Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/2014 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 August 13, 2014 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Maren Bzdek City Hall West Meg Dunn 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Pat Tvede Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison 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. Regular Meeting August 13, 2014  CALL TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 14, 2014 REGULAR MEETING The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2014 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. OLD TOWN YOGA, 237- 243 JEFFERSON STREET – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF PAINT COLORS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner of Old Town Yoga is requesting approval to paint the wooden portions on his business in colors that are not typically found in the historic color palette for the age of the building. APPLICANT: Chris Bates, Mighty Fine Art Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 3. DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION - HEIDI SHUFF OF STUDIO S ARCHITECTURE, LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to review Heidi Shuff’s application to be placed on the list of approved Design Assistance Program consultants. APPLICANT: Heidi Shuff of Studio S Architecture, LLC 4. 227 AND 231 SOUTH HOWES CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Conceptual Design Review of the proposal to subdivide two at 227 and 231South Howes Street into three lots and construct two new buildings on the subdivided lot, which would front Olive Street. APPLICANT: Stephan Slezak, Property Owner, Amshel Corporation 5. 412 WOOD STREET LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Juan and Mary Barraza Property located at 412 Wood Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C. APPLICANT: Mary Barraza, Property Owner 6. HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM BUILDINGS, 2902 RIGDEN PARKWAY CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW – CHANGE ROOFING MATERIAL AND PAINT COLORS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association is requesting to re- roof and paint all of the buildings due to the recent hail storm. Currently, the house, garden shed and garage have wood shingles, and the chicken coop and the barn have composition shingles; all of the buildings are painted white. The farm house is used as a residence for the HOA manager. The garage and chicken coop are used for storage. The garden shed is used for the community garden and the barn is used as a community club house. APPLICANT: Mike Schwab, Manager, Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association 7. DISCUSSION: NAMING OF COY-HOFFMAN OPEN SPACE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Discussion of the name of the Coy Farm Open Space APPLICANT: Karen McWilliams  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 13, 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 14, 2014 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2014 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. May 14, 2014 LPC Minutes - DRAFT (DOC) 1 Packet Pg. 3 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting 300 Laporte Avenue May 14, 2014 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chair Sladek. Members present were Ron Sladek, Meg Dunn, Kristin Gensmer, Pat Tvede, Dave Lingle, Alexandra Wallace, Maren Bzdek, Doug Ernest and Belinda Zink (arrived at 5:43 p.m.). Staff present: Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Joshua Weinberg and Administrative Staff Gretchen Schiager. EXCUSED ABSENCE: None PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Sladek requested two minor changes to the minutes. Ms. Tvede moved to accept the Landmark Preservation Commission minutes of April 9, 2014 with the specified changes. Ms. Gensmer seconded. (Motion passed 7-0, with Mr. Lingle abstaining and Ms. Zink not yet present.) [Time Reference: 5:37 p.m.] 2. UTILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING – UPDATE Brian Hergott, Operation Services Mr. Hergott provided an update on the Utility Customer Service Building (CSB) for Block 32. After receiving comments on the Preliminary Design Review from City staff, and from the Landmark Preservation Commission at its March meeting, it was decided that the Butterfly Building will remain in place, and the CSB will be built around it and set back north and west to provide relief between the two structures. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission:  Approved April 9, 2014 Minutes.  Heard an update on the Utilities Customer Service Building.  Conducted a Conceptual Development Review for 808 W. Prospect.  Voted to recommend that Council adopt the updated Old Town Design Standards.  Discussed the Poudre River Resources Report. 1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: May 14, 2014 LPC Minutes - DRAFT (2250 : Minutes of May 14, 2014) Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 2 - Commission Questions Members asked for clarification on the new configuration and location of the CSB. Mr. Hergott stated that the configuration was the same as the previous design, but the CSB had been moved about ten feet to the North, and slightly to the West, creating a small entry plaza with a diagonal sidewalk. Members expressed appreciation for the efforts to address the Commission’s concerns, and applauded the creation of an entry plaza that celebrates the Butterfly Building. Members asked whether any of the objectives for the site were sacrificed in order to change the orientation of the CSB, to which Mr. Hergott responded that they were still able to meet their objectives. Members inquired about the angled design of the CSB roof, and Mr. Hergott said it was an effort to complement the Butterfly Building. Members were pleased with that idea. Public Input None Commission Discussion None Commission Feedback Mr. Sladek said the general consensus of the Commission is that they are happy with the changes, and glad to see the Butterfly Building as a highlight of the entryway to the plaza. [Time Reference: 5:45 p.m.] 3. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: 808 WEST PROSPECT Christian and Robin Bachelet, Applicants Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented background and contextual information, and reviewed the Land Use Codes applicable to this item. Applicant Presentation Mr. Larson with Vaught Frye Larson Architects (VFLA) at 401 Mountain Avenue, the architect on the project, provided additional background. He explained that the drawings were originally developed, and the project was permitted, in 2008. A structural slab was constructed, and site work was performed, at a cost of approximately one million dollars, but the project was put on hold due to economic shifts. Because of the time lapse, the permit is no longer valid, and the project is now going through a second vetting process with the City. The applicants are seeking the Commission’s feedback with the understanding that they have an existing structural foundation already in place. Ms. Bachelet, 706 South College Avenue, mentioned that CSURF has acquired the property, but the Bachelets will potentially ground-lease it back and act as the developer and long-term operator of the property. Mr. Callan with CSURF at 601 South Howes, property owner, explained that they are working with the Bachelets because of the synergies that exist with the other property they 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: May 14, 2014 LPC Minutes - DRAFT (2250 : Minutes of May 14, 2014) Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 3 - own in the area, and to improve the neighborhood. At this point, they are not fully committed to a use for the property, and are trying to understand all the issues involved. They are exploring a lot of different options, including the possibility of the University using the site for academic activities or other core campus needs. CSURF also owns the two properties to the east, but does not yet have plans for those properties. Mr. Callan mentioned that in 1999 when the current West Central Neighborhood Plan was developed, this block and area were identified for high density mixed-use development. However, this type of development has not occurred, largely because it is hard to accomplish due to the historic “burdens” in the area. Public Input Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheely Drive, identified himself as representing the Sheely Historic District and the Wallenberg neighborhood. While they are in favor of improving that property, which is currently an eyesore, they are also concerned about saving the historic homes in the area. There are several Craftsman style homes that contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood. Craftsman elements, such as window patterns, rooflines, etc., could easily be incorporated into the design of new developments, even five-story buildings. Commission Questions Members asked whether the Sheely Historic District was happy with the project that was approved previously. Mr. Hogestad said the project could definitely have been improved upon. He believed the architectural language of the design was confused between the small, single-story 1960’s homes on the south side of Prospect and the Craftsman style homes along the north side of the 600-1000 blocks of Prospect. He stated that the Land Use Code is pretty clear on its response to adjacent historic properties. Members asked Mr. Hogestad if he would like to see the design details for a new development focus more on the Craftsman styles on the north side of Prospect, rather than the more modern styles on the south side. Mr. Hogestad stated that it would make sense to look at the pattern and texture of the Craftsman homes in that multiple-block section. Clark Mapes, City Planner, asked whether the previously-approved plan reflected the design on the south side of Prospect, and if so, was that a response to direction provided by the City at the time, and should this new development represent a shift toward the Craftsman style? Mr. Hogestad does not believe any direction to conform to the Historic District was given to the previous developer. One Member recalled that the direction given by the Sheely Drive neighborhood to the developer at that time indicated that 808 West Prospect should look more like Mid-Century Modern, rather than Craftsman. Mr. Hogestad said that it was discussed, but there was no historic designation on the north side at that time. Commission Discussion Mr. Sladek asked for clarification that tonight’s proceeding would not include voting. Ms. McWilliams said that the purpose of a Preliminary Development Review is not to vote, but rather to state preferences, opinions and provide direction. Prior to the project going before the Planning and Zoning Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission will have the opportunity to provide a recommendation and comments. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: May 14, 2014 LPC Minutes - DRAFT (2250 : Minutes of May 14, 2014) Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 4 - Members reiterated that the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7, is very specific as to how new structures should be designed, emphasizing that the guidelines should be followed to the “maximum extent feasible”, exercising “all possible efforts to comply”. Members discussed how the Commission would define the character of the site and surrounding neighborhood, with regard to 3.4.7a, given that there are two different contexts that the building would relate to, and it would be difficult to satisfy both sets of architectural vocabularies. The Members agreed that the Craftsman style was what they should focus on. Members agreed that it would be unreasonable not to allow the existing slab to remain, and that the footprint is a reasonable thing to accept. Members had concerns that the current design shoots straight up, and it would be nice to blend better with the two small houses in front of it. There was some discussion about perhaps limiting the building to three stories rather than four, so as not to tower over the historic houses. There was a suggestion that the Craftsman style might be conducive to making the east wall of the new building look a little lower. Members suggested making changes to the roofline to be more similar to Craftsman style, and add some variety. The use of dormers and attics were suggested. Members pointed out that there are a lot of interesting things the developers could do with Craftsman style. Commission Feedback Mr. Sladek summarized the Commission’s feedback, saying they do not object to the new building being there, or to utilizing the existing foundation. While it is, and should be, a contemporary building, they would like to see some reflection of Craftsman detail incorporated into the design. It would be nice to do some stepping up on the east side from the one and a half story building at 730 West Prospect to the taller building. The building at 730 has nice Craftsman details to draw from, such as six-over-one light windows and shed roof dormers, and it would be easy to pick up on some other elements of Craftsman homes along that street, such as battered piers. Mr. Sladek said the street needs attention, and the Commission looks forward to seeing interesting designs and talking further. [Time Reference: 6:45 p.m.] 4. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPTION OF OLD TOWN DESIGN STANDARDS BY CITY COUNCIL Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planner Staff Report As this topic has already been discussed extensively by the Commission at previous meetings, Mr. Weinberg gave a very brief review of what is being proposed. Commission Questions and Discussion There was discussion about the need to include references and/or credits for photos in the future, and the Members agreed that a general credits page would be sufficient. 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: May 14, 2014 LPC Minutes - DRAFT (2250 : Minutes of May 14, 2014) Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 5 - Mr. Weinberg mentioned that most of the photographs were already in the possession of the project consultant from when they worked on the original design standards in the 1980’s. Digital copies of all of the images used are available, and any originals can be duplicated and distributed to the local historic archive, if they don’t already have them. Members mentioned that Council had questioned the inclusion of wind turbines and solar panels in text and photos. Mr. Weinberg said they were included as a guideline for how to respond if an applicant wanted to use them in the future, but he would review the document again to ensure alignment with Council directives. Public Input None Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the updated Old Town Design Standards. Ms. Tvede seconded. The motion passed 9-0. Mr. Sladek thanked Mr. Weinberg and Ms. McWilliams for their hard work on this project, and asked that they convey the Commission’s thanks to the project consultant, Winter & Company. [Time Reference: 7:00 p.m.] 5. DISCUSSION: POUDRE RIVER RESOURCES REPORT Mr. Sladek recused himself from the discussion as the preparer of the report. Before leaving, he confirmed that the report was not in order of priority, but rather was a linear description of the resources along the river corridor, bank to bank. He suggested the Commission be as specific as possible in any recommendations to the Natural Resources Department. Staff Report None Commission Discussion The Commission agreed that the seven resources identified in the report as probable or potential candidates for landmark designation, pending additional review, are those they wish to bring to the attention of the Natural Resources Department. Those seven are as follows: 1) Coy Farm Dam 2) Unidentified Concrete Structure 3) Colorado & Southern (BNSF) Railway Bridge 4) Coy Diversion Dam, Headgate & Ditch 5) Union Pacific Railroad Bridge 6) Lake Canal Diversion Dam & Headworks 7) Mason & Hottel Mill Race Headgate 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: May 14, 2014 LPC Minutes - DRAFT (2250 : Minutes of May 14, 2014) Landmark Preservation Commission May 14, 2014 - 6 - The Members discussed the wording of the letter they would submit to the Natural Resources Department, and the need to be as specific as possible about what the Commission is requesting of the City with regard to these seven structures. These resources should be considered potentially eligible for landmark designation, or otherwise historically sensitive, and need to be documented and reviewed. It was also suggested that the letter should prioritize the structures, based on those known to be significant, versus those that simply need to be reviewed for that purpose. Members asked Mr. Weinberg whether this would require a motion at the June meeting. Mr. Weinberg said the Commission can draft a letter to be forwarded to the Natural Resources Department through staff, and include a request for a response. The Commission can discuss it at the work session, and can then decide whether or not there needs to be a vote on it. Members inquired about the timeline for the river development, and Mr. Weinberg said that since the plans are in progress, they would probably appreciate having input from the Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Ernest and Ms. Tvede offered to draft a letter to the Natural Resources Department, and present it to the Commission for review and action at the next meeting. Mr. Ernest adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: May 14, 2014 LPC Minutes - DRAFT (2250 : Minutes of May 14, 2014) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME OLD TOWN YOGA, 237- 243 JEFFERSON STREET – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF PAINT COLORS STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner of Old Town Yoga is requesting approval to paint the wooden portions on his business in colors that are not typically found in the historic color palette for the age of the building. APPLICANT: Chris Bates, Mighty Fine Art OWNER: Wally Walberg, Building Owner; Jake Van Vonderen, Owner, Old Town Yoga RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Old Town Yoga Studio occupies several store fronts in the buildings along Jefferson Street. These properties are designated Fort Collins Landmarks, located in the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. The buildings, which date from the late 19th century, include a predominately wood frame one story commercial building and two bays of the brick commercial building, at 237-243 Jefferson. The owner of Old Town Yoga is requesting approval to paint the wooden portions on his business in colors that are not typically found in the historic color palette for the age of the building. Municipal Code Section 14-49, “Work not detrimental to historic, architectural or cultural material; administrative process” allows color choices to be approved administratively if the color selected is from a historically authentic palette of colors; if not, as in this instance, the code provides for review by the Commission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Old Town Yoga is requesting the approval to paint the wood portions of the façade of the buildings housing the business with the following color combination: Body: 0606 Frozen Blue Trim: 0817 Best of Summer Door: 0984 Mexican Spirit Paint chips of the colors will be provided at the meeting. REVIEW 2 Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 Applicable Codes: Alterations to Fort Collins Landmark buildings are reviewed for compliance with the criteria contained in Municipal Code Section 14-48, “Report of acceptability,” including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Standard 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; • Standard 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. • Standard 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. • Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Standard 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. • Standard 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. • Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 2 Packet Pg. 11 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 • Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Standard 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. Photo - Old Town Yoga (JPG) 2. Jefferson Street Photo 1 (JPG) 3. Jefferson Street Photo 2 (JPG) 4. Jefferson Street Photo 3 (JPG) 5. Jefferson Street Photo 4 (JPG) 6. Jefferson Street Photo 5 (JPG) 7. Jefferson Street Photo 6 (JPG) 8. Jefferson Street Photo 7 (JPG) 9. Jefferson Street Photo 8 (JPG) 2 Packet Pg. 12 2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Photo - Old Town Yoga (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) 2.b Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 1 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint 2.c Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 2 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) 2.d Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 3 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) 2.e Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 4 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) 2.f Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 5 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) 2.g Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 6 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) 2.h Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 7 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) 2.i Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Jefferson Street Photo 8 (2243 : Old Town Yoga – Review Paint Color) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION - HEIDI SHUFF OF STUDIO S ARCHITECTURE, LLC STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to review Heidi Shuff’s application to be placed on the list of approved Design Assistance Program consultants. APPLICANT: Heidi Shuff of Studio S Architecture, LLC OWNER: N/A RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Instituted by City Council in 2011, the Design Assistance Program aims to help property owners minimize the impacts of additions, alterations, and new construction on neighbors and on the overall character of Fort Collins historic neighborhoods. The program pays for up to $2000 per property per year, for consultation, mortar analysis, and design, construction and engineering services. Properties that qualify for assistance include Fort Collins Landmarks and adjacent properties, as well as those properties located in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Owners choose from a list of consultants with proven experience in contextually compatible historic design, approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Consultants on the list need to demonstrate competency in promoting design compatibility within the existing historic context. Design Assistance consultants apply to the City of Fort Collins to be part of the program. Consultants meeting the criteria, as determined by the Landmark Preservation Commission, are placed on a list that is provided to the public. Consultants remain on the list for a period of three years. Consultants who are deemed by the Landmark Preservation Commission to not be maintaining their commitment to historic preservation standards and historic design compatibility may be removed from the list by the Commission. The current criteria for approval is provided below. APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR CONSULTANTS: 1. To be eligible for the program, consultants shall meet the following criteria: • Be in the design or construction profession, with a specialization in or strong understanding of historic preservation. • Can demonstrate having successfully worked on at least five historic properties; and can demonstrate context sensitive design, compatible with surrounding historic properties. • Applicants must specifically describe the work that they were responsible for on said properties/ projects. 3 Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 • Provide drawings and/or before photos, along with documentation of the work through after-photos. • Through overall body of work, must demonstrate an understanding of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. This could be in conjunction with the sample projects, demonstrating how the Standards were applied. • Receive approval of LPC. 2. In addition to the previous criteria, the applicant will show how they meet one or more of the following criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards: Architects/Designers • At least two years of graduate study in architectural preservation, American architectural history, preservation planning, or closely related field; or • At least two years of full-time professional experience on historic preservation projects and can demonstrate a leadership role in their area of expertise on sample projects. • Such academic study or experience shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. Contractors/Engineers/Specialized Trades • The equivalent of at least two years managing projects, where the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings were applied. • Such projects shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. 3. Following a meeting with staff to discuss the program parameters, property owners interview, select and contract with a consultant. Upon receipt of a copy of the plans, studies, or other deliverables and an itemized invoice, the City pays the consultant directly. Any costs above the $2,000 maximum, or any costs incurred outside of the scope of the program, is the responsibility of the property owner. MOTIONS: If the Commission finds that the applicant meets the criteria established by the Commission for Design Assistance Program consultants, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission approves the addition of this consultant to the list, and stating the reasons why. The Commission may, at its discretion, add conditions of approval. If the Commission finds that an applicant fails to meet the Commission’s criteria, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission does not approve the addition of this consultant to the list, stating the reasons why. ATTACHMENTS 1. Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 23 3.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) 3.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Design Assistance Program App...io S Architecture_7-29-14.pdf (2242 : Design Assistance Program Application - Heidi Shuff) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 227 AND 231 SOUTH HOWES CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Conceptual Design Review of the proposal to subdivide two at 227 and 231South Howes Street into three lots and construct two new buildings on the subdivided lot, which would front Olive Street. APPLICANT: Stephan Slezak, Property Owner, Amshel Corporation OWNER: Stephan Slezak, Amshel Corporation RECOMMENDATION: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description: This is a Conceptual Design Review of the proposal to subdivide two at 227 and 231South Howes Street into three lots and construct two new buildings on the subdivided lot. The building at 231 South Howes was designated a Fort Collins Landmark in 1998 and the building at 227 South Howes has been previously determined individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. Thus, the potential impact on the historic buildings is the subject of this review. Additionally, there are currently two garages located on the site that would be demolished with the proposal to construct new buildings. Neither garage was part of the 1998 Landmark Designation of 231South Howes and, on July 14, 2014, were determined not individually eligible for Landmark designation per the process outlined in Municipal Code 14-72. Thus, the garages are not part of this review. According to the applicant, “the intent of the application is to subdivide the two lots at 227 and 231South Howes Street into three lots and define the entire parcel as a Mixed Use in the Downtown District with "townhome" ownership of the various buildings. On the newly created parcel of 7050 s.f., a building of approximately 4000 s.f. over two stories is proposed. It is anticipated the second floor would be offices while the main floor might be a restaurant, retail or even offices. This building would not be constructed on a speculative basis but rather after a qualified buyers or tenant is under contract to purchase or lease at least 50% of the space. Renderings indicate the style & massing of the proposed structure.” Regarding the buildings specifically, the applicant states that “generally the Olive Street elevation will be between 35 and 40 feet wide. The proposed "footprint" will be around 2000 s.f. meaning the east elevation would be between 50 and 60 feet. The building is two story with 9' ceiling making the height around 20' but in order to complement the adjacent buildings to the east (231 S Howes) & to the west (316 W Olive) the first floor height will be nearly 3' above grade with a buff colored sandstone foundation bringing the eave height to between 25' & 28' above the adjacent grade. Handicap ramps will access the building as well as 5 or 6 steps to the porches. The roof pitch will be similar to the architectural style of the building at 223 S. Howes. The total height of the roof ridge will depend on the total width of the building.” 4 Packet Pg. 46 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 “The building at 231 S. Howes and 223 S. Howes are both within these design ranges. It is our desire to complement these two "designated" Local Historic Structures while maintaining a sensitivity to the non-historic buildings at 316 W. Olive & 227 S. Howes. It will be difficult to try to complement either the Cortina behemoth or the cinder block triangle at the corner of Canyon/ Olive.” “The exterior isn't fully vetted but there will be #1 cedar shingles at the gables, porch newels & other detail areas. The exterior siding may be brick or stucco. A wood 4" lap siding may be considered but because wood represents a long term maintenance issue it will be last in consideration.” Staff has pointed out the importance of providing renderings of the proposed buildings overlaid with the existing surrounding context. This will be helpful in understanding the height, mass, and scale at time of Final Design Review. A conceptual rendition of the proposed Olive Street elevation is attached. Applicable Codes: In its consideration of the approval of plans that contain or are adjacent to designated or individually eligible properties, the Decision Maker shall consider the written recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission. For the proposed development behind the 227 and 231 South Howes properties, the applicable code is Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources, states in part: (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity or significance of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site. (B) General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State Register of Historic Properties or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated national, state or City historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. LUC Section 3.4.7(F) New Construction. (1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located,; or (b) when a block does not exist, similar to those on any land adjacent to the property on which the new structure is to be located. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. (2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street 4 Packet Pg. 47 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6. Figure 6 Building Patterns (3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. (4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible. (5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. (6) In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structures, objects or districts that: (a) have been determined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark, or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or (c) are located within an officially designated National, State or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object, or district. A determination or recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Code. LUC Division 5.1, “Definitions,” provides the meaning of Maximum Extent Feasible: “Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken.” Commission Action: This is a Conceptual Design Review. If desired by the Commission, the applicant will present at later meetings as their plans are revised and refined. Once the plans are ready for a Final Design Review hearing, the Commission will have the opportunity to provide a recommendation on the plans for consideration by the Decision Maker (Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board). ATTACHMENTS 1. Information from Applicant 1 (PDF) 2. Information from Applicant 2 (PDF) 3. Photos (DOCX) 4. Proposed Olive Street Elevation (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 48 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% EXISTING SITE PLAN _ ̴̨̲̰̻ɹ̍὇ʹ̎̌὆ 1 N -05 4)PXFT -05 4)PXFT @TFUCBDLGSPN48 @TFUCBDLGSPN48 88'-0" 230'-0" 12'-0" %FNP(BSBHFT %FNP%SJWFXBZBOE1BUI %FNP1BUI 68'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 175'-0" 4.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Information from Applicant 1 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% PROPOSED SITE PLAN _ ̴̨̲̰̻ɹ̍὇ʹ̎̌὆ 2 N -05 4)PXFT -05 4)PXFT -05 $BS(BSBHFX $BSFUBLFS2VBSUFST BCPWF /FX$PNNFSDJBM #VJMEJOH 4.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Information from Applicant 1 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% LOT 1 _ ̶̴̜̰̰́ 3 4PVUI &BTU /PSUI 8FTU 4.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Information from Applicant 1 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% LOT 2 _ ̶̴̜̰̰́ 4 /PSUI 8FTU 8FTU 4PVUI &BTU 4.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Information from Applicant 1 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS 5 4.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Information from Applicant 1 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% PUD Continuity _ ̸̸̶͇͂̓̽̚ɹ̸̸̘̼̾̿̾͂̓̾̽ 6 -05@'SPOU -05@'SPOU )PXFT'SPOU1BUIXBZ #BDL:BSE-BOETDBQF #BDL:BSE-BOETDBQF #BDL:BSE-BOETDBQF 4.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Information from Applicant 1 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% PUD Continuity _ ̸̸̶͇͂̓̽̚ɹ̸̸̘̼̾̿̾͂̓̾̽ 7 -05@@*OUFSJPS)BMMXBZ -05@@3FDMBJNFE4MJEJOH%PPST -05@@3FDMBJNFE4MJEJOH%PPST 4.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Information from Applicant 1 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 4.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Information from Applicant 2 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO Conceptual Review Application 1. Description of Proposal This application is intended to subdivide the two lots at 227 & 231 S. Howes Street into three lots & define the entire parcel as a Mixed Use in the Downtown District with "townhome" ownership of the various buildings. On the newly created parcel of 7050 s.f., a building of approximately 4000 s.f. over two stories is proposed. It is anticipated the second floor would be offices while the main floor might be a restaurant, retail or even offices. This building would not be constructed on a speculative basis but rather after a qualified buyers or tenant is under contract to purchase or lease at least 50% of the space. Renderings indicate the style & massing of the proposed structure. 2. Building Square Footages Total building square footages will be as follows: 227 S. Howes currently is 1498 s.f. with a 420 s.f. non-habitable basement on a 9300 s.f lot. Under this application the same1498 s.f. building would be on 4750 s.f. lot w/ NO BUILDING ALTERATION. Total for the 231 S. Howes is 2940 s.f. plus a finished 360 s.f. basement on a lot of 8750 s.f. Under this application the building will be on a 6250 s.f. lot w/ NO BUILDING ALTERATION. The remaining 7050 s.f. on the west portion of the property will have a two story commercial building of approximately 4000 s.f with a detached two car garage & caretakers quarters of 650 s.f. Of the four existing structures on the two parcels, two are office buildings fully renovated in 2000 & 2007 and two are decrepit garages that will be scheduled for demolition. Photos attached. 4.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Information from Applicant 2 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 3. Age of Existing Structures Public records indicate the structure at 227 S. Howes was built in 1903& renovated in 2006. It's garage is of entirely different architectural style & the date of construction is not known. Public records indicate the structure at 231 S. Howes was built in 1898 & renovated in 2000. Some documents indicate it was constructed in 1903 but regardless it was dedicated as a Local Historic Landmark in 1998. The garage looks to have been constructed in 1961 from historic records but again , the records are unclear. This garage is slated for demolition as well. 4. Flood Plain/ Impervious Area The property would not add significantly to the impervious surface. Historically there were actually 3 driveway on the 231 S. Howes building. Two of those drives were abandoned in 2000 and the last drive is scheduled to be abandoned with this proposal. The area to the west of the 227 S Howes building has always been a paved drive serviced by a curb approach from Canyon Avenue. Currently the site generally drains from north to south with sheet flows on to Olive as well as Howes. Storm drainage is into the OLD TOWN BASIN which was recently upgraded to accommodate redevelopment in the Old Town District. 4.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Information from Applicant 2 (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 227 and 231 South Howes Street, Fort Collins 227 and 231 South Howes 227 and 231 South Howes 4.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Photos (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 231 South Howes 227 South Howes 4.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Photos (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 227 and 231 South Howes, Rear Elevations 227 and 231 South Howes, Rear Elevations 4.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Photos (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 231 South Howes Garrage 227 South Howes Garage 4.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Photos (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) Looking northeast to the rear of 231 South Howes Looking northeast to the rear of 231 South Howes 4.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Photos (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) Looking north toward 231 South Howes Looking north toward 231 South Howes 4.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Photos (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) 5IJT0ME)PXFT16% OLIVE STREET ELEVATION _ ̴̨̲̰̻ɹ̍὇ʹ̏̌὆ 8 4.d Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Proposed Olive Street Elevation (2241 : 227 and 231 South Howes Conceptual Design Review) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 412 WOOD STREET LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Juan and Mary Barraza Property located at 412 Wood Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C. APPLICANT: Mary Barraza, Property Owner OWNER: Mary Barraza, Property Owner RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Barraza Property qualifies for Landmark designation under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C. If the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the property is eligible under this standard, then the Commission may pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Crane Property as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under Designation Standard C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property at 412 Wood Street is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C for embodying distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period. Specifically, the building is significant to Fort Collins as a simple vernacular version of Classic Cottage architecture. Essentially a single-story version of the Foursquare architectural style, Classic Cottages were popular between about 1910 and 1930 and were mostly used in residential architecture. Character defining features of this type of architecture typically include a hipped roof over a single story square form and prominent dormer, boxed eaves, open front porch, and minimal detailing. While the residence at 412 North Wood Street lacks the central dormer element commonly seen on Classic Cottages, its square footprint, hipped roof with boxed eaves, and open porch with simple Victorian detailing are indicative of the style. Aside from a small and early addition to the rear of the building, it is relatively unchanged from the time of its original construction, and thus retains a preponderance of the seven aspects of integrity. The simplicity of style and form, along with its modest size, contribute to the significance of this building and provides insight into the values and means of the building’s occupants. In 1877 the Colorado Central Railroad arrived in Fort Collins and helped to spur the city’s growth, fostering new industries like sugar beet farming and stone quarrying. These emerging businesses relied heavily on support trades and labor. Since the early twentieth century, the men and women who lived at 412 Wood Street have worked in Fort Collins as mechanics, laborers, small business owners, greenhouse workers, and maintenance employees. They were typical of the hard working people of Fort Collins who operated many aspects of the city’s daily commerce. 412 Wood Street is a typical home in which these workers lived-modest, unpretentious, and made-to-last. This house certainly illustrates the values and lifestyle of the people who occupied the dwelling for over a century. 5 Packet Pg. 66 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Photos (DOCX) 2. Designation Application (DOC) 3. Map (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 67 412 Wood Street, Fort Collins Landmark Designation Western Elevation Western and Southern Elevations 5.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Photos (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Eastern and Northern Elevations Eastern Elevation 5.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Photos (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Eastern and Northern Elevations Close-up; Northeastern wall and foundation 5.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Photos (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 412 North Wood Street Legal Description: Lot 21, Block 294, West Side Addition, Fort Collins. Property Name (historic and/or common): Juan and Mary Barraza Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Mary L Barraza Email: barl8225@gmail.com Phone: Address: 412 North Wood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Jason O’Brien and Mitchell Schaefer, Preservation Planning Interns Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-221-6206 Email: jweinberg@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: Original prepared June 12, 2013. Revised June 11, 2014. Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416 0 970.224 4- fax fcgov.co 5.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard A: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard B: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard C: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard D: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The property at 412 Wood Street is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C for embodying distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period. Specifically, the building is significant to Fort Collins as a simple vernacular version of Classic Cottage architecture. Essentially a single-story version of the Foursquare architectural style, Classic Cottages were popular between about 1910 and 1930 and were mostly used in residential architecture. Character defining features of this type of architecture typically include a hipped roof over a single story square form and prominent dormer, boxed eaves, open front porch, and minimal detailing. While the residence at 412 North Wood Street lacks the central dormer element commonly seen on Classic Cottages, its square footprint, hipped roof with boxed eaves, and open porch with simple Victorian detailing are indicative of the style. Aside from a small and early addition to the rear of the building, it is relatively unchanged from the time of its original construction, and thus retains a preponderance of the seven aspects of integrity. The simplicity of style and form, along with its modest size, contribute to the significance of this building and provides insight into the values and means of the building’s occupants. In 1877 the Colorado Central Railroad arrived in Fort Collins and helped to spur the city’s growth, fostering new industries like sugar beet farming and stone quarrying. 1 These emerging businesses relied heavily on support trades and labor. Since the early twentieth century, the men and women who lived at 412 Wood Street have worked in Fort Collins as mechanics, laborers, small business owners, greenhouse workers, and maintenance employees. They 1 Evadene Burris Swanson, Fort Collins Yesterdays (Fort Collins, Colorado: George and Hildegarde Morgan, 1975), 50. 5.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Page 3 were typical of the hard working people of Fort Collins who operated many aspects of the city’s daily commerce. 412 Wood Street is a typical home in which these workers lived—modest, unpretentious, and made-to-last. This house certainly illustrates the values and lifestyle of the people who occupied the dwelling for over a century. HISTORICAL INFORMATION Documentary records can account for the history of the land on which 412 Wood Street now sits as far back as the months immediately following the American Civil War. The Abstract of Title for Lot twenty one (21) Block two hundred ninety four (294) subdivision of West Side Addition to Fort Collins, Colorado shows that the northwest corner of Section 11, Township 7, and Range 69 was fist granted by the United States Federal Government to Joseph Mason in August 1865. 2 Mason, an early settler of the area, was a prominent land-owner, politician, and businessman in the 1860s. 3 The land on which the building at 412 Wood Street now rests has, over time, been sold and divided by a range of prominent Fort Collins citizens, including: George T. Sykes, Norman H. Meldrum, Franklin C. Avery, and Ella B. Yount, among others. On October 2, 1881, Franklin C. Avery and Ella B. Yount granted the East ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 11, Township 7, Range 69, consisting of Blocks 272–276, 283–286, and 292–296 to the West Side Addition to the City of Fort Collins. 4 Until 1908, the Abstract of Title seems to indicate Lot 21, Block 294 remained relatively undeveloped, though ownership of the property did change hands several times, often back into the possession of previous owners. In December 1907, John J. Thornton acquired ownership of Lot 21, Block 294 from Larimer County. 5 The earliest residents of 412 Wood Street all rented the dwelling and none lived on the property for more than two years. Though the Larimer County Assessor lists the building’s construction date as 1916, it seems to have been built sometime before 1908, when Frank G. Cantonwine and his family occupied the residence for at least a year. 6 Between 1909 and 1910, the site remained vacant, but by 1911, Silas M. Allen, a day laborer, rented the residence with his wife Mary and their daughter Audrey. 7 Then A. C. and Gertrude Russell resided in the rental from 1913 to 1914. 8 Walter M. Harris, a laborer, and his wife Della moved onto the property either before or during 1917, and seemingly remained through 1918. 9 Tragedy, however, struck the Harris family while living on Wood Street; two of their young daughters died of pneumonia and in an auto accident in 1918. 10 The following year Joseph Shipp and his wife Emma rented the property with their family, but census records indicate that by 1920 they had moved to a different, nearby rental. None of the five families who resided at 2 Conveyance No. 1, Abstract of Title to Lot twenty one (21), Block two hundred ninety four (294) Subdivision of West Side Addition to Fort Collins, Colorado. (part of N.W.1/4 of Section 11-7-69), prepared by The Security Abstract and Investment Company, Larimer County, Colorado, now located at the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3 Swanson, Fort Collins Yesterdays, 9-10. 4 Conveyance No. 19, Abstract of Title. 5 Conveyance No. 92, Abstract of Title. 6 Community Service Collaborative, Holy Family Neighborhood: Architecture and Building Survey Part III, (Fort Collins: Planning and Development Department, 1983), City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office, 412 Wood St; Fort Collins City Directory, 1908, Volume V (Fort Collins, Colorado: The Courier Printing and Publishing Company, 1908), 29, 195; Larimer County Assessor Property Information Tax Year 2014, 412 Wood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, accessed June 3, 2014, Page 4 412 Wood Street between 1908 and 1920 actually owned the property; they were all renters. Following John Thornton’s purchase of the property in 1907, ownership of the land changed hands over a dozen times and until 1920, the owner of this specific property never lived on the premises. Edwin Walden Edie and his family were the first residents of the property to remain for more than a couple of years and were the first owners to actually live on site. Only the current owner as of June 11, 2014, has resided at or owned the property longer than the Edie family. The Abstract of Title indicates that Edwin Edie purchased Lot 21, Block 294 in October 1920, from E. D. Bullard, who had purchased the lot only six months earlier. 11 Edie worked as a florist, driver, and foreman for the local Espelin Floral Co. for at least thirty years, the entire time he lived at 412 Wood Street. Georgette Edie, passed away in 1934 leaving her husband a widower, but it seems he remarried, to a woman named Irene, by 1948. 12 Edie retained ownership of the property until his death on July 27, 1951. 13 Thereafter Edie’s son James inherited the property. Between 1951 and 1969 ownership of 412 Wood Street changed hands seven times and, excepting only one instance, all owners lived on site. Furthermore, nearly all of the owners and tenants of the property during the 1950s and 1960s belonged to the working class. Following Edwin Edie’s death in 1951, his son, James, sold the property to Alexander and Katherine Heckman on August 11, 1951 for the sum of $3,250.00. 14 The Heckmans retained ownership until April 1952 when they sold the house to Woodrow P. and Irene K. Colwell through a Warranty Deed. 15 Woodrow Colwell worked in several blue-collar jobs such as mechanic and, later, a surveyor for the U.S. government. 16 In September 1956 the Colwell’s sold their home to Hugo and Elizabeth Schwarz. 17 It seems Hugo Schwarz worked in the food business. At one point he may have owned and operated a restaurant, but was later listed as the manager of a “Snack Bar.” 18 In August 1959, Hugo and Elizabeth sold the property to two couples: H. M. and Leitha B. Kraxberger, and Vernon H. and Vera B. Gutscher. Each individual couple entered the agreement with the understanding that they would possess an “undivided one-half interest as joint tenants.” 19 The Kraxbergers and Gutschers, however, owned the property only briefly and sold it in June 1960 to Victor E. and M. Roselyn Nordloh. 20 Victor worked as a carpenter to care for his wife and four children during the time that they lived on Wood Street. 21 Though the Nordlohs retained ownership of the property until May 1963, they may not have lived on the premises in 1962 or 1963; city directories for those years list the property as vacant. 22 In mid-1963, a Quit Claim Deed was issued, granting the property to Magdelena Arellano. Originally of Antonito, Colorado, a small town in the San Luis Valley, Arellano and her family moved to Fort Collins in 1922 when she was fifteen. The Great Western Sugar Factory recruited the Arellano family to work in the nearby beet fields and paid for the family’s rail Page 5 ‘en el rancho’” as they harvested the vegetables. 23 Magdelena later noted that in 1923 her family received eighteen dollars an acre while working in the Fort Collins factory district. 24 Interestingly, Magdelena Arellano did not live on Wood Street, despite her ownership of the property. Instead, Magdelena lived at 220 North Grant with her husband, Filigonio Arellano, and their two children, Lupe and Rebecca. Ernest Arellano, likely a relative of Magdelena, and his wife Bernadine lived at the Wood Street residence with their five children. The city directory further indicates that between 1964 and 1968, Magdelena, Filigonio, Ernest, and Bernadine all worked in blue-collar jobs in or around Fort Collins. 25 In 1966, Carol A. Arellano, a high school student and likely another relative, moved in with the Arellano family on Wood Street. 26 In June 1969, Madgelena Arellano sold the property at 412 Wood Street to Juan Barraza. 27 Barraza, however, did not move into the residence on Wood Street until 1974. City Directories list Delphine Ferguson as the occupant during the early 1970s. Delphine, a single mother of two, worked as an assembler for the Aqua-Tec Corporation’s manufacturing plant located on 1730 E. Prospect. 28 Delphine was one of hundreds in the area employed by Aqua-Tec Corp. Founded in 1962, Aqua-Tec helped to increase industrial employment levels in Fort Collins from 1,068 in 1960 to 3,411 by 1969. 29 In the late 1960s the Los Angeles-based Teledyne acquired Aqua-Tec Corp. and changed its name to Teledyne Water Pik in 1975. 30 The Fergusons lived on Wood Street for only a few years. In 1973 the residence was left unlisted in the city directory, likely due to vacancy. 31 In 1974 the local telephone directory indicates that Barraza and his wife Mary had taken up residence at the Wood Street property. 32 In 1978, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for a “Type-V Remodel” which was noted as a repair for a City rehabilitation project that was valued at $6,000, though the work done was not specified. 33 Juan Barraza was originally from Crystal City, Texas, where he was born in 1946. He married Mary L. Parraz in 1968, one year before he purchased the property on Wood Street. Juan worked extensively in maintenance on Colorado State University’s campus until his death on July 8, 2009. 34 After his passing, ownership of the property went to his wife Mary L. Barraza in 2012. Mary Barraza retains ownership of the property to this today and requests the site be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. 23 Western Voices: 125 Years of Colorado Writing, ed. Steve Grinstead and Ben Fogelberg (Golden: Fulcrum Publishing, 2004), 277. 24 Western Voices, 282. 25 Fort Collins City Directory, 1964 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1964), 113; Fort Collins City Directory, 1966 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1966), 211; Fort Collins City Directory, 1968 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1968), 244. 26 Fort Collins City Directory, 1966, 211. 27 Entry No. 150, Abstract of Title. 28 Fort Collins Colorado 1969 City Directory (Loveland, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., 1969), 204, 427; Fort Collins Colorado 1970 City Directory (Loveland, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., 1970), 472, N/A; Johnson’s 1971 Fort Collins, Colorado City Directory (Loveland, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), 504, N/A; Johnson’s 1972 Fort Collins, Colorado City Directory (Loveland, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., 1972), 458, N/A; Johnson’s 1973 Fort Page 6 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Circa 1908 Architect/Builder: N/A Building Materials: Wood, Stone Architectural Style: Classic Cottage Description: The Juan and Mary Barraza Property on 412 Wood Street is a simple vernacular expression of the Classic Cottage style with some Victorian detailing. It is a one story home with an irregular footprint dominated by a square central massing and a rectangular portion extending from the southeast of the rear elevation. The property rests on a rough-faced, irregular course sandstone foundation with pieces of varying sizes. Additionally the walls are mainly horizontal clapboard siding with vertical wood corner boards. The central massing of the property is topped with a steeply pitched truncated hip while the extension has two discernible parts, one being covered with a gable roof, while the other corner portion filling in the southeast section has a smaller low pitched hip. The roof has overhanging eaves and the roof-wall juncture is marked by a prominent yet modest entablature with large boxed cornices. The primary, west elevation, has a partial-width open porch that sits slightly offset to the south of the elevation. The base of the porch is low to the ground and made of poured concrete block. There are two turned spindle posts which support a shed roof covering the porch. The elevation behind the porch has had the ground raised to cover the stone foundation. Moving south from the north end of the elevation there is a window situated right before the porch. This window has an aluminum storm window covering a 1/1 light wood sash window with wide wood surrounds. Continuing south under the porch is the main entrance which has a multi-light storm door with wood surrounds. South of the entrance is another widow under the porch the same as the previous window. On the western end of the south elevation is a 1/1 light wood sash window with wood surrounds as well as a wood sill and lintel. To the east on the elevation is a window of the same style. Just to the east of this window is a vertical corner board which creates a separation from this length of the elevation and the portion of this elevation that is lower than the rest and covered with the smaller hipped roof. Additionally, this portion does not have the prominent entablature with boxed cornice. Going east from the corner board is a small window high on the elevation. It is a 1/1 light wood sash window with wood surrounds and covered with a storm window. It also has a wood sill that extends beyond the window to the east, and at the end of which a wood board runs up to the height of the window. To the east of the window there is a section which was once an open porch but sometimes is enclosed. The enclosed section starts with an aluminum storm door with a short and narrow 1/1 light fixed window on its east side. The exterior siding past the door and under the window is different than the rest of the property and is made up of very thin vertical boards that continue on to the enclosure on the east elevation. The north elevation of the property is unadorned with no windows or features excepting the sandstone foundation which is more visible on this elevation, as on the east elevation, and the entablature at the roof-wall juncture that runs the perimeter of the property. As this elevation moves east it recedes back to the extending rectangular portion of the property which is also unadorned on this elevation. The rear, east elevation begins on the south end with the enclosed former porch; at the base of which there appears to be a wooden entrance to a cellar. The exterior siding of this portion is the thin vertical boards. In the upper area of this portion is a large 6/6 wood sliding window 5.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Page 7 with wood surrounds. On the end of the window moving north, the elevation extends slightly out with the extending rectangular portion. In this section, the sandstone foundation is much more visible. About half way up the elevation and slightly offset to the south is an aluminum two light sliding window with wide wood surrounds. The prominent character defining feature of this elevation is the gable roof with wide-overhanging eaves, boxed cornices, and eave returns. Under the peak of the gable roof is a small square louvered vent. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Abstract of Title to Lot twenty one (21), Block two hundred ninety four (294) Subdivision of West Side Addition to Fort Collins, Colorado. (part of N.W.1/4 of Section 11-7-69), prepared by The Security Abstract and Investment Company, Larimer County, Colorado, now located at the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering: Reformatted Edition. “Bungalow.” ed. Sarah J. Pearce. Denver: State Historical Society of Colorado, 2008. http://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/crforms_edumat/pdfs/1625Field.pdf City of Fort Collins Public Records. fcgov.com. GIS maps. “Miscellaneous Boundary Maps: Annexation Trends.” City of Fort Collins. fcgov.com. FCMaps. “Neighborhoods.” “Cemetery Maps.” Community Service Collaborative. Holy Family Neighborhood: Architecture and Building Survey Part III. (Fort Collins: Planning and Development Department, 1983). City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 412 Wood St. Fort Collins City Directories (1908-2010). Fort Collins Public Library, Local History Archive (online). History Connection, including Building Records and Permits. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/ Harris, Cindy and Adam Thomas. “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S” The City’s Postwar Development 1945-1969. (Denver: HISTORITECTURE, L.L.C., 2011). Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998. Larimer County Tax Assessor Records McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Knopf, 2011. Swanson, Evadene Burris. Fort Collins Yesterday’s. Fort Collins: George and Hildegard Morgan, 1975. Today @ Colorado State. “Juan L Barraza, Sr, 63, a maintenance employee, died July 8 at home.” Colorado State University. http://www.today.colostate.edu/story.aspx?id=1812 (accessed 8/7/2013). U.S. Federal Census Records (1910, 1920, 1930, 1940) Various newspaper articles from Fort Collins Courier and Fort Collins Weekly Courier (1907-1923). Western Voices: 125 Years of Colorado Writing. ed. Steve Grinstead and Ben Fogelberg (Golden: Fulcrum Publishing, 2004). 5.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Page 8 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary 5.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Elm St Wood St Park St Maple St N Grant Ave Sycamore St Elm Ct Griffin Pl Park St Cherry St © 412 Wood Street 1 inch = 200 feet Site 5.c Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Map (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM BUILDINGS, 2902 RIGDEN PARKWAY CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW – CHANGE ROOFING MATERIAL AND PAINT COLORS STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association is requesting to re-roof and paint all of the buildings due to the recent hail storm. Currently, the house, garden shed and garage have wood shingles, and the chicken coop and the barn have composition shingles; all of the buildings are painted white. The farm house is used as a residence for the HOA manager. The garage and chicken coop are used for storage. The garden shed is used for the community garden and the barn is used as a community club house. APPLICANT: Mike Schwab, Manager, Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association OWNER: Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm, commonly referred to as the Rigden Farm, is comprised of a distinctive masonry Craftsman style farmhouse, a large gambrel roof barn, a historic garage, and a chicken coop and bunk house (“garden shed”). In 2000, the farm buildings were relocated a short distance from their original location at the corner of Timberline and Drake Roads to 2902 Rigden Parkway, to accommodate the Rigden Farm mixed use development project and the Capital Project to widen Timberline Road. The buildings were carefully positioned to replicate their original configuration, maintaining their historic alignment and relationships. Following their relocation, Council adopted Ordinance No. 141, 2000, designating the farm complex as a Fort Collins Landmark in recognition of the buildings’ architectural importance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association is requesting to re-roof and paint all of the buildings due to the recent hail storm. Currently, the house, garden shed and garage have wood shingles, and the chicken coop and the barn have composition shingles; all of the buildings are painted white. The farm house is used as a residence for the HOA manager. The garage and chicken coop are used for storage. The garden shed is used for the community garden and the barn is used as a community club house. The HOA has “obtained bids from Jerry’s roofing for the roof replacement. The BOD would like to replace all the roofs with TAMKO Heritage IR shingles in Weathered Wood color http://www.tamko.com/ResidentialRoofing/LaminatedAsphalt/HeritageIR/Beauty. These come the closet to looking like a wood shake roof of any of the shingles we looked at. 6 Packet Pg. 80 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 “Currently there are 2 types of shingles on the roofs. The farm house, garden shed and garage have wood shake shingles and the chicken coop and the barn have composition shingles. I have included the bid from Jerry’s roofing for the shingles; he has 3 different prices; wood shake, regular and IR shingles. The cost for the fire proof wood shakes is $52,883.00 the cost of the IR shingle is $29,710.00. The BOD wants all of the roofs to be consistent with the same material so they are not interested going back with the current configuration of two different type shingles. Our insurance company has also suggested we replace all the shingles with the IR shingles. “The building all sustained paint damage in the recent storm. Due to the hail damage we will be painting all of the buildings. After much discussion the BOD has decide on the following. The colors they selected are from the Benjamin Moore Historical Collection: <http://media.benjaminmoore.com/WebServices/prod/ColorCards2012/historicalcollection/index.html> - Body: Philadelphia Cream HC-30; Trim: Hodley Red HC-65 “The actual brand of paint used will depend on the contractor selected but we will color match to obtain similar colors. “The BOD feels that this color combination will be a better fit for the community and will go well with fencing and stonework of the area. It is my understanding that the original color of all of the buildings was white but the BOD thinks it would be to stark so they decided on the cream color with a dark trim. The trim will be limited to the standard trim plus window frames and outlining the faux barn doors on the barn.” REVIEW Applicable Codes: Alterations to Fort Collins Landmark buildings are reviewed for compliance with Municipal Code Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work,” including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.  Standard 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;  Standard 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.  Standard 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. 6 Packet Pg. 81 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3  Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.  Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.  Standard 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.  Standard 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.  Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.  Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.  Standard 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. State Farm Inspection Report (PDF) 2. Photo of Barn (JPG) 3. Photo of Chicken House (JPG) 4. Photo of Farm House (JPG) 5. Photo of Garage (JPG) 6. Photo of Shed (JPG) 7. Photo of Outbuilding Layout (JPG) 6 Packet Pg. 82 6.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: State Farm Inspection Report (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Photo of Barn (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Photo of Chicken House (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.d Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Photo of Farm House (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.e Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Photo of Garage (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.f Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Photo of Shed (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) 6.g Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Photo of Outbuilding Layout (2237 : Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME DISCUSSION: NAMING OF COY-HOFFMAN OPEN SPACE STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Discussion of the name of the Coy Farm Open Space APPLICANT: Karen McWilliams OWNER: N/A RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Commission has requested that time be set aside to discuss the naming of the Coy-Hoffman Open Space, and may wish to make a recommendation to the "naming committee" and Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Coy-Hoffman Discussion - Forgotten Fort Collins (DOCX) 2. Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 122 Forgotten Fort Collins http://forgottenfortcollins.com/ What Was There? The Coy-Hoffman Farm May 5, 2013 by Maggie Dennis, Frontier Faces, History in the News, Museums & Historic Sites, Renovations & Razes You’ve probably heard the news. Woodward is going to develop the property at the southwest corner of Lincoln Street and Lemay Avenue and move their corporate headquarters there. I started wondering what had been on the site before the Link-n-Greens golf course opened in 1986. What I found was a piece of pioneer history that goes back to the days before the military fort or town were established. There’s a pretty major clue there. You’ve probably seen the old barn and silos on the golf course as you drive on Lemay or walk or bike on the Poudre River Trail. Or maybe you’ve puzzled about how to avoid hitting the barn during a round of golf (historic preservationist Carol Tunner says you have to straighten your slice, not move the barn). 7.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Coy-Hoffman Discussion - Forgotten Fort Collins (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) Emily and John Coy, c. 1911. Courtesy Fort Collins Local History Archive. So obviously, the site had been a farm. But not just any farm. This 100-acre tract of land adjacent to the Cache la Poudre River was the homestead of John and Emily Coy. The newlyweds arrived here in 1862 as they were trying to catch up with a wagon train headed for California. But a series of misfortunes between Missouri and Colorado slowed their progress and, as it was August, they determined to stay put rather than attempt to cross the Rocky Mountains. They liked the area so much they filed a homestead claim—one of the earliest in the area. Coy homestead cabin, date unknown. Courtesy Fort Collins Local History Archive. The couple lived in a small pioneer cabin for a number of years and built the barn first. That tells you something about how important farming was to their livelihood. John Coy was a progressive farmer, and introduced new farming techniques to the area. The farm was known to be one of the most productive in the region. At its height, the Coy Farm encompassed not only the present golf course, 7.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Coy-Hoffman Discussion - Forgotten Fort Collins (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) but also the area that became the Great Western Sugar Factory and its housing colonies and the Dreher Pickle plant. The farm supplied Camp Collins with agricultural products. Bands of Native Americans, including Chief Friday, camped on the property when visiting the fort. Parlor of the Coy home, date unknown. Emily and John Coy on the right. Courtesy Fort Collins Local History Archive. The Coy family grew and in 1870 they built a large house. Emily gave birth to ten children, six of whom survived infancy. John helped build the community, serving as an election judge, on a grand jury, and as county commissioner, was president of the County Fair Association, helped to organize the Farmer’s Protective Association, and was a charter member of the Stockgrowers Association. He was one of the founders of CSU and helped to establish Roosevelt National Forest to protect the watershed for farmers. 7.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Coy-Hoffman Discussion - Forgotten Fort Collins (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) Union Pacific train approaching Hoffman Mill, 1894. Courtesy Fort Collins Local History Archive. In 1892 John Hoffman married Francis Coy, John and Emily’s daughter. Hoffman was a miller, and two years later he built his own mill across the river from the Coy Farm, just southeast of the present-day intersection of Mulberry and Riverside (Hoffman Mill Road is named for it). The mill produced livestock feed, but was converted to a flour mill in the early 20th century. The mill was powered by a horizontal turbine water wheel, supplied by the river. On the other side of the mill was the Union Pacific mainline track, ideal for low cost shipping of Hoffman’s Golden West Flour. The Hoffman’s resided at 426 East Oak, just across Riverside Avenue north of the mill. 7.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Coy-Hoffman Discussion - Forgotten Fort Collins (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) Hoffman House at 426 E. Oak, c. 1900. Courtesy Fort Collins Local History Archive. There’s not much left. John Coy died in 1912 and Emily in 1921. John and Francis Hoffman continued to farm the land and the Coy home was continuously occupied by the family for more than 100 years, until the Links-n-Green golf course was established. The house was demolished in 1991 to make way for the course, but the barn and a few other buildings were left standing. And Hoffman Mill had already been torn down in 1952 to make way for Highway 14 connecting I-25 to Fort Collins (before then, Mulberry Street ended at Riverside). May is Historic Preservation Month, so let’s take a closer look at that barn. Turns out it’s not just any barn. When the Coys built it in the 1860s, it was the largest building in the area and today is the only masonry barn standing. While many barns in the area have a stone foundation, this is the only one where the entire first floor is constructed of stone. Preservationists describe it as a combination Western Prairie Barn and New York Dutch Barn, unique to our area. Inside, the first floor is divided into three bays; one for livestock, another for grain, and the middle section for potato storage (with grout walls). The second floor is the hayloft. 7.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Coy-Hoffman Discussion - Forgotten Fort Collins (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) Now that there’s a new property owner, I was concerned about the future of the barn. It was renovated in 1995 with funds from the State Historical Fund. It is listed as aLocal Landmark and is also on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. I was surprised to learn that being listed on the state register does not protect the structure from demolition or alteration. But because the barn is a local landmark, Woodward will have to work with the City’s Historic Preservation Office before making any changes. And all indications are that Woodward will preserve the barn at its present location. Documents from the April 2 City Council session indicate that Woodward intends to do something to recognize the barn and other historic features, though it may not be open to the public in order to help preserve it (see page 63 for the site plan). Heather Wolhart, a Hoffman descendent living in Fort Collins, has publically lent her support for Woodward’s plans saying, “This is the company that can keep the family’s vision for the property as a prosperous, active place integral to the city’s past and future.” While you still can, I recommend taking a stroll across the golf course to get a close look at this beautiful historic barn, which can’t be truly appreciated from the road. Once Woodward develops the property, the once wide open space and view of the mountains as seen in these photos will be obscured, recasting how the barn appears on the landscape and further removing it from its historic context. 7.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Coy-Hoffman Discussion - Forgotten Fort Collins (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) 7.b Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Coy_Hoffman Barn State Register Listing (2238 : Discussion: Naming of Coy-Hoffman Open Space) Collins, Colorado City Directory (Loveland, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., 1973). 29 Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S” The City’s Postwar Development 1945-1969 (Denver: HISTORITECTURE, L.L.C., 2011), 66. 30 “Water Pik Technologies, Inc.” Encyclopedia.com, posted 2007, accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2- 3479900101.html; “Water Pik Technologies, Inc. History,” FundingUniverse.com, accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/water-pik-technologies-inc-history/; Water Pik, Inc. became a separate publicly traded company in 1999. See “Allegheny Teledyne Sets Record Date and Distribution Date for Spin-Offs,” Teledyne Technologies, accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.teledyne.com/news/date.asp. 31 Johnson’s 1973 Fort Collins, Colorado City Directory (Loveland, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., 1973). 32 Fort Collins, Livermore, Red Feather Lakes Telephone Directory, Area Code 303, December 1974 (Mountain Bell, 1974), 14. 33 Certificate of Occupancy, Building Permit No. 48749, City of Fort Collins, January 18, 1978. 34 Today @ Colorado State, “Juan L Barraza, Sr, 63, a maintenance employee, died July 8 at home,” Colorado State University, http://www.today.colostate.edu/story.aspx?id=1812 (accessed 8/7/2013). 5.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) transport to Fort Collins. After their arrival in northern Colorado, the Arellanos lived “in a shack 11 Conveyance No. 119 and Conveyance No. 122, Abstract of Title. 12 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, 1948 (Omaha, Nebraska: R. L. Polk & Co., 1948), 91, 372. 13 City of Fort Collins, Online Map Applications, Cemetery Maps, “Edwin Edie,” http://www.fcgov.com/gis/maps.php 14 Entry No. 128, Abstract of Title. 15 Entry No. 130, Abstract of Title. 16 Fort Collins City Directory, 1952 (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1952), 76, 314; Fort Collins City Directory, 1956 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1956), 62, 317. 17 Entry No. 133, Abstract of Title. 18 Fort Collins City Directory, 1957 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1957), 287, 408; Fort Collins City Directory, 1959 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1959), 327, 448. 19 Entry No. 140, Abstract of Title. 20 Entry No. 145, Abstract of Title. 21 Fort Collins City Directory, 1960 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1960), 294, 475. 22 Entry No. 146, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins City Directory, 1962 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1962); Fort Collins City Directory, 1963 (Loveland, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1963). 5.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation) http://www.larimer.org/assessor/query/Detail.cfm?PropertyTypeVar=Residential&BuildingIDVar=001&NumVar=R0027782&direct= 1. 7 Fort Collins City Directory, 1909–1910, Volume VI (Fort Collins, Colorado: The Courier Printing and Publishing Company, 1910), 200; Fort Collins City Directory, 1910–1911, Volume VII (Fort Collins, Colorado: The Courier Printing and Publishing Company, 1911), 10, 147. 1910 U.S. Census, “Silas Allen,” hertiagequestonline.com (accessed September 19, 2013). 8 Larimer County Directory, 1913–1914, Volume VIII (Fort Collins, Colorado: The Courier Printing and Publishing Company, 1914), 78, 152. 9 Courier’s Larimer County Directory 1917 (Colorado Springs, Colorado: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1917), 48, 99. 10 “Mr. and Mrs. Harris Lose Baby Daughter,” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, March 1, 1918. 5.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Designation Application (2240 : 412 Wood Street Landmark Designation)