearance of the property, including architectural style, archaeological features, building materials, landscaping, setting, etc.] The baseball field is laid out in a diamond shape, extending south from home base at the north end of the field. The field retains the same general layout as it has had throughout the historic record, from the 1920s onward, and likely since it was first built in 1909. See sketch for more information. Description of Resource [Please provide a description of each side of the resource(s). Make sure to note any character defining features of the resource, hallmarks of architectural styles, or archaeological features. Please check History Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering Guide for more information.] The baseball diamond is a standard square, measuring approximately 90ft on each side. Each end of the diamond ends in a base, with the pitcher’s mound at the center. There is a dugout along the northwest side of the diamond. The grass outfield continues approximately another 300ft beyond the diamond to the south, ending in a semicircle. The north and northwest ends of the field are surrounded by parking spaces, while the rest of the field is largely surrounded by trees. At the north end of the field is also stadium seating. What alterations or changes have occurred to the resource over time? [If applicable, provide a description of each alteration of the original resource. If built environment, explain new materials, roof, doors, windows, porches, additions, and any other changes. If archaeological, explain changes to features over time. Provide an exact or estimated date for each alteration listed.] The baseball field was first laid out in 1909 by the Colorado and Southern Railway as part of Prospect Park. The earliest map of the area shows the field from the 1920s in the same location as it is today (Figure 3). In the 1950s, a second field was established north of the original field, which is today designated as the softball field. Historic aerial photos (Figures 4 & 5) show that the northern parking lot was developed sometime between 1956 and 1969. The dugout is present from the earliest photographs. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 12 Integrity Location [Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. What is the resource’s location? Is this the original location? If not, where was the original location, where is the present location, and why was it relocated?] The baseball field has excellent integrity of location, as it is still in the original location it has been since the 1920s, with the same general layout. Setting [Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Please describe the area around the resource. Is the setting the same as the period of significance? How has it changed?] The setting of the environment is a park, mostly covered in grass. The field is largely surrounded by trees and is located near the northwest side of Sheldon Lake. This setting has remained the same since the 1920s, and the site therefore has excellent integrity of setting. Design [Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure and style of a property. What are the character defining features of the resource? Have any of those features changed over time?] The design of the field is standard to baseball, with the dirt diamond, including a pitcher’s mound and four running bases, surrounded by the outfield. The baseball field has good integrity of design, having first been established in the 1909 and maintained ever since with the same layout and positioning. Materials [Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. What are the materials used for the construction of the resource? Are these the same materials that existed in the original form of the resource?] The field has good integrity of materials, being primarily composed of dirt and grass. These are the same materials that have composed the site for decades. Originally the entire field was dirt, but grass was later added, at an unknown date, in the outfield. Workmanship [Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. How was the resources and materials crafted? Is this maintained?] The field was originally laid out in 1909 using the standards of the time. Maps and aerial photos show a general consistency in the position and layout of the field, giving it good integrity of workmanship. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 13 Association [Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.] This field was the home field for the Fort Collins Legionnaires from the 1940s to the 1960s. As it has continued to serve as the home baseball field for many local teams, it has excellent integrity of association. Feeling [Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.] The field continues to support baseball games currently, and it appears largely unchanged from the period of significance. As such, it feels like a well maintained but historic baseball field, giving it excellent integrity of feeling. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 14 Bibliography [Please cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form. Please see the accompanying How to Nominate a Property to the State Register, page 14, for proper citation examples.] Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants, "Work Renders Life Sweet: Germans From Russia in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 - A Historical Context." SWCA Environmental Consultants (2003). Adam Thomas and Timothy Smith, SWCA Environmental Consultants. "The Sugar Factory Neighborhoods: Buckingham, Andersonville, Alta Vista - A Survey Report," (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003). Jean Helburg, An Anecdotal History of the Parks and Recreation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. (City of Fort Collins, 2011). Jody L. Lopez and Gabriel A. Lopez, From Sugar to Diamonds: Spanish/Mexican Baseball 1925- 1969 (AuthorHouse, 2009). Ruben Donato, Mexicans and Hispanos in Colorado Schools and Communities, 1920-1960 (State University of New York Press, 2007). The Fort Collins Courier (Fort Collins) The Weekly Courier (Fort Collins) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 15 Preparer of Nomination Name: Malinalli X Leyva Organization: State Historic Fund, History Colorado Address: 1200 N. Broadway City: Denver State: CO Zip: 80203 Phone: (303) 447-8679 Date: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 36 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 16 History Colorado Use Only Local Designation Has the property received local historic designation? [ ] no [ ] yes --- [ ] individually designated [ ] designated as part of a historic district Date designated: Designated by [Name of municipality or county]: Property Type: [ ] building(s) [ ] district [ ] site [ ] structure [ ] object [ ] area Architectural Style/Engineering Type: Period of Significance: Level of Significance: [ ] Local [ ] State [ ] National Multiple Property Submission: Acreage: P.M. ______ Township ______ Range ______ Section ______ Quarter ______ Sections______ UTM Reference: Zone _____ Easting ______ Northing ______ NAD83______ Site Elevation: Mapping Longitude: Latitude: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 37 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 17 Photograph Log The following information pertains to the photographs that accompany this nomination. Property: City Park Baseball Field Location: Fort Collins, Colorado (Larimer County) Photographer: Betty Aragon-Mitotes Date of Photographs: April, 2025 Photo No. Photographic Information Photo 1 of 3. Baseball field from bleachers looking west along first baseline. Dugout is visible on right side. Photo 2 of 3. Baseball field from bleachers looking southwest toward home plate and the pitcher’s mound. Photo 3 of 3. Baseball field from bleachers looking south along third baseline. Dugout is visible on left side. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 38 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 18 Map of Site ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 39 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 19 Site Sketch [If applicable] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 40 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 20 Historic Photographs Figure 1 – 1907 Newspaper (The Weekly Courier) Map of Early City Park Design Figure 2 – 1953 City Map ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 41 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 21 Figure 3 – 1957 Master Planning Map Figure 4 – 1956 Aerial Photo ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 42 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 22 Figure 5 – 1969 Aerial Photo ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 43 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 23 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 44 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 24 Current Photographs Photo 1. Baseball field from bleachers looking west along first baseline. Dugout is visible on right side. Photo 2. Baseball field from bleachers looking southwest toward home plate and the pitcher’s mound. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 45 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: City Park Baseball Field County: Larimer 25 Photo 3. Baseball field from bleachers looking south along third baseline. Dugout is visible on left side. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 46 HISTORY COLORADO COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES NOMINATION FORM SECTION I General Information Name of Property Historic Name: Romero House Other Names: Museo de las Tres Colonias Address of Property [ ] address not for publication Street Address: 425 10th Street City: Fort Collins County: Larimer Zip: 80524 Present Owner of Property (for multiple ownership, list the names and addresses of each owner on one or more continuation sheets) Name: City of Fort Collins Street Address: 300 LaPorte Ave City: Fort Collins County: Larimer Zip: 80521 Phone: (970) 221-6505 Site #: 5LR.10122 Owner Consent for Nomination Please attach the signed consent from each owner of property - see attached form ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 47 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 2 Why should this resource be included on the State Registry? How is the resource architecturally and/or historically significant? [Provide a brief summary (500 words or less). Please see the accompanying How to Nominate a Property to the State Register document for a definition of terms.] The Romero House is significant for its association with Mexican ethnic heritage as well as being a rare example of traditional adobe architecture in northern Colorado. The house was built in 1927 by John B. Romero and his wife Cita “Inez” Romero (née Rivera), a Mexican American couple that had moved to Andersonville, Colorado (now part of Fort Collins), from New Mexico. In 1927, John, like many other sugar beet workers of the time, signed a long-term contract with Great Western Sugar Company in exchange for the materials to build an adobe home. John became a very important figure among the Mexican American community of Andersonville, serving as a community leader and activist, bilingual notary public, and secretary of the Fort Collins Spanish-American rights committee.1 Both the adjoining park (Romero Park, Figure 16) and the cross street next to the house (Romero Street) are named for him. In 1935, Romero added two bedrooms to the original two room house. The home remained a residence for members of the Romero family until 2001, when it was purchased to establish a house museum.2 Since 2006, the house has served as the Museo de las Tres Colonias, showcasing the home environment and lifeways of Hispanic sugar beet workers in the region. Further additions made to the home during and after the 1950s have since been removed to restore the home to its 1935 state. The tres colonias referred to are three historic neighborhoods of Fort Collins that had large populations of Spanish speaking Mexicans during the first half of the 20th century: Alta Vista, Andersonville, and Buckingham.3 The Romero House is the last remaining adobe home in Andersonville today, and has the best integrity of any historic adobe home in the region. 1 Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants. “Hang Your Wagon to a Star: Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 – A Historical Context,” (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003), p. 24. 2 Poudre Landmarks Foundation, SHF Grant Application 3 Adam Thomas and Timothy Smith, SWCA Environmental Consultants. "The Sugar Factory Neighborhoods: Buckingham, Andersonville, Alta Vista - A Survey Report," (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003), p. 9-11. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 48 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 3 SECTION II: Significance of Property Nomination Criteria [X] A - property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to history [ ] B - property is connected with persons significant in history [X] C - property has distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction or artisan [ ] D - property is of geographic importance [ ] E - property contains the possibility of important discoveries related to prehistory or history Area(s) of Significance [Check all that apply to this resource.] [ ] Agriculture [X] Architecture [ ] Archaeology – prehistoric [ ] Archaeology – historic [ ] Art [ ] Commerce [ ] Communications [ ] Community Planning and Development [ ] Conservation [ ] Economics [ ] Education [ ] Engineering [ ] Entertainment/Recreation [X] Ethnic Heritage [ ] Asian American [ ] Black/African American [X] Hispanic/Latino/Chicano [ ] Middle Eastern/North African [ ] Native American/Indigenous [ ] Pacific Islander [ ] Other* ________________________ [ ] Exploration/Settlement [ ] Geography/Community Identity [ ] Health/Medicine [ ] Industry [ ] Invention [ ] Landscape Architecture [ ] Law [ ] Literature [ ] Military [ ] Performing Arts [ ] Politics/Government [ ] Religion [ ] Science [X] Social History [ ] Individuals with Disabilities History [ ] LGBTQ History [ ] Women’s History [ ] Immigrant History [ ] Other**_____________________ [ ] Transportation [ ] Other __________________________ Period(s) of Significance: _1927-1940_______________________ * Other Ethnic Heritage may include groups that self-identify outside of the listed ethnicities. Please provide specific language and terms. ** Other Social Histories may include people-centered social movements, such as those involving individuals impacted by the justice system or individuals experiencing homelessness. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 49 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 4 Why is this resource significant to Colorado’s history? [Please provide an explanation for each area of significance identified from the list above. This is your overall argument for why this resource is important related to the area of significance identified.] The Romero House is eligible for the State Register of Historic Properties under Criterion A, Ethnic Heritage (Hispanic) with Social History, for its association with the Romero family and Fort Collins sugar beet laborers. The period of significance is 1927 to 1940. The Romero House is the last remaining adobe home in Andersonville today, and has the best integrity of any historic adobe home in the region, highlighting the important history of the sugar beet farmers and their families. The Romero House, now known as the Museo de las Tres Colonias, serves as a powerful symbol of the lived experiences of Hispanic sugar beet workers in northern Colorado during the early to mid-20th century. Located in the Andersonville neighborhood of Fort Collins, this small adobe home represents the struggles, resilience, and community life of the predominantly Mexican and Mexican American laborers who toiled in the sugar beet fields. The Romero family, who occupied the house until the early 2000s, were prominent members of this community. John and Inez Romero built the home as employees of the Great Western Sugar Company but ultimately became important figures to which the whole community turned for support. John Romero was often referred to as the “Mayor” by other residents, being a leader and activist, bilingual notary public, and secretary of the Fort Collins Spanish American right committee.4 The sugar beet industry was a cornerstone of Colorado's agricultural economy, driven by the labor-intensive process of cultivating and harvesting the crop. Migrant workers, many of whom were Mexican immigrants, provided the backbone of this industry. Companies like the Great Western Sugar Company recruited these laborers with the promise of steady work, but the reality was often grueling conditions, low wages, and poor housing. The importance of these workers to the success of the sugar beet industry cannot be overstated, as companies like Great Western went through tremendous efforts to recruit Mexican workers, even going so far as to produce films showing beet workers attending church, celebrating holidays, and playing baseball, among other activities.5 The tremendous expense of bringing Mexican labor north every harvest season ultimately led Great Western to establish several company-run neighborhoods, including Andersonville.6 The company had several model adobe structures built, and began supplying construction materials to workers who signed multi-year contracts so they could build their own homes on lots also purchased through the company.7 These homes were small, simple, and lacked many amenities. The Romero House, for example, maintained a dirt floor pantry for food storage through the 1930s, as opposed to an icebox or refrigerator. Such pantries were small rooms filled with packed earth, functioning much like a root cellar. The dirt’s slow heat absorption kept the room cool, while also maintaining a higher level of humidity to keep vegetables like potatoes, onions, and carrots fresh. 4 Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants. “Hang Your Wagon to a Star: Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 – A Historical Context,” (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003), p. 24. 5 Ruben Donato, Mexicans and Hispanos in Colorado Schools and Communities, 1920 -1960. (State University of New York Press, 2007), p. 6. 6 “Sugar Factory Neighborhoods,” p. 14. 7 “Sugar Factory Neighborhoods,” p. 14. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 50 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 5 Today, the Romero House stands as a testament to the resilience of these workers and their families. Preserved as the Museo de las Tres Colonias, it offers visitors a glimpse into the daily lives of sugar beet workers through exhibits of household items, tools, photographs, and oral histories. The museum highlights the dual identity of the laborers as both exploited workers and vital contributors to the region's economy and culture. The museum also plays a crucial role in educating the public about the broader context of immigration, labor rights, and cultural preservation. It emphasizes how the experiences of the sugar beet workers resonate with ongoing discussions about migrant labor and economic justice in the United States. As a cultural and historical site, the Museo de las Tres Colonias ensures that the voices of the sugar beet workers and their families remain an integral part of Colorado's heritage. The Romero House is eligible for the State Register of Historic Properties under Criterion C for architecture as a rare example of an adobe-style residence in Fort Collins. The Romero House holds significant architectural importance as the last remaining adobe house in Andersonville, a historically Mexican American neighborhood in Fort Collins. The house stands as a rare example of adobe architecture in northern Colorado. Adobe construction, though more common in the U.S. Southwest, was an integral building method for early Mexican immigrants to northern Colorado. Adobe was a practical choice for housing due to its affordability and insulation properties, which provided comfort in the region's harsh summers and winters. Adobe construction was also a cost-effective way for Great Western Sugar Company to subsidize homebuilding for their workers, as they only needed to provide basic materials like straw, lime, and gravel.8 The Romero House exemplifies this modest style, featuring thick walls made of sun-dried adobe bricks, a simple rectangular layout, and a utilitarian design that reflected both cultural heritage and economic necessity. Its preservation provides a physical connection to the region’s architectural history, making it an essential artifact of the area’s cultural landscape. The house was originally built in 1927, but additional rooms were added by John Romero in 1935 to accommodate the growing family. Years later, the house saw additional changes that altered the historic integrity. The building’s restoration in the early 2000s was crucial in preserving the house’s architectural and historical integrity. By returning the structure to its 1935 state, the project highlighted the importance of maintaining original materials and construction techniques, such as adobe brickwork, to ensure the authenticity of the site. The restoration also addressed structural vulnerabilities inherent in adobe buildings, reinforcing the house to withstand future wear while preserving its historical character. What is the period of significance for the resource? What time period is most important to capturing the criteria and area of significance identified above? [Provide a year or range of years and explain why] The period of significance for the Romero House is 1927 to 1940. The original house was constructed in 1927 as a two-bedroom structure, with two additional rooms built in 1935. The restoration of the house in the early 2000s chose this period as its most significant, removing 8 “Sugar Factory Neighborhoods,” p. 14. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 51 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 6 additions made to the home after 1940. This period also reflects the extent of John B. Romero’s employment in the sugar beet industry with the Great Western Sugar Company, as his 1941 draft card shows he was working in Wyoming (Figure 10), although the family remained in Fort Collins. What additional contextual information or historic background is needed to understand the significance of this resource? [Please provide additional information to contextualize the supporting history for the argument you outlined above.] The Romero Family: John B. Romero was born in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1897. As a teenager, he worked in the fields in California for a time. He eventually moved to Colorado in the 1920s, initially working for the railroad.9 In Colorado, he met Cita “Inez” Rivera, from Ribera, New Mexico, who had moved to Colorado with her family around 1917.10 John and Inez were married in Fort Collins in 1925, at the ages of 28 and 17, respectively.11 For the first few years in Colorado, they lived in a home made from a railroad boxcar, as did many railroad workers at the time. Eventually, John signed a multi-year contract to work picking sugar beets for the Great Western Sugar Company on the outskirts of Fort Collins. Through his employment with the Great Western Sugar Company, John was able to purchase a plot of land in the Andersonville neighborhood, along with the necessary materials (straw, lime, and gravel) to build a modest adobe home. This home, constructed in 1927, initially consisted of only two rooms, but was expanded in 1935 to include two additional rooms. John and Inez had several children, including John Jr. (c. 1931), Charles (c. 1936), Frances (c. 1938), Arthur (c. 1939), and George (c 1941).12 By 1941, John was working at Buzzard Ranch in Alcova, Wyoming, although the family remained behind in their Fort Collins home, with Inez working as a homemaker and raising the children.13 During World War II, John served in the U.S. Air Force.14 Following his time in the war, John returned to Fort Collins, where he worked as a day laborer and contractor.15 John and Inez had two more children around this time, Antoinette (c. 1944) and Juliet (c. 1945).16 John was an important figure in the predominantly Mexican American neighborhood of Andersonville, often referred to as the “Mayor” by other residents. He served not only as the local notary, giving him a legal role in the area, but was also the person to whom other residents turned when they needed help getting something done, like having a pothole filled. The home continued to grow during this period, with more updates and additions made in the 1950s. 9 Oral history with George Romero and Juliet Romero Chavez, History Colorado Museum of Memory. 10 Ibid. 11 Ancestry.com. Colorado, U.S., County Marriage Records and State Index, 1862-2006 [database on- line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2016. 12 Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012. 13 Ancestry.com. U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. 14 Oral history with George Romero and Juliet Romero Chavez, History Colorado Museum of Memory. 15 Ancestry.com. 1950 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2022. 16 Ibid. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 52 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 7 The short two-block street adjacent to their home was named Romero Street in his honor shortly before he passed away in 1975.17 Inez continued to live in the home they had made until she passed in 1999. Some of the Romero children continued to live in and own the home until 2001, when they sold it so that it could be turned into a house museum dedicated to showing the lives of the sugar beet workers that had built the neighborhoods of Andersonville, Alta Vista, and Buckingham, also known as las tres colonias (the three colonies). The Museo de las Tres Colonias opened in the former Romero House in the early 2000s. Andersonville: Andersonville began as a settlement on the outskirts of Fort Collins, Colorado, named for Peter Anderson, who owned the farm where Andersonville was initially platted in 1902.18 Andersonville emerged in the early 20th century as a modest, working-class neighborhood. It was primarily home to laborers employed in the region’s burgeoning agricultural and industrial sectors, particularly those employed by the Great Western Sugar Company.19 Unlike the neighborhoods of Alta Vista and Buckingham, which Great Western had created to house their many Germans-from-Russia immigrant workers, Andersonville was conceived as a “Spanish” community for Mexican and Mexican American migrant workers, referred to as “la Colonia Española” (The Spanish Colony). Characterized by small, unassuming adobe houses, Andersonville, like the other sugar beet factory neighborhoods, was established without much in the way of public amenities and infrastructure. By the 1930s, the other two sugar beet factory neighborhoods of Alta Vista and Buckingham had also become largely populated by Mexican and Mexican American workers, and the three neighborhoods became known as “las tres colonias.” Over time, as Fort Collins expanded and modernized, Andersonville was gradually absorbed into the city, leaving behind a legacy tied to the contributions of its working-class inhabitants. Today, most of the adobe homes that once made up Andersonville and the other two neighborhoods have been demolished, with only the Romero House in Andersonville and one other small adobe home in Alta Vista standing as memorials to the lives of the sugar factory workers who built these neighborhoods.20 Fort Collins Sugar Beet Industry: The sugar beet industry played a pivotal role in shaping the economic and social landscape of Fort Collins, Colorado, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Great Western Sugar Company established a factory in Fort Collins in 1903, solidifying the city’s position as a key center of sugar beet cultivation and processing in the region.21 This industry not only spurred local agricultural innovation but also transformed the city’s demographics, as it attracted a diverse workforce, including Germans-from-Russia immigrants and Mexican laborers, who 17 Oral history with George Romero and Juliet Romero Chavez, History Colorado Museum of Memory. 18 Charlene Tresner, Streets of Fort Collins: A History of Fort Collins, Colorado, Through its Street Names (Patterson House Press, 2007)., p.76. 19 “Sugar Factory Neighborhoods,” p. 14. 20 Erin Udell, "A Century in Tres Colonias: Family of early Alta Vista pioneers look back on building a community." Coloradoan, 14 October 2021. https://www.coloradoan.com/story/life/2021/10/14/family-alta- vista-pioneers-look-back-century-tres-colonias-fort-collins/5946962001/ 21 Amanda Horvath and Peter Vo, "Fact Finding from the Fields of Fort Collins' history." Rocky Mountain PBS, 17 July 2023. https://www.rmpbs.org/blogs/rocky-mountain-pbs/sugar-beet-fort-collins-memories. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 8 provided the intensive manual labor required for sugar beet cultivation and harvest.22 The industry’s infrastructure, including beet dumps and railways, became defining features of Fort Collins’ economic geography. While the factory operated until 1955, the legacy of the sugar beet industry remains ingrained in the city's history, influencing its development and contributing to the regional identity of northern Colorado. Colorado Sugar Beet Industry: The sugar beet industry was a cornerstone of Colorado's agricultural and industrial development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Introduced in the 1860s, sugar beet cultivation gained momentum in the 1890s with the establishment of processing facilities, including the Great Western Sugar Company, which became a dominant force in the industry. Colorado’s high altitude and irrigation systems proved ideal for beet cultivation, making the state one of the nation's leading producers of beet sugar. The industry shaped rural economies, driving the development of small farming communities and creating a demand for labor that was met by a combination of local farmers, Germans-from-Russia, Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, and Mexican laborers.23 While the industry peaked in the mid-20th century, its decline was spurred by shifts in the global sugar market and increasing mechanization. Despite this, the legacy of sugar beet cultivation endures in Colorado's agricultural history, having contributed to the economic foundation and cultural diversity of the state. 22 Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants, "Work Renders Life Sweet: Germans From Russia in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 - A Historical Context." SWCA Environmental Consultants (2003). 23 “The Sugar Factory Neighborhoods.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 9 SECTION III Property Description Use of Property Historic [List all that apply. Any known historical uses should be listed] Residence Current Use [List all that apply.] House Museum/Community Center Original Owner [If known] John B. and Inez Romero Source of Information: Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants. Hang Your Wagon to a Star: Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 – A Historical Context (Aug 2003). Architectural Style Adobe Year of Construction: 1927 Source of Information: Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants. Hang Your Wagon to a Star: Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 – A Historical Context (Aug 2003). Architect, Builder, Engineer, Artist or Designer [List all that apply] Architect: Unknown Builder: John B. Romero Engineer: Unknown Designer: Unknown Source of Information: Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants. Hang Your Wagon to a Star: Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 – A Historical Context (Aug 2003). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 55 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 10 SECTION IV Architectural/Archeological Description and Integrity Photographs A full set of current photographs is required. Please provide a photograph of each side of the resource, interesting features or elements, some interior photographs to convey how the space is used, any additions or changes to the original resource, and any historic photographs that show the use over time. Photographs can be submitted in a PDF or Word document, or in a Google Drive submitted at the same time this form is submitted. For PDFs or Word Documents, please include a label for each photograph provided describing the direction or details necessary to understand the photograph. For Google Drive documents, please provide a short description (i.e. “East Side” or “Close-up of Window”) in the saved image name. Date(s) photos were taken: Locational Status Is the resource(s) in its original location? [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Unknown If no, when was the resource(s) moved to current location? Use online map (such as Google Earth or other online mapping tool) to find the longitude and latitude of the resource. Longitude: -105.056562 Latitude: 40.593438 What is the resource’s boundary? [Please describe the boundary of the entire area proposed for the register. This may be the footprint of the resource, street names surrounding the resource’s area, property lines, or physical features. Please see the accompanying How to Nominate a Property to the State Register document for a definition of terms.] The Larimer County Assessor’s Office identifies the resource as parcel # 8707207901 and its boundary description is LOT 1, BLK 12, ANDERSON PL, FTC. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 11 Resource Description Date(s) site was last visited by the applicant: Overview of Resource [Describe the original and current appearance of the property, including architectural style , archaeological features, building materials, landscaping, setting, etc.] The original house, built in 1927, was a simple two room adobe structure. In 1935, two additional rooms were added on. While other additions were made during the 1940s and the 1950s, the Romero House today has been restored to its 1935 conditions in order to create a museum space that accurately depicts the lives of sugar beet workers in the early 20th century. The house was originally constructed of adobe bricks made with straw, lime, and mud from the back yard. In 2004, renovations were made to the home with a State Historical Fund grant, and some of the adobe bricks were replaced under the supervision of an adobe consultant hired from New Mexico (Figures 13 & 14).24 The house features a gable and valley roof in a square design. One gable runs north and south on the eastern half of the structure, with gable walls facing north and south. The other gable faces west, extending from the roof over the original side of the structure to cover the rooms added in 1935. Description of Resource [Please provide a description of each side of the resource(s). Make sure to note any character defining features of the resource, hallmarks of architectural styles, or archaeological features. Please check History Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering Guide for more information.] East Side - Facade (Photo 1) The east side of the home, the front façade, rises from a small bed of rocks covering the foundation. The walls are adobe painted light brown. There is one white door present, with green trim. The door is slightly north of center. On either side of the door, from about three feet up from the foundation, there are two identical one-over-one sash windows that go up to the roofline. These windows are spaced out with one towards the north side of the building and one towards the south side. They are painted with white and green trim, matching the door. The cross gable roof slopes down toward this side, covered in wood shingles. South Side (Photo 2) The south side of the building rises from a bed of rocks covering the foundation. The walls are adobe painted light brown. This wall has two sections based on the roof. The east section is the 1927 section with the gabled roof. The gable is made of wooden slats painted in matching green. In the center of the gable is a small wooden door to provide access to the attic space. In the center of the adobe wall, on the ground level, is a window painted in white and green trim. The west section is the 1935 addition. This section is also adobe and painted in the same light brown. There is a white door surrounded by green trim. The roof slopes down over this section, covered in wood shingles. 24 SHF Grant File for Romero House ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 12 West Side (Photo 3) The west side of the building is adobe painted in a light brown. There are two small one-by-one sliding windows, starting at about five feet up. The windows are painted with white and green trim. One of the gables is visible on this side, consisting of wooden slats painted green. A wooden vent, painted green, is located in the gable. North Side (Photo 4) The north side of the building is adobe, painted a light brown. There are two windows on this side of the building on the main level, a horizontal single slider on the west end and one-over- one sash window. Both windows are painted with white and green trim. One of the gables is visible on this side, covered in green wooden slats. There is a small window on the gable. What is the interior of resource like? [If applicable, provide a brief description.] The interior of the house has been made to a re-create the home as it was in 1935, including a small bedroom with antique beds (Figure 15), a period appropriate kitchen and stove, and a dirt floor pantry for cold food storage. The form is the same was when it was used by the Romero house during the period of significance. What alterations or changes have occurred to the resource over time? [If applicable, provide a description of each alteration of the original resource. If built environment, explain new materials, roof, doors, windows, porches, additions, and any other changes. If archaeological, explain changes to features over time. Provide an exact or estimated date for each alteration listed.] The house was originally constructed in 1927 as a small, two-room building. Two rooms were added to the house in 1935 by John Romero (Figure 9). Other additions were added to the house in the 1940s and ‘50s. These additions were removed during the SHF-funded renovation in 2004 (Figures 13 & 14), restoring the house to its 1935 condition. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 13 Integrity Location [Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. What is the resource’s location? Is this the original location? If not, where was the original location, where is the present location, and why was it relocated?] The resource is still in its original location, in the Andersonville neighborhood of Fort Collins. As such, it has excellent integrity of location. Setting [Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Please describe the area around the resource. Is the setting the same as the period of significance? How has it changed?] The location of the home is the neighborhood of Andersonville in Fort Collins. The homes around it are no longer adobe, however the area remains largely residential with single-family homes. While the houses are new, they maintain the same overall form and property sizes as they would have during the period of significance. There are some commercial buildings that do not change the setting. Design [Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure and style of a property. What are the character defining features of the resource? Have any of those features changed over time?] This building is a simple adobe house, built for a small family. The house was expanded as the family grew through the 1940’s and ‘50s, but it has been restored to its 1935 condition, removing these additions. The form and design of the house are the same as when John and Inez first lived in the house. Materials [Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. What are the materials used for the construction of the resource? Are these the same materials that existed in the original form of the resource?] The home is still constructed out of authentic adobe, including both original and new bricks made to emulate the original style. The original adobe was made using mud from the back yard of the property. In 2004, the restorative work of the site included hiring a New Mexico expert to repair the historic adobe. There is minimal wood framing in parts of the building. Workmanship [Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. How was the resources and materials crafted? Is this maintained?] The house was constructed from adobe bricks made using mud dug from the back yard of the property. The house reflects the architectural style of the homes purchased and built by employees of the Great Western Sugar Company, who developed these homes in order to ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 59 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 14 affordably house their workers on a permanent basis. The house was built by John Romero and it has retained his workmanship. Association [Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.] John B. Romero built the house in 1927, as part of a contract with the Great Western Sugar Company. The street adjacent to the home is named for John (Romero Street), as is the small park immediately south of the home (Romero Park), meaning the house and the area are still heavily associated with the Romero family. The Romero family lived in this house until 2001, when it was purchased to create a house museum. The house is now the Museo de las Tes Colonias to educate on the lifestyle and history of workers in northern Colorado. Feeling [Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.] In 2004, the house today has re-created the historic feeling of the home as it was in the 1930s, giving it a strong, period appropriate feeling and aesthetic. The Romero House is the last remaining adobe home in Andersonville today, and has the best integrity of any historic adobe home in the region. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 60 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 15 Bibliography [Please cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form. Please see the accompanying How to Nominate a Property to the State Register, page 14, for proper citation examples.] Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants, "Work Renders Life Sweet: Germans From Russia in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 - A Historical Context." SWCA Environmental Consultants (2003). Adam Thomas and SWCA Environmental Consultants. "Hang Your Wagon to a Star: Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000 – A Historical Context." SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003. Adam Thomas and Timothy Smith, SWCA Environmental Consultants. "The Sugar Factory Neighborhoods: Buckingham, Andersonville, Alta Vista - A Survey Report," (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003). Amanda Horvath and Peter Vo, "Fact Finding from the Fields of Fort Collins' history." Rocky Mountain PBS, 17 July 2023. https://www.rmpbs.org/blogs/rocky-mountain-pbs/sugar-beet- fort-collins-memories. Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012. Ancestry.com. 1950 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2022. Ancestry.com. Colorado, U.S., County Marriage Records and State Index, 1862-2006 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2016. Ancestry.com. U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Charlene Tresner, Streets of Fort Collins: A History of Fort Collins, Colorado, Through its Street Names, (Patterson House Press, 2007). Erin Udell, "A Century in Tres Colonias: Family of early Alta Vista pioneers look back on building a community." Coloradoan, 14 October 2021. https://www.coloradoan.com/story/life/2021/10/14/family-alta-vista-pioneers-look-back- century-tres-colonias-fort-collins/5946962001/ Oral history with George Romero and Juliet Romero Chavez, History Colorado Museum of Memory. Poudre Landmarks Foundation, SHF Grant Application. Ruben Donato, Mexicans and Hispanos in Colorado Schools and Communities, 1920-1960. (State University of New York Press, 2007). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 61 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 16 Preparer of Nomination Name: Malinalli X Leyva Organization: History Colorado Address: 1200 N Broadway City: Denver State: CO Zip: 80203 Phone: 303-552-7074 Date: May 30, 2025 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 62 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 17 History Colorado Use Only Local Designation Has the property received local historic designation? [ ] no [ ] yes --- [ ] individually designated [ ] designated as part of a historic district Date designated: Designated by [Name of municipality or county]: Property Type: [ ] building(s) [ ] district [ ] site [ ] structure [ ] object [ ] area Architectural Style/Engineering Type: Period of Significance: Level of Significance: [ ] Local [ ] State [ ] National Multiple Property Submission: Acreage: P.M. ______ Township ______ Range ______ Section ______ Quarter ______ Sections______ UTM Reference: Zone _____ Easting ______ Northing ______ NAD83______ Site Elevation: Mapping Longitude: Latitude: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 18 Photograph Log The following information pertains to the photographs that accompany this nomination. Property: Romero House Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Photographer: Malinalli X Leyva / State Historical Fund Photo No. Photographic Information Photo 1 of 10: Façade (East-Facing Side) Photo 2 of 10: South-Facing Side Photo 3 of 10: West-Facing Side Photo 4 of 10: North-Facing Side Photo 5 of 10: South-West Facing Corner Photo 6 of 10: South-East Facing Corner Photo 7 of 10: North-East Facing Corner Photo 8 of 10: North-West Facing Corner Photo 9 of 10: Museo de las Tres Colonias interior photo Photo 10 of 10: Romero Park to the south of the resource (facing west). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 19 Map of Site 1:500 scale ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 20 Historic Photographs Figure 1: Rough floor plan sketch for Romero House as it was circa 1935 Figure 2: John B. Romero WWII Draft Card (circa 1941) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 21 Figure 3: John B. Romero mixing adobe in the backyard of the home (circa 1930s) Figure 4: John B. Romero with son (circa 1930s) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 22 Figure 5: Romero House under restoration/renovation (circa 2003) Figure 6: Romero House under restoration/renovation (circa 2003) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 23 Current Photographs Photo 1: Façade (East-Facing Side) Photo 2: South-Facing Side ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 24 Photo 3: West-Facing Side Photo 4: North-Facing Side ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 25 Photo 5: South-West Facing Corner Photo 6: South-East Facing Corner ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 26 Photo 7: North-East Facing Corner Photo 8: North-West Facing Corner ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 COLORADO STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Property Name: Romero House County: Larimer 27 Photo 9: Museo de las Tres Colonias interior photo Photo 10: Romero Park to the south of the resource (facing west). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1000 W. PROSPECT ROAD – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: the existing historic house (Landmark Eligible), salvage and relocation of some historic landscape features, and construction of a new six-story multi-unit residential building on the east half of the site. APPLICANT/OWNER: 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. 74 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, 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 and north portions of the property, immediately abutting, and attached to, the historic house. Earlier conceptual site plans for this project involved relocating the historic house. The conceptual plan reviewed by the HPC at its August 20, 2025 meeting included a single, six-story tower on the east side of the lot, with landscape features relocated primarily to the west half of the lot. PROJECT SUMMARY: The project is currently in a conceptual phase. The proposal includes an ell-shaped six-story apartment building with elements that drop to two stories nearest the street and around the historic Coffin House. 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 in a new courtyard feature in the southwest corner of the property. At present, the conceptual site plan includes relocation and incorporation of many of the landscape features as well as the garage. Access is taken from Prospect Road along directly into the front of the building, with podium parking on the ground level. 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: Staff’s initial review of this conceptual plan is that, overall, the project appears to meet most Standards, and may have grounds for a Modification of certain Standards based on the inclusion of affordable housing meet the City’s definition for such. While there is less buffering between the new construction and the historic building as typically requested (since the apartment tower will be separated by only three feet at the rear of the Coffin House), there seems to be adequate accommodations to preserve the historic house itself, and some of the important historic features of the site itself. Staff has outlined below where it is believed that a Modification would likely be required, and could be accommodated, should the project include an affidavit of affordable housing inclusion in the formal application. Packet Pg. 75 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 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 Road. Furthermore, since the LUC allows for large-scale infill on Eligible historic properties, the SOI Standards are typically applied to direct effects on the resource(s) in question, rather than indirect effects such as scale, massing, etc., which are covered under the design requirements in LUC 5.8.1. That includes significant landscape features, which are present on the 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. However, several significant landscape features dating from the Coffin period will be removed and relocated to accommodate the new building. Specifically, the applicant proposes moving the bird bath and outdoor fireplace to the parklet that will service as a buffer to the historic building on its east side. A recreated pond doubling as stormwater detention is proposed for the southwest corner of the property. TBD (Staff Y) SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. This Standard is typically difficult to meet with infill projects on Eligible historic properties, at least relative to important spatial relationships. The direct 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 organization of the contributing features and diminish the overall historic character of the property, and the presence of a six-story building in close proximity to (3 feet) 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 TBD (Staff Y) Packet Pg. 76 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 history would need to be memorialized in some fashion to meet this standard. Interpretive signage is one possibility. 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 project. 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 due to their relocation to accommodate the large-scale apartment building. Support for this Modification would be contingent on the inclusion of affordable housing (via Affidavit) in the formal development application. TBD – Modification of Standard May Be Necessary 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 (Staff Y) 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. The application suggests that physical treatments for the main house will be limited to repair and repainting of the stucco and wood trim and other features. Accessory features will be relocated. This is likely to be met. TBD (Staff Y) 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 TBD (Staff Y) Packet Pg. 77 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 As noted in previous standards, the primary concern here would be the treatment/salvage of historic landscape features. 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. Since this Standard is typically met in relation to direct effects to historic resources, this standard appears generally met in relation to the main house. The relocation of the major landscape features to new locations is cause for some concern. Construction of the detached, if closely adjacent (within 3ft) apartment building makes compliance with the overall intent for historic landscape preservation difficult. However, the primary Coffin House appears to remain intact in the proposed plan. TBD (Staff Y) SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. While landscape features will be removed/relocated as part of the project, staff has encouraged salvage/relocation of those features as much as possible. With the new building being detached from the historic building, albeit with a minimal separation on the rear, any direct effects on the house itself appear to be reversible or not applicable. TBD 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 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 and near the historic building into elements that reflect the general width of the historic house. TBD (Staff Y) 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 TBD (Staff Y) Packet Pg. 78 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. This requirement appears met. On most sides of the building, including all that will be visible in concert with the historic building, stepbacks of various sizes are included to mediate the transition from 1-2 stories up to the full six-story apartment tower. 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 a prefabricated concrete, simulating stucco, on the upper floors, with a stone base for the new building. It seems likely that this provision will be met in the formal application. TBD (Staff Y) 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) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5) pattern. Based on the applicant’s notes, the use of concrete (similar to the concrete stucco on the historic home) and stone veneer (similar to the stone veneer over concrete foundation on the historic house) as TBD (Staff Y) 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 includes limited information related to this Standard. Additional information will need to be included in a final development application to confirm that the majority of windows on the new building replicate at least one of the features referenced above relative to the historic Coffin House. 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 includes limited information relative to the Standard. Initial concept sketches suggest that new building features TBD (Staff Y) Packet Pg. 79 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 7 some horizontal alignment, and that the massing of the rear portions that will be viewed from Prospect as behind the historic house have a similar width and massing (i.e., similar vertical alignment) as the 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 reduced massing in that forward projection, and inclusion of a parklet/courtyard on the east side, will allow for sufficient TBD (Staff Y) 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. A condition check of the historic masonry, stucco, and overall structure, may be required, although the construction plan may mitigate for vibration damage from construction through the use of drilled piers instead of traditional battered pilings. HPC Requests for Information Modifications of Standard An applicant may request relief from any City standard in the Land Use Code via a Modification of Standard. Those are granted by the decision-maker for the project as outlined in the Code, which can be the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, the Planning & Zoning Commission, or City Council, depending on certain factors in the project. Modifications of Standard allow a project to not meet certain requirements, provided it meet certain provisions. The administration of Modifications is described in Land Use Code 6.8 and requires a project to meet on or more of the following qualifying factors in order to be granted: 1. The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or 2. The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City’s Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or 3. By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner’s ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and Packet Pg. 80 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 8 exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or 4. The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code tat are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. HPC Precedent for Modification Modifications are a fairly common occurrence for infill projects of all types, regardless of whether historic properties are present on the site or not. For context, Planning staff noted that between 2018 and 2024, City Planning staff processed 175 Modifications on development projects, only 8 of which were denied. It’s generally common for most projects to request at least one or two Modifications to receive approval. The HPC has also supported Modifications of Standard in the past in specific cases where either a hardship was present, or where relief from the strict application of the Standard would allow a project to help alleviate an important community need. Recent Modifications supported by the HPC include: - 2021 – 1610 S. College Ave – as part of the construction of a new Alpine Bank facility at the southeast corner of Prospect Rd and College Avenue, the HPC recommended a Modification of Standard supporting the relocation of the historic residence at 1610 S. College to its current location at 1618 S. College. This resolved several issues for the property related to site access and parking. - 2023 – 3105 E. Harmony Rd – in recognition of the importance of CASA (Child Advocates of Sexual Assault), the HPC recommended a Modification for Rehab Standard 9 to allow a significantly larger addition than recommended considering the non-profit’s services as important to meet an important community need. - 2025 – 1719 Mathews St – in recognition of the presence of hazardous materials, and in support of densification in the zone district, the HPC supported demolition of the existing single-unit dwelling (determined Eligible) based on exceptional physical conditions and to alleviate a stated community need (housing density). In this case for 1000 W. Prospect, staff considers it likely that several Rehabilitation standards will not be met relative to the preservation of historic landscape features. Based on the applicant’s intent to include income-qualified housing meeting the City’s formal definition of “affordable” (for both percentage of units and income level), a Modification may be warranted under the Modification requirement #3 for alleviating a community need. 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. 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. Packet Pg. 81 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 9 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/presentation 2. Historic Survey Form – 1000 W. Prospect Rd 3. Applicant Presentation 4. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 82 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION PRESENTATION FOR: 1000 W PROSPECT ROAD SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 83 AGENDA •Introduction •Existing Context •Proposal Concept C – Revised •Site Plan and Massing Concept •Material Precedent •Final Takeaways •Question + Answer 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 84 EXISTING CONTEXT ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 85 1000 W PROSPECT ROAD •Parcel: 9714300006 •Designated Historic •Construction: 1930 •Craftsman-Style •Wood + Stone Construction •Zoning: HMN (High Density Mixed Use) 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 86 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 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 87 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 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 88 REVISED PROJECT CONCEPT ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 89 REVISED SITE PLAN •Home to remain in existing location •Relocate Garage •New building behind and adjacent •Within district setbacks •Aligns with PFA Access Requirements •Both building entries face Prospect 8 •Relocated Bird Bath to Parklet •New detention to reflect existing pond •Relocate outdoor fireplace to Parklet •Spruce relocation to west property line ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 90 CONCEPT C: 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 9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 91 CONCEPT C: REVISED CONCEPT •Greater material representation •Streamlined construction •Minimal Site Impact and Disturbance •May allow greater tree protection •Unit Count: A50 – B60 •Bed Count: A110– B135 •Parking: 0.2 – 0.3/bed (22 – 41) •10% - 20% Affordable 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 92 11 CONCEPTUAL RENDER IMAGE ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 93 MATERIALITY PRECEDENT 12 Bushed Concrete to reflect plaster finish Stamped Concrete to reflect stone base Existing home plaster finish Existing home plaster and stone base ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 94 QUESTIONS? SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 95 THANK YOU Kurt Lloyd Basford, AIA ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 96 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 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 97 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 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 98 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 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 99 Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner Attachment: Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated June 26, 2025. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 100 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 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 4, 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 14 Site Photos and Maps Site Location Map USGS Fort Collins 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle 1960 (photorevised 1984) ITEM 4, 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 15 Site Diagram This Diagram is Not to Scale ITEM 4, 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 16 Current Photographs Coffin House and Garage, View to the Northwest South Façade, View to the North ITEM 4, 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 17 East Wall, View to the Northwest North Wall, View to the South ITEM 4, 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 18 South and East Walls of the Garage, View to the Northwest North and West Walls of the Garage, View to the Southeast ITEM 4, 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 19 Entry to the Property Along Prospect Road, View to the Northwest Landscaped Front Yard, View to the West ITEM 4, 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 20 Historic Fireplace Southeast of the House Handcrafted Birdbath East of the House, Ornamented with Chert Historic Photographs ITEM 4, 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 21 Source: Larimer County Assessor, 1949 (Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, 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 22 Source: Larimer County Assessor, 1968 (Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, 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 23 Source: Larimer County Assessor, 1977 (Collection of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 123 Headline Copy Goes Here September 17, 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 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 124 Headline Copy Goes HereProject Summary 3 •Multi-family Apts ‒ 6 stories ‒ Retain historic Coffin House in place (amenity space) ‒ Retain/salvage historic landscape features as practical, mostly in new parklet/courtyard Headline Copy Goes HereSite 4 Historic Area of Adjacency (200ft) Zoning: HMN (High Density Mixed Neighborhood) Student housing reservoir for campus 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 125 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 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 126 Headline Copy Goes HereA Note on Previous Iterations… (June 2025) 7 Headline Copy Goes HerePrevious (Aug 2025) Concept Plan 8 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 127 Headline Copy Goes HereLUC 5.8.1 requirements – Initial Staff Notes – SOI Standards 9 • Note: For infill, typically discussed for direct effects only 1. Compatible use? • Generally yes 2. Overall character-defining features • Yes for building, but no for landscape – Modificationmay be warranted 3. No false sense of history • Appears met, although relocation of landscape materials troublesome 4. Retain historic alterations • Main concerns are with landscape features 5. Preserve historic craftsmanship • Appears met, although relocation of landscape materials troublesome 6. Repair before replacement • TBD, but will work on prior to building permit 7. Careful treatment • Generally yes 8. Preserve archaeology • No major concerns beyond landscape features 9. Compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate additions • Generally yes, although landscape being disrupted 10.Reversible additions • No additions proposed Headline Copy Goes HereLUC 5.8.1 requirements – Initial Staff Notes - Design 10 • Similar Massing • Seems appropriately broken up into segments similar to Coffin House • Stepbacks (at or one story above historic building) • Appears met (1st or 2nd story) • Durable Materials • Appears met; use of stone, concrete and/or stucco are appropriate • Authentic/Historic Materials • Appears met; use of stone, concrete and/or stucco are appropriate • Fenestration • TBD • Horizontal & Vertical Features • Appears met – adequate horizontal and vertical references between apartment tower and Coffin House. • Visibility • Some concerns since historic building’s front wall plane will be behind the new build • Reconfiguration of site has improved public visibility since Aug. CDR • Retention in place is an improvement on previous plans to relocate main house 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 128 Headline Copy Goes Here 11 HPC Requests for Info (Aug) • Site Plan? Specific concerns: • Location of landscape features that are being salvaged/relocated? •Provided by applicant for Sept. • Specific relationship between house and new build (is there a setback/drainage pathway?) •Updated plan includes courtyard between • More specificity on desired materials for exterior • Mostly concrete and stucco • Anticipated unit count? • Between 50-60 units • Archaeological monitoring? • Possibility Headline Copy Goes HereHPC Requests for Info (Sept WS) 12 • Precedent for Modification: • Land Use Code allows for Modifications to any LUC requirement as long as the request meets at least one of the following (LUC 6.8): •Equal to or better than •Meet a community need expressly defined by the City •Hardship (not of the applicant’s making) •Nominal and inconsequential • Other projects that received Mods to Preservation requirements? • 2021 – 1610 S. College / Alpine Bank • 2023 – 3105 E. Harmony Rd / CASA • 2025 – 1719 Mathews St / duplex 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 129 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 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 using affordable housing (relative to an express community need)? Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Public comments • As of 9/3 – none 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 130 Headline Copy Goes Here 15 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 15 16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 131 15 September 2025 Dear Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing concerning the proposed 6-story multi-family housing development that’s being proposed on the site of the historic Coffin house at 1000 W. Prospect. The proposed development overwhelms the historic house, will obscure visibility of the front façade, and detracts from the character of the site. The proposal of multi-family housing behind the historic houses as 730 W. Prospect (a few years ago) provided a much better example of how infill development can be combined with historic preservation. The infill building there, though of a similar height to what is being proposed at 1000 W. Prospect, was fully behind the historic buildings, thereby in no way obscuring the public’s view of the historic structures. The infill building also did a better job of relating to the historic structures in terms of materiality, fenestration, roof form, setbacks ,and step-backs. While I feel that the importance of this historic site should preclude intensive infill development in this location, I understand that the need for affordable housing continues to be an issue in Fort Collins. (Although, to be honest, the number of housing units being torn down in Old Town and replaced with parking or grass is disheartening given our need for affordable housing opportunities.) I believe that a more sensitive, less overbearing, and more compatible building could be inserted into this site with care and creativity. Please protect the character of this historic site. -Meg Dunn, District 6 resident. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 132