HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2020 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPage 1
Meg Dunn, Chair Location:
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting will be held
Mollie Bredehoft, Co-Vice Chair remotely via Zoom
Michael Bello
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray Staff Liaison:
Anne Nelsen Karen McWilliams
Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
JULY 15, 2020
5:30 PM
Landmark Preservation Commission
AGENDA
Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation
with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent.
This remote Landmark Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No one will
be allowed to attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to
join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom
at https://zoom.us/j/98661933796. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep
yourself on muted status.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to
speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 986 6193 3796. Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone
participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an
opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself.
Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission
for its consideration must be emailed to kmcwilliams@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or
participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to kmcwilliams@fcgov.com at least 24
hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please
indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission.
Packet Pg. 1
Page 2
Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based
on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain
a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for
professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture,
architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort
Collins Municipal Code.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel
14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available
for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php.
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
o Staff Review of Agenda
o Consent Agenda Review
This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the
Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Agenda and considered separately.
Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.
Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items.
• STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
• PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2020
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 17, 2020 regular meeting of the
Landmark Preservation Commission.
2. REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without
submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or
a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all
such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission.
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the
important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may
request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent
Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The
Consent Agenda consists of:
● Approval of Minutes
● Items of no perceived controversy
● Routine administrative actions
Packet Pg. 2
Page 3
• CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP
This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the
Consent Calendar.
• PULLED FROM CONSENT
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the
public, will be discussed at this time.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
3. 359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER) – SUNSHADE ADDITION
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the addition of a sunshade structure to the north elevation
of the historic building at 359 Linden Street (Ginger and Baker).
APPLICANT: Chris Aronson (VFLA); Jack and Ginger Graham (Owners)
4. 330 EAST MYRTLE STREET, THE J.A. LEIBY RESIDENCE – DEMOLITION AND NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY CONSTRUCTION – DESIGN REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to demolish the existing contributing building and
construct a new single-family dwelling on the property.
APPLICANT: Douglas Bennett (owner);
521 N. Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
5. OVERVIEW OF COLLEGE DOWNTOWN AND HOWES & MELDRUM HISTORIC PROPERTY
SURVEYS
DESCRIPTION: This item is intended to introduce the Landmark Preservation Commission and
community to two historic property surveys currently underway in the
Downtown area. Both survey projects are being conducted by Ron Sladek,
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 3
Landmark Preservation Commission Chair Determination that Meeting Remotely is Prudent
Packet Pg. 4
Date:Roll CallBello Bredehoft Knierim Michell Murray Nelsen Vacant WallaceDunn VoteabsentN/A7 presentConsent: 1) Minutes 2) Staff Design ReviewsBello Murray Nelsen Wallace Vacant Michell Bredehoft KnierimDunnYes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes absent Yes Yes7-03 - Ginger & Baker Sunshade Recommend ApprovalMurray Nelsen Wallace Vacant Michell Bredehoft Knierim BelloDunnYes Yes Yes N/A Yes absent Yes Yes Yes7-04 - 330 E Myrtle Demo & New Single-Family Demo does not meet standards;New construction somewhat meets standardsNelsen Wallace Vacant Michell Bredehoft Knierim Bello MurrayDunnYes Yes N/A Yes absent Yes Yes Yes Yes7-0Post-Break Roll CallWallace Vacant Michell Bredehoft Knierim Bello Murray NelsenDunnN/Aabsent7 presentRoll Call & Voting RecordLandmark Preservation Commission7/15/2020
Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing
Date: 7/15/20
Document Log
(Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.)
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Draft Minutes for the LPC June 17, 2020 Hearing
o Amended Minutes - added to online packet 7/13/20
2. Staff Design Review Decisions Report
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
3. 359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER) – SUNSHADE ADDITION
• Att 3 – Canopy Design Renderings – added to online packet 7/13/20
4. 330 EAST MYRTLE STREET, THE J.A. LEIBY RESIDENCE – DEMOLITION
AND NEW SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION – DESIGN REVIEW
• Staff Report – updated in online packet 7/14/20
• Att 4 – Staff Presentation – added to online packet 715/20
• Att 5 – Applicant Response – added to online packet 7/14/20
5. OVERVIEW OF COLLEGE DOWNTOWN AND HOWES & MELDRUM
HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEYS
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD
Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you!
Visitor Log
[This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.]
DATE: July 15, 2020
Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance
Ginger Graham 359 Linden Owner/Applicant
Chris Aronson, VFLA 359 Linden Architect
Douglas Bennett 330 E Myrtle Owner/Applicant
Ron Sladek Survey Contractor, Presenting
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 15, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
STAFF
Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2020 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 17, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LPC June 17, 2020 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 June 17, 2020
Meg Dunn, Chair Location:
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was conducted
Michael Bello remotely on the Zoom platform.
Mollie Bredehoft
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen
Vacant Seat
Regular Meeting
June 17, 2020
Minutes
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
(**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home
and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via
teleconference.)
•ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Bello, Dunn, Knierim, Michell, Murray, Nelsen, Wallace
ABSENT: Bredehoft
STAFF: Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager
Chair Dunn read a statement explaining why the Commission is meeting remotely and reviewed the
basic mechanics of conducting the meeting online.
•AGENDA REVIEW
No changes to posted agenda.
•CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW
No items were pulled from consent.
•STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Bertolini shared information about a new historic resource planning map on the City’s website.
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 2 June 17, 2020
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2020
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 20, 2020 regular meeting of the
Landmark Preservation Commission.
2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without
submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or
a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all
such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission.
Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of
the June 20, 2020 regular meeting as presented.
Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
3. THE WOODS-GILKISON-DUNN PROPERTY AT 331 S. LOOMIS STREET - APPLICATION FOR
FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION
DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for
landmark designation of the Woods-Gilkison-Dunn Property at 331 S. Loomis
Street.
APPLICANT: Housing Catalyst
Chair Dunn recused herself from this item due to her involvement in a potential landmark
designation for the historic district that includes this property. She also noted she is not
related to the “Dunn” in the property name. Ms. Wallace assumed the duties of Chair.
Staff Report
Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the role of the Commission. He stated that staff
had found this property eligible under Standard 3, Design/Construction, as an example of Free
Classic Queen Anne architecture, and that the property meets all seven aspects of integrity. He
explained how designation of the property supports the policies outlined in City Plan and aligns with
Municipal Code Section 14-2 as a significant example of local architecture and craftmanship as well
as its continued use as a private residence.
Applicant Presentation
None
Public Input
None
Commission Questions
None
Commission Discussion
Mr. Murray agreed that the building is significant for its architecture and commented that it is a good
anchor for the corner.
Acting Chair Wallace stated this Free Classic Queen Anne reflected the community and its working
class better than a high-style Queen Anne would.
Ms. Nelsen agreed that the home is significant architecturally and stated the addition does not detract
from the home’s eligibility.
Mr. Knierim commented that the 1980’s addition blends with the existing footprint.
Ms. Nelsen stated that the addition was subservient to the original house and is set back and detailed
in a way that isn’t distracting from the original form.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 3 June 17, 2020
Mr. Murray commented on the uniqueness of the gable and the pitch of the dormer.
Mr. Bello asked if the horizontal window is original. Mr. Bertolini said most of the windows have been
replaced, but in most cases replicate the form of the original.
Mr. Murray said the window is wider than he would expect but stated it would make sense to have a
special window in that area.
Commission Deliberation
Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council
adopt an ordinance to designate the Woods-Gilkison-Dunn Property at 331 S. Loomis Street,
as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort
Collins under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the
staff report dated June 17, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance
through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property
will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal
Code.
Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
Chair Dunn returned to the meeting.
4. THE BENTON-SCHULTZ DUPLEX AT 1016-1018 MORGAN STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT
COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION
DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for
landmark designation of the Benton-Schultz Duplex at 1016-1018 Morgan
Street.
APPLICANT: Housing Catalyst
Chair Dunn disclosed that she is mentioned in the sources section of the property documentation, but
that the article she wrote was on the neighborhood and not specific to this project and does not create
any bias for her.
Mr. Yatabe encouraged the members to interrupt if at any point they have trouble hearing a speaker.
Staff Report
Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the role of the Commission. He stated the
property is eligible under Standard 3 (Design/Construction), as an example of a Contemporary-style
Duplex, and has good to excellent integrity in all seven aspects. He explained how designation of the
property supports the policies outlined in City Plan and aligns with Municipal Code Section 14-2 as a
significant example of local architecture and craftmanship as well as its continued use as a private
residence.
Mr. Bertolini clarified that the property was not nominated under Standard 2 for its association with
Harvey Schultz as a builder because staff does not have sufficient information to make the case for
him as a master builder.
Applicant Presentation
None
Public Input
None
Commission Questions
Mr. Knierim asked if there are other landmarked duplexes in Fort Collins. Mr. Bertolini said there are
a handful that are pre-WWII, especially along Remington and the west side of College. Duplexes for
this development period in Fort Collins are rare.
Ms. Nelsen clarified there are some other post-WWII duplexes in Fort Collins that aren’t landmarked.
Mr. Bertolini confirmed that, adding that the entire block is a unique enclave.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 4 June 17, 2020
Commission Discussion
Mr. Murray commented that one unit is about half the size of the other and noted that the home being
a triplex now doesn’t affect the exterior of the building.
Chair Dunn agreed that you can’t tell it’s a triplex which helps to maintain the exterior integrity, and
also supports the policies and purposes of the City with regard to increasing density while maintaining
historic character. She also commented on the uniqueness of a post-war duplex.
Ms. Wallace noted that this property is outside the Old Town area where most historic properties are
located and talked about the University Acres area becoming more prominent and more historically
significant.
Chair Dunn mentioned that a property like this may often be overlooked, but stated this property
exudes a sense of place and time.
Mr. Murray said University Acres is said to have been developed because of CSU but may have also
been related to the hospital. Chair Dunn agreed, noting that Kodak, HP and Waterpik were also
contributors to the expansion outward, and reflects an important time of growth for the city.
Ms. Nelsen stated that the property is well-preserved and deserving of landmark status.
Commission Deliberation
Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council
adopt an ordinance to designate the Benton-Schultz Duplex at 1016-1018 Morgan Street, as a
Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins
under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff
report dated June 17, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all
seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote
the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
Ms. Wallace seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
5. THE BRAWNER-MCARTHUR PROPERTY AT 228 WHEDBEE STREET - APPLICATION FOR
FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION
DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for
landmark designation of the Brawner-McArthur property at 228 Whedbee
Street.
APPLICANT: Housing Catalyst
Staff Report
Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He reviewed the role of the Commission. He stated the
property is eligible under Standard 3 (Design/Construction), as an example of a modified Hipped-Roof
Box and meets all seven aspects of integrity. He explained how designation of the property supports
the policies outlined in City Plan and aligns with Municipal Code Section 14-2 as a significant
example of local architecture and craftmanship as well as its continued use as a private residence.
He clarified that the shed on the property could have been used as a chicken coop, as there was a
chicken coop on the property at one point. He noted that a rear addition is fairly common on these
homes.
Applicant Presentation
None
Public Input
None
Commission Questions
Mr. Murray asked about the year of the additions. Mr. Bertolini stated the gable-end addition was in
1909 and the rear porch may have been added in 1943, but he will clarify that in the nomination. Mr.
Bertolini stated the circa 1949 addition was the additional south entrance, based on historic building
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 5 June 17, 2020
permits issued by the City. Mr. Murray asked if it is still a duplex. Preston Nakayama with Housing
Catalyst stated that the home is currently single-family. Mr. Bertolini noted it had been used as
boarding space in the past, as there were times when multiple names were listed in the City directory
in the same year.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Knierim stated this demonstrates the varying socio-economic levels in the city over time.
Mr. Murray pointed out an issue on the roof. Mr. Bertolini stated that the roof had been replaced
since the photo was taken and that these properties have generally been well-maintained. Mr. Murray
said it was an interesting modified duplex.
Ms. Nelsen said it was an interesting property and represents the evolution of the use of the home.
She added it is a good example of a unique property in the city.
Chair Dunn said it was interesting that the expansion was on the side instead of the back which
seems rare.
Commission Deliberation
Mr. Knierim moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council
adopt an ordinance to designate the Brawner-McArthur Property at 228 Whedbee Street, as a
Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins
under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff
report dated June 17, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all
seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote
the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
[Secretary’s Note – The Commission took a break from 6:43-6:50 pm. A roll call was conducted upon
return confirming all members were present.]
6. 140 E. OAK MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: A six-story, mixed-use development with ground floor office and retail,
podium parking on level 2, and affordable apartment units (studio, 1 and 2
bedroom) on levels 3 to 6, to be constructed on a currently vacant parcel in
the Historic Core of the Downtown District.
APPLICANT: Owners: Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Housing Catalyst
Design: Shopworks Architecture; Ripley Design
Ms. Nelson disclosed that her company had bid on this project, but she stated she can be fair and
impartial.
Staff Report
Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained that the Commission has been asked to provide
comments relative to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for this conceptual review. Ms. Bzdek explained
that the applicant has several modifications of standards requests for this project, specifically
regarding the height, setback, and parking requirements. She noted this property is in the historic
core of the Downtown District.
Ms. Bzdek explained that comments provided by the Commission will become part of the staff review
conversations. When the Applicant comes back to the Commission, it will be for a recommendation
to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Bzdek reminded the Commission of the
six design compatibility standards included in 3.4.7.
Ms. Bzdek reviewed the history of 140 E. Oak. She pointed out the historic resources within the area
of adjacency and detailed some key characteristics in the area such as heights of 1 to 2 stories,
narrow widths, use of brick and sandstone materials, commercial storefronts and vertically oriented
windows defined by decorative detail. She discussed other design details including flat roofs with
decorative cornices and parapets, horizontal brick banding and sandstone details.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 6 June 17, 2020
Ms. Bzdek provided some questions for the Commission to consider in their review regarding width,
height, stepbacks, materials, fenestration and design details.
Applicant Presentation
Kristin Fritz introduced herself and stated that Housing Catalyst is the housing authority for the City of
Fort Collins. She explained this is a joint project between Housing Catalyst and the Downtown
Development Authority (DDA), explained the missions of those organizations and highlighted some of
Housing Catalyst’s previous projects.
Ms. Fritz noted that this is a rare opportunity for affordable housing Downtown which is likely not to
present itself again. She said they are aiming for strong delivery of affordable housing and solid
architectural design.
She provided an overview of the proposed project and discussed the desire to activate the street level
while meeting the parking demand in an efficient way. She mentioned some of the amenities that
would be incorporated into the project.
Ms. Fritz explained why underground parking was not a viable option for the project. She also
explained the need for the height modification to provide the desired number of affordable housing
units.
Ms. Fritz discussed how this project meets the guidelines of the Downtown Plan. She talked about
meeting the community need for affordable housing and described the targeted demographic
characteristics of the resident population.
Ms. Fritz summarized the benefits of the project and introduced Chad Holtzinger with Shopworks
Architecture to discuss design.
Mr. Holtzinger discussed the team’s process and the evolution of the design for the project. He
shared his observations of the design elements of the surrounding properties. He talked about
integrating art into urbanism and shared some examples. He talked about the team’s efforts to keep
the building active and interesting from the street.
Mr. Holtzinger described the articulation and massing of the project. He mentioned the strategy
behind the stepbacks. He discussed the use of materials throughout the design and how they draw
from the surrounding historic resources. He talked about incorporating historic window patterns into
the exterior design.
Ms. Fritz addressed the timeline for the project. She stated there is a critical funding application due
August 1st and the project needs to move through the development review and entitlement process
prior to that to demonstrate the project is ready to proceed. She talked about the neighborhood
outreach they had conducted and stated that the feedback was generally positive. They hope to
come back to the LPC in July.
Public Input
None
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Dunn said the YMCA had been a community resource when it was in this location, and
mentioned she was glad this would also be a place for people in need. She also pointed out that the
other affordable housing Downtown, such as the Northern Hotel, is only for seniors, so it is nice to
see something for other age groups. She said she heard the 2016 design charette seemed to heavily
favor the need for affordable housing, and she was glad to see this project come forward.
Mr. Bello expressed concern that there were fewer parking spaces than units and suggested the
possibility of renting spaces from the lot to the south. He also stated that it would be nice to include
some ownership options in addition to rentals. Chair Dunn was interested in more information about
the parking lot to south as well. Ms. Fritz stated it is a City-owned lot, but there is a possibility the lot
could be redeveloped in the future. She mentioned there may be a possibility of obtaining permits in
other nearby parking structures.
Mr. Murray asked about the possibility of a City partnership on parking. Matt Robenalt with the DDA
stated the financial resources are not available at this time.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 7 June 17, 2020
Chair Dunn asked how long the apartments will be affordable. Ms. Fritz said there is a 50-year
minimum, but Housing Catalyst is committed to permanent affordability.
Chair Dunn asked about maintenance. Ms. Fritz said their budget includes maintenance, property
management, staffing, and building reserves over the course of 15 years. She explained the
financing is contingent upon evaluation of these budgeting considerations.
Chair Dunn asked whether 146 Remington is eligible for landmark designation. Ms. Bzdek confirmed
that it is, as well as the property where Equinox Brewery is located.
Mr. Bello asked about the requirements for qualification. Ms. Fritz clarified that these units are strictly
for those in the 30-80% AMI range, but while they are targeting people who are employed Downtown,
they cannot restrict the geographic area in which residents are employed.
Chair Dunn asked that the Commission comment on the questions posed by staff in order of topic.
Massing
Mr. Bello said the elevation comparison slide does a good job of illustrating how it fits into the overall
massing of the Downtown area.
Mr. Murray mentioned that the Uncommon development is the same height. Chair Dunn pointed out
that Uncommon is not in the Historic Core of Old Town.
Chair Dunn commented that the parking level seems to be driving the design and she would prefer to
see fewer spaces to make the design fit better in Downtown. She said it causes problems with
referencing the historic widths. There was discussion about the recessed window walls and punched
windows giving a sense of the rhythm of the widths of the other buildings. Chair Dunn said that would
be tough to carry up to 2nd level. Mr. Holtzinger noted that the Code specifically states the first story
should break into modules.
Mr. Bello mentioned there were two slides showing the residential entrance and one had more color
differentiation than the other which helps break up the east elevation. Mr. Holtzinger explained that
the building name, Spark, would be relieved into the brick about three inches.
Ms. Nelsen stated the solid to void pattern of the first floor doesn’t seem quite right and gives it a
more private feel which may not be the intended interface with the street level.
Chair Dunn asked whether 3.4.7 Section 1 refers to the width of the entire building or just the first
floor. Ms. Bzdek said the code was written to apply to a variety of scenarios and not be too
prescriptive.
Chair Dunn commented on the differentiation between the commercial entrance and the residential
entrance.
Mr. Murray wondered about changing the commercial storefront, particularly at the corner of Oak and
Remington, to be more a traditional look and accentuate the door opening more. Ms. Nelsen
commented on the amount of glass and said it didn’t feel friendly or engaging.
Mr. Bello asked if they considered carrying the facades from farther north through first floor of Spark
and then have a break to differentiate the 2nd floor. Mr. Holtzinger said the team was concerned that
the design was getting too busy with that much architectural difference on the same elevation. Mr.
Bello also expressed that the metal and cool tone of the color are a departure from the warmer tones
of the surrounding buildings.
Ms. Nelsen commented that there was previously a large building on this site, so she is comfortable
with another large building as infill. She isn’t concerned about the height, and the Oak Street
massing is an elegant solution, but the Remington façade feels secondary for a corner building. She
expressed concern about the blank wall on the northeast corner. She would like to see a better sense
of scale and hierarchy, perhaps modeled off the south elevation.
Ms. Wallace expressed general concern about the corner and lack of articulation on the blank wall.
Chair Dunn referenced a building off Walnut next to the Bohemian building that had a lively mural
plan and suggested something like that might be a good fit for the corner.
Ms. Nelsen suggested incorporating fire-rated glazing or glass block. She would even support
increasing the height in some places to make room for more articulation on that façade.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 8 June 17, 2020
Mr. Bello stated he is not as concerned about the height.
Mr. Murray is generally not supportive of the height but agrees that the blank wall doesn’t work.
Ms. Michell does not see how adding height would help the blank wall and does not support that
approach.
Mr. Knierim stated he is intrigued with Ms. Nelsen’s suggestion of adding glazing while keeping the
fire rating. He is not as concerned with the height.
Ms. Wallace is concerned about the height and its potential effect on viewsheds. While she would
like to see the northeast corner improved, she does not support going higher to accomplish that.
Chair Dunn stated the members seem to agree about the need to adapt the northeast corner to feel
more articulated or connected to Downtown. The members discussed the impact art could have on
that corner.
Articulation of the Remington Side
Mr. Bello said there could be more contrast between the residential and commercial spaces and
expressed a preference for warmer colors.
Mr. Murray liked the idea of a three-dimensional band that would provide more shadow lines on the
upper level. Chair Dunn suggested the pilasters might make a difference on articulating the east
elevation on Remington.
Ms. Nelsen asked about screening for the mechanical rooftop elements. Mr. Holtzinger said there
would be at least two rooftop units for air circulation. He talked about working with the fire
department to ensure the fire stairs don’t interrupt the cornice line of the building. He said they are
aiming to center the equipment.
Chair Dunn asked if anyone had comments about the stepbacks and there were no concerns.
Materials
Chair Dunn asked if the materials had been selected. Mr. Holtzinger said they are thinking about
brick veneer, clad wood windows, and prefinished corrugated steel on the upper floors. He stated the
pilaster is up in the air, including potential stucco for the mural surface.
Chair Dunn asked about durability of painted stucco and expressed concern about maintaining
vibrancy. Mr. Holtzinger said there are paint materials that perform better than others, which will
require additional research.
Ms. Nelsen said the building needs to be enlivened beyond just color; the architecture itself needs to
activate the space.
Mr. Murray said the materials were generally good but requested samples for the next meeting.
Ms. Nelsen asked about the overall approach to materiality. Mr. Holtzinger talked about focusing on
the pedestrian experience with a robust masonry base and punched openings, embracing the
quirkiness of Montezuma Fuller Alley, and using more a contemporary and lighter approach with
simple fenestration in the upper residential elevations. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern that the
materials are too disparate. Mr. Holtzinger stated the brick is for the outer plane, the metal is for
upper step-backs and the mural approach is for the insets and cut-ins.
Ms. Nelsen suggested a cornice at the top. Chair Dunn agreed.
Fenestration
Chair Dunn asked about the lack of symmetry in the windows of the south upper floor. Mr. Holtzinger
stated that balance can’t be achieved while accommodating the unit floorplan necessary to
accommodate interior uses. Chair Dunn stated the plan seems to be at odds with the façade. Mr.
Holtzinger agreed and will see what he can do.
Mr. Murray agreed there is inconsistency in the windows.
Ms. Nelsen expressed concern about a lack of cohesiveness in the window rhythm. She said it feels
“under-fenestrated” on some elevations and that it is hard to see a sense of scale or hierarchy
through the windows. She asked about the window materials. Mr. Holtzinger said the ground floor
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 9 June 17, 2020
windows would be wood clad, but the upper floors would probably be vinyl with a deeper profile due
to budget constraints. He talked about getting depth and relief from the masonry.
Ms. Nelsen stated the project generally needs larger windows or more glazing space. Mr. Holtzinger
said that is difficult because bathrooms are located on the south elevation.
Mr. Bello said the inconsistency interrupts the rhythm between this building and the historic buildings
nearby.
Chair Dunn asked how the metal cladding meets the windows. Mr. Holtzinger described a substantial
brake-metal cross-section with some detail and interest at the sill line with simple trim around the
window body.
Design
Chair Dunn asked about the curved edges on the upper floor referencing the Mayor’s residence. Mr.
Bello said it seems subtle compared to other buildings.
Mr. Knierim said he would keep the curve referencing the Mayor's residence. He also pointed out the
heavy use of awnings on the rest of the street and wondered if that could help the rhythm. Mr.
Holtzinger said it may be a permitting issue, and may not appeal to tenants, but they could explore it.
Chair Dunn said the first-floor windows work for office use.
Ms. Nelsen said the curved edges referencing the Mayor’s reference are nice but are so subtle that it
isn’t an important feature.
Mr. Murray said a visual header on the upper windows would provide more horizontal distinction. He
also reinforced that the recessed corner entry should be brought forward and stated he didn’t care for
the floating garage.
Chair Dunn stated the recessed entries provide some needed modularity but agreed on the issue with
the floating garage and suggested adding a curve to that corner.
Ms. Nelsen suggested that additional screening beyond the plantings would help prevent parking
garage lighting from flooding the streetscape which would create an unpleasant experience. Ms. Fritz
said they had heard that comment before and are discussing solutions.
Chair Dunn was appreciative that the alley is acknowledged in the design.
Mr. Murray noted that the garage entrances are in the alleys on the west and north sides and inquired
about pedestrian and bike safety from drivers going in and out of garage. Ms. Fritz said that was
consistent with the Land Use Code.
Mr. Holtzinger asked about timing of the July LPC meeting. Ms. Bzdek stated that June 22 is the
submittal deadline. She also suggested it would be better to have more conversations with City staff
between the Conceptual and final Development Review. Ms. Fritz said they plan to go to P&Z in
September.
Chair Dunn asked the members to provide final thoughts.
Mr. Knierim felt the project was good overall and just needed some small tweaks on the design.
Mr. Bello agreed.
Ms. Nelsen stated some tweaks are needed. The mural treatment doesn't seem resolved but isn't a
deal-breaker. Her biggest concern is the northeast corner.
Ms. Wallace did not express major concerns. [Secretary’s note: There was significant interference in
Ms. Wallace’s audio at this point in the meeting, making it difficult to understand.]
Ms. Michell stated the project is mostly good, although the parking isn’t great. The height is still a
concern but is okay based on the proposed use. While she likes the southeast corner, she agrees
that the project needs some tweaks.
Mr. Murray is still worried about the height. The fenestration upstairs needs tweaks, and the
recessed doorways should be changed.
Chair Dunn said the northeast corner is her biggest concern, but the rest is tweaking.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 10 June 17, 2020
• OTHER BUSINESS
None
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.
_____________________________________
Meg Dunn, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 15, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, JUNE 5 TO JULY 1, 2020
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to
the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under
Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on
the HPD’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and LPC for
their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an
applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that
event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the LPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within two
weeks of staff denial. The report below covers the period between June 5 and July 1, 2020.
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of
Decision
304 E. Pitkin St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing property in Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP).
Approved June 11, 2020
323 E. Magnolia St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing property in Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP).
Approved June 11, 2020
220 S. Sherwood
St.
Masonry repair to porte cochere and porch;
construction and installation of storm windows
(previously approved for 2019 Landmark
Rehabilitation Loan). City Landmark.
Approved June 11, 2020
425 Mathews St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle) and
optional installation of low-profile solar tubes.
City Landmark.
Approved June 15, 2020
625 Whedbee St. Amendment to previously reviewed project to
expand basement windows for egress (required
by Code Compliance). Contributing property in
Laurel School Historic District (NRHP).
Approved June 16, 2020
423 Plum St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing property in Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP).
Approved June 23, 2020
828 Peterson St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing property in Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP).
Approved June 25, 2020
Packet Pg. 16
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 2
700 Remington St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). City
Landmark.
Approved June 25, 2020
331 E. Magnolia St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing property in Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP).
Approved June 30, 2020
Packet Pg. 17
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 15, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER) – SUNSHADE ADDITION
STAFF
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the addition of a sunshade structure to the north
elevation of the historic building at 359 Linden Street (Ginger and Baker).
APPLICANT: Chris Aronson (VFLA); Jack and Ginger Graham (Owners)
LPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker, regarding compliance
with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, for a Minor Amendment application to construct a shade structure
addition on the north elevation ground floor patio.
BACKGROUND:
Originally the Poudre Elevator Company, the mill and grain elevator more recently occupied by Feeders Supply
and now by Ginger and Baker was constructed in 1910. The location was considered strategic with proximity to
railroad tracks of the Colorado and Southern Railway line to allow for loading and unloading of goods to and from
the train. The building featured a retail store, two and one-half story grain elevator, hay warehouse and coal
storage. The stepped parapets, gable roof, limited windows, and head-house have been, and continue to be the
building’s character-defining historic features. Between approximately 1917 and 1949 four subsequent additions
were successively added on to the rear of the mill along Willow Street. In 1944, stucco was added to the exterior.
Feeders Supply (the mill, grain elevator and hay warehouse) was listed on the National Register of Historic Places
in 1978 as a contributing property to the Old Town District.
In 2013, the four rear additions were determined to have no historic significance and were removed. In 2015, the
current owners, Jack and Ginger Graham, received approval for an application to construct a two-story addition to
the building and rehabilitate the historic structure to accommodate a new use as restaurant and retail space.
PROJECT SUMMARY: This application calls for the addition of an aluminum shade structure (product by
Struxure Outdoors) to the north lower patio to create more comfortable conditions for three-season use.
Installation requires foundations for stability under the finish concrete on the existing patio deck, a non-historic
feature. The aluminum frame would be finished in black with adjustable white louvers and operable shades.
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of this historic review is the historic building itself at 359 Linden Street.
While there are other historic resources within 200 feet, the relatively limited scope and size of this proposed
alteration and the fact that it is being added to a historic resource requires analysis of this alteration under the SOI
Standards, rather than a broader design compatibility comparison with other historic structures on nearby parcels.
Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 2
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7 (D)(3): “To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and
building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use pursuant to the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties of any building, site, structure, or object located on
the development site and determined to be eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation either through a binding
or non-binding determination pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(C). This requirement shall apply to
development applications including building permit applications for partial or total demolition of, or work that may
have an adverse effect on, any building, site, structure, or object located on the development site and
determined to be eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation.”
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Standard
Met (Y/N)
SOI #1
A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial
relationships.
N/A
SOI #2
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal
of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships
that characterize a property will be avoided.
The 2015 alterations to this property created a mixed environment of highly differentiated
new construction and sensitive rehabilitation of the existing primary historic building, which
did also include the addition of some modern construction with the north elevation patios at
the upper and lower levels. The question is not whether the addition of the sunshade
would lead to loss of the property’s historic character, but rather if it would lead to an
unacceptable additional loss of character that would render the previously approved
alterations less acceptable under the SOI Standards. The modern patio is already in place
and already constitutes an alteration of space on the historic property. Does the addition of
the shade structure render that previously approved patio space incompatible with the
historic character?
TBD
SOI #3
Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
The proposed sunshade appears to meet this Standard, being sufficiently differentiated
from the original building and its features to avoid a false sense of history.
Y
SOI #4
Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.
N/A
SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
N/A
SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and
physical evidence.
N/A
Packet Pg. 19
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 3
SOI #7
Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the
gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will
not be used.
No treatments or attachments to historic features or materials are included in this
proposal.
N/A
SOI #8
Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
N/A
SOI #9
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
Design compatibility in terms of the visual impact on the historic structure,
considered also as an additional alteration to the property along with the 2015
addition and rehabilitation changes, is the primary consideration for this particular
project.
Staff notes this review under this standard reveals some positive and negative
aspects to the proposal.
The alteration is relatively minor compared to the large addition on the south and
the shade structure is set back from the front elevation.
No historic materials are impacted or destroyed.
It is differentiated as a modern but simple design and does not obscure the
original window and door openings on the first level (that have replacement
windows), nor the historic, rehabilitated window on the second floor above the
shade structure.
The corner location of the building presents a challenge in terms of making this
alteration more prominent and visible.
The structure will have a greater impact on the historic character when the
shades are drawn, at which time the structure will function and feel more like a
small addition.
TBD
SOI #10
New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in
such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of
the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The shade structure will not attach to the historic building, but rather to the non-
historic concrete north patio deck and can be removed without impacting the
historic building.
Y
Packet Pg. 20
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 4
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval:
The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval of the proposal based on the following
suggested outline:
“I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of a Minor
Amendment to add a shade structure to 359 Linden, finding it complies with the standards contained in Land Use
Code section 3.4.7, specifically the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic
Properties.
Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these
proposed findings according to its evaluation.
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial:
The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of denial of the proposal based on the following
suggested outline:
“I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of a Minor
Amendment to add a shade structure to 359 Linden, finding it does not comply with one or more of the standards
contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, specifically the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.”
Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these
proposed findings according to its evaluation.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Staff Presentation
2.Applicant Presentation
3. Canopy Design Renderings (added 7/13/20)
Packet Pg. 21
1
359 Linden (Ginger and Baker) – Sunshade Addition
Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, July 15, 2020
Summary
2
• 1910: Construction date
• 1978: 359 Linden listed as contributing property in the Old Town National Register
District
• 2015: Approval of Rehabilitation and Two-Story Addition, with LPC
recommendation (Architect: VFLA)
•2020: Proposed alteration – add aluminum shade structure (Struxure
Outdoors) to north lower patio
•To include foundations under finish concrete on existing patio deck
•Black frame, white louvers, operable shades
1
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 22
Area of Adjacency:
•359 Linden
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(D)(3)
4
To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design
shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use pursuant to the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties of
any building, site, structure, or object located on the development site and
determined to be eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation either
through a binding or non-binding determination pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7(C). This requirement shall apply to development
applications including building permit applications for partial or total
demolition of, or work that may have an adverse effect on, any building, site,
structure, or object located on the development site and determined to be
eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation.
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 23
2015: Approved Plans
5
2015: Approved Plans
6
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 24
Proposed Alteration
7
Key Questions/Considerations
8
• How does shade structure comply with SOI Standards, on its own
and relative to the overall changes to date, particularly the non-
historic feature (patio) design it would alter? (Standards 2 and 9)
• How does it integrate with overall design? Is it both compatible and
differentiated? (Standards 2 and 9 and 3)
• Are any important historic features obscured or would require
alteration/removal? (Standards 2 and 9)
• Can it be installed and is it removable without damaging integrity?
(Standard 10)
7
8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 25
Staff Findings re: 4 Applicable Standards
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 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.
9
Staff Findings re: 4 Applicable Standards
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 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall
be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property
and its environment.
10
9
10
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 26
11
359 Linden (Ginger and Baker) – Sunshade Addition
Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, July 15, 2020
11
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 27
City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1
Design Review Application
Historic Preservation Division
Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins.
Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
Applicant Information
Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone
Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code
Email
Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant)
Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone
Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code
Email
Project Description
Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as
necessary to explain your project.
Reminders:
Complete application would need
all of checklist items as well as both
pages of this document.
Detailed scope of work should
include measurements of existing
and proposed.
The following attachments are REQUIRED:
ƑComplete Application for Design Review
ƑDetailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available)
ƑColor photos of existing conditions
Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate
demolition application will need to be approved.
Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window
study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required
to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense).
Ginger and Baker is looking to expand their seating capacity by creating a three season patio on the Willow
Street side of their building. The global pandemic has put enormous strain on the business and new social
distancing requirements are making it even harder to make the business model operate at a proper level. A
sunshade and vertical screen system is being proposed for the north patio at Ginger and Baker. This system is
a customized, high-end sunshade system that includes rotating roof louvers, and operable vertical screens that
will block the wind, rain, and sun. The system is powdercoated, aluminum and will be mounted to the ground.
No structural elements will be mounted to the historic structure. This additional three season seating will assist
in social distancing, increase seating capacity and help drive
Chris Aronson 970-224-1191 970-224-1191
419 Canyon Ave. #200, Fort Collins CO 80521
chris@vfla.com
Jack and Ginger Graham
359 Linden Street, Fort Collins CO 80521
jack@grahamoffices.com
■
■
■
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 28
City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2
Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required)
If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each
feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature.
Feature A Name:
Describe property feature and
its condition:
Describe proposed work on feature:
Feature B Name:
Describe property feature and
its condition:
Describe proposed work on feature:
Use Additional Worksheets as needed.
Sunshade
North Lower Patio.The north patio will receive a new aluminum shade structure. It
is a removable system, but based on structural requirements,
will need foundations. These foundations will be located under
finish concrete and located on the existing north patio. The
shade structure will be provided by Struxure Outdoors and
additional product imagery is provided in our packet.
The new shade structure will have a black structure frame and
white intermediate members to compliment the existing
building.
N/A N/A
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 29
City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3
Required Additional information
The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for
photographs, and for other items where possible.
At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled
with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as
prints, photos shall be labeled
Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo
files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example,
smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc.
Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your
contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application.
Drawing with dimensions.
Product specification sheet(s).
Description of materials included in the proposed work.
Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors.
Ƒ Partial or full demolition is a part of this project.
Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new
addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing
residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition.
Signature of Applicant Date
■
■
■
■
■
■
6/22/2020
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 30
COVER PAGEGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comNORTH PATIO SUNSHADEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 31
EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOSGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comLINDEN STREET ELEVATIONCORNER OF LINDEN AND WILLOWWILLOW STREET ELEVATIONLOOKING EAST DOWN WILLOWITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 32
STRUXURE OUTDOORS SYSTEMGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comBENEFITS OF THE STRUXURE OUTDOORS SYSTEMS - FULLY INTEGRATED SYSTEM - STRUCTURE - ELECTRICAL WIRING IS HIDDEN - LIGHTS ARE INTEGRATED - VERTICAL SCREENS - GUTTERS AND DRAINAGE- POWDER COATED ALUMINUM = NO MAINTENANCE- CUSTOMIZABLE DESIGN- REMOVABLE - STRUCTURE DOESN'T ATTACH TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGGrayWhiteBronzeBeigeAdobeBlackITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 33
STRUXURE OUTDOORS SYSTEMGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comBasic Components A D D E E F F G G B C C ĖŭƟŭƟĦŪūŮƟŭƟŭƟĦūŮũƟůƟůƟĦŪūŮƟůƟůƟĦūŮũƟűƟűƟĦŪűűƟA B ŭƟŭƟůƟůƟűƟűƟůƟůƟūƟŪũƟĦŪūŮƟūƟűƟĦŪūŮƟůƟŪũƟŭƟŪũƟůƟűƟŭIJűIJ N J K L M O O P P Q Q R R űƟűƟŭƟŭƟůƟůƟŅN H I H I J K L M ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 34
STRUXURE OUTDOORS SYSTEMGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 35
PROPOSED DESIGNGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comNORTH PATIO FLOOR PLANCANOPY AREACOLUMN37'-6"17'-8"AREA OF WORKITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 36
PROPOSED DESIGNGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comCORNER OF LINDEN AND WILLOW - SHADES DOWNWILLOW ELEVATION - SHADES DOWNCORNER OF LINDEN AND WILLOW - SHADES UPWILLOW ELEVATION - SHADES UPITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 37
PROPOSED DESIGNGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comLINDEN STREET ELEVATIONLINDEN STREET ELEVATIONPROPOSED CANOPY,SHADES UPPROPOSED CANOPY,SHADES DOWNITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 38
PROPOSED DESIGNGINGER AND BAKER - NORTH PATIO SUNSHADE06.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.comWILLOW STREET ELEVATIONWILLOW STREET ELEVATIONPROPOSED CANOPY,SHADES UPPROPOSED CANOPY,SHADES DOWNITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 39
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 added 7-13-20Packet Pg. 39-1
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 added 7-13-20Packet Pg. 39-2
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 15, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
330 EAST MYRTLE STREET, THE J.A. LEIBY RESIDENCE – DEMOLITION AND NEW SINGLE FAMILY
CONSTRUCTION – DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to demolish the existing contributing building and construct
a new single-family dwelling on the property.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Douglas Bennett (owner);
521 N. Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RECOMMENDATION: Proposal does not meet the Standards; New construction is generally consistent
with Standard 9 calling for compatible but distinguishable new construction on
historic properties, including infill in historic districts.
ROLE OF LPC: Design review in this case is required and governed by the City’s Municipal Code under
Chapter 14.54(b). In cases where a property’s historic designation does not come from Fort Collins City
Council (i.e., listings in the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic
Places), a report must be prepared documenting whether the project meets or does not meet the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). This report is typically issued
by staff in most cases – currently staff forwards reports to the Landmark Preservation Commission when
alterations do not meet the Standards to a degree that threatens the historic designation of the property. In
these cases, the Commission’s role is to review the drafted report, provide additional comment regarding how
the project does or does not meet the Standards and what effect the project will have on the historic status of
the property, and issue the report. Reports, once issued, are not subject to appeal.
In this case, the role of the LPC, generally, is to comment on whether the new construction constitutes
compatible infill under the Standards. Staff has drafted the report called for under Chapter 14, Article IV for the
Commission’s review of the demolition and new construction. This is provided in place of an analysis in the
staff report to avoid unnecessary duplication.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The J.A. Leiby Residence at 330 E. Myrtle Street was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980
as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District. It was constructed in c.1920-1921. It is not a
City Landmark. The applicant is proposing complete demolition of the building as well as new construction of a
single-family home. The historic garage on the property will be retained at this time. Review by either staff or
the Commission is required under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Staff has forwarded this application
for review to the Commission since the historic property is proposed for demolition.
Packet Pg. 40
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 2
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
Current survey documentation has been attached for the Commission’s review, including an historic resource
survey form produced in advance of demolition in April 2020.
ALTERATION HISTORY:
The property does not appear to have undergone design review before the Commission in the past. The
following is a record of known alterations to the property:
• 1920 – construction of four room residence
• 1930 – interior remodel
• c.1948 – construction of garage (does not appear on 1943 Sanborn)
• 1952 – insulate attic and walls with rock wool
• 1954 – reshingle roof with wood (house and garage)
Additional undated modifications include the reshingling of the roof with asphalt shingles, although it does not
appear a City permit was issued for the work.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report regarding:
1. Demolition of the c.1921 building;
2. Construction of a new single-family dwelling
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Upon review of the original application, staff asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items:
1. Site plan
2. Photographs of neighboring properties to east and west on East Myrtle Street.
The applicant provided additional information and photographs to staff on June 25, 2020.
The Landmark Preservation Commission requested additional information about the project at the July 8 Work
Session. Answers to those questions and supplemental information has been added to the report.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY
The abutting property owner to the east, Ann Sheffer of 521 Peterson St, contacted staff regarding the
proposal with interest regarding the size and placement of the new construction. On a phone call with staff on
June 23, Ms. Sheffer requested, and later received, copies of the project plans. Ms. Sheffer provided general
concerns regarding the height and setback of any construction, but as of the drafting of this report, has not
provided any specific comments or concerns regarding the project.
EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Staff has provided an analysis of the applicable review criteria in the attached draft report.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In evaluating the request for the alterations to 330 E. Myrtle Street, staff makes the following findings of fact:
• The property at 330 E. Myrtle Street is not a City Landmark, but is designated as a contributing
property in the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
• Upon review, the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, primarily due to the demolition of the historic residence on the property.
• Upon review, the new construction generally meets Rehabilitation Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel
School Historic District.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission issue the attached draft report as final, documenting the project’s effects
on the historic property and the Laurel School Historic District.
Packet Pg. 41
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 3
SAMPLE MOTIONS
Project does not meet Standards; New Construction Meets Standard 9
I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the
alterations to the J.A. Leiby Residence at 330 E. Myrtle Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that the new construction does generally meet
Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel School Historic District, and that our findings shall be provided to the owner
and potentially transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the property’s historic
status.
Project does not meet Standards: New Construction Does Not Meet Standard 9
I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the
alterations to the J.A. Leiby Residence at 330 E. Myrtle Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, including the new construction in relation to the
Laurel School Historic District, and that our findings shall be provided to the owner and potentially transmitted
to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the property’s historic status.
Project does meet Standards; Revise report
I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the
alterations to the J.A. Leiby Residence at 330 E. Myrtle Street as presented, meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and that our findings shall be provided to the
owner and potentially transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft report for project pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV.
2. Design review application and supplemental information from applicant.
3. 2020 Historic Survey Form for 330 E. Myrtle St. (prepared in advance of demolition request)
4. Staff Presentation
5. 2020-7-14 Additional information provided by the applicant, including:
a) Modified site plan to show location of existing house
b) Concept rendering looking north from Myrtle Street
c) Photographs of similar home from same builder at 1125 W. Oak Street
Packet Pg. 42
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.4250
preservation@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/historicpreservation
Historic Preservation Services
REPORT OF ALTERATIONS TO DESIGNATED RESOURCE
Site Number/Address: 330 E. Myrtle St.
Laurel School National Register Historic District
ISSUED: DRAFT - DATE PENDING
Douglas Bennett
521 N. Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Mr. Bennett
This report is to document the summary of effects from proposed demolition of the J.A. Leiby
Residence at 330 E. Myrtle Street, and proposed new single-family construction, pursuant to Fort
Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, made by the Landmark Preservation
Commission at their July 15 meeting. A copy of this report may be forwarded to the Colorado
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
More specifically, the Commission commented on the following work items:
1. Demolition of the c.1920-1921 historic building
2. Construction of a new single-family dwelling.
Note Regarding Demolition of Historic Structures: Generally, the demolition of properties that
contribute to designated historic districts such as the Laurel School Historic District, do not
meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. However,
because the historic property is not a City Landmark and not protected under City Code, the
analysis below does not address Standards 1-7 and 10 as those pertain to preservation of the
historic structure. The analysis focuses only on Standards 8 and 9 as they relate to new
construction in the Laurel School Historic District.
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis (Rehabilitation) Standard
Met
(Y/N)
SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use
that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features,
spaces, and spatial relationships;
N
SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features,
spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will
be avoided.
N
SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
N
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 43
- 2 -
development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from
other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in
their own right will be retained and preserved.
N
SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a
property will be preserved.
N
SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement
of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement
of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and
physical evidence.
N
SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken
using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage
to historic materials will not be used.
N/A
SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place.
If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
At this time, it is unlikely that the basement excavation would reveal
significant information regarding the life, habits, and customs of
early Fort Collins residents. However, due to the depth of the
excavation for the basement, and the potentially undisturbed nature
of the site in comparison to other lots in Fort Collins, it is
encouraged that if discoveries occur during excavation, that work be
halted to allow for assessment and potential collection by a
professional archaeologist.
Y
SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
1. Demolition of Historic Building - The demolition of the
primary historic building does not meet this Standard.
Although the historic garage is being retained at this time,
without the primary historic residence, the garage will
subsequently be out of context.
2. New Construction in Historic District –
a. Compatibility – Overall, the property appears
compatible with surrounding historic buildings and
the larger district, although there are specific project
elements that could be improved under this category.
In larger site context, the building will be somewhat
compatible. Its setback of 23 feet from the sidewalk
1) N
2) Y
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 44
- 3 -
is comparable to the Myrtle Street setbacks for the
neighboring properties at 326 E. Myrtle Street (25
feet) to the west and 525 Peterson Street (18 feet).
Side setbacks of 5.5 feet are similar to other historic
buildings in the district. The new building will have
larger massing than most surrounding buildings as it
will extend to a full second story, compared to a
largely single or 1.5 story context in the surrounding
area. The new building would be the only full two
story building on the 300-block of Myrtle Street (all
other buildings are 1 or 1.5 stories).
In specific design compatibility with nearby
buildings, the new building generally reflects nearby
styles. The new residence reflects design
characteristics of the Queen Anne and Foursquare
house types common around Old Town Fort Collins.
The somewhat boxy, partially symmetrical façade
with large central dormer reflect the Foursquare,
while the wrapping front porch and multiple
projecting bays emulate the asymmetrical design of
nearby Queen Anne homes. Window patterns as
currently presented are generally compatible with
surrounding historic patterns, although most windows
present as single-light windows, where a sash
configuration might be more appropriate. While the
design does not appear overly cohesive, it does
provide a visual connection with neighboring
buildings.
In terms of materials, the building largely reflects
modern versions of historic materials, including
asphalt shingle roofing and wood hardyboard siding.
Exceptions to this include cement fiber material to
convey a board-and-batten siding on the upper story
of the west elevation, as well as what appears to be an
EIFS-type coating along the foundation for much of
the side and rear elevations. Replacing the board-and-
batten components with hardyboard or other
lapsiding is encouraged as board-and-batten materials
on primary residences in the district is extremely rare.
b. Distinguishability – The use of modern materials, and
streamlined versions of multiple historic styles
renders the property distinguishable from its historic
neighboring buildings.
SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the
N
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 45
- 4 -
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
Demolition of the historic building constitutes a permanent
alteration that destroys historic fabric.
The Commission found that the proposed work does not meet the criteria and standards in
Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. However, absent the demolition of a
contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, the new construction generally
meets Standards 9 regarding new construction. Based on the demolition, it is expected that the
property will no longer contribute to the district. This will prohibit current and future owners
from leveraging financial incentives for historic preservation.
Notice of the completion of this report has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to
facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. Please note that all ensuing
work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming alterations are subject to stop-
work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration requirements and penalties.
If you have any questions regarding the Commission’s report, or if we may be of any assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact our office at preservation@fcgov.com or 970-416-4250.
Sincerely,
Meg Dunn
Chair, Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 46
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 47
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 48
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 49
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 50
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 51
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 52
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 53
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 54
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 55
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 56
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 57
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 58
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 59
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 60
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 61
I. IDENTIFICATION
1. Resource number: 5LR.2982
2. Temporary resource number: N/A
3. County: Larimer
4. City: Fort Collins
5. Historic building name: Leiby House, Wilkes Residence
6. Current building name: None
7. Building address: 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
8. Owner name and address:Douglas Bennett
521 North Whitcomb Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W
NE ¼ of NW ¼ of section 13
10. UTM reference
Zone 13; 4491977 m E; 493769 m N
11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO
Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15'
12. Lot(s): East ½ of Lot 9
Block: 145
Plat: Fort Collins Platted: 1873
Parcel Number: 97132-07-012
13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal
description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97132-07-012. The parcel/lot is located
on the north side of East Myrtle Street between Matthews Street to the west, and Peterson
Street to the east. The rectangular lot is 50 feet wide and 190 feet deep, encompassing 9,500
ft² (0.22 acre). It contains the single-family dwelling at 330 East Myrtle Street as well as the
associated small detached wood frame garage and the surrounding yards and landscaping. The
site boundary encompasses the area associated with its historic residential use.
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular
15. Dimensions in feet: House: Length: 24 ft. x Width: 20 ft.
16. Number of stories: 1.0
17. Primary external wall material(s): Horizontal wood siding (narrow clapboard)
18. Roof configuration: Gable roof/ Front gabled
Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only)
Date ____________ Initials
________________
______ Determined Eligible- NR
______ Determined Not Eligible- NR
______ Determined Eligible- SR
______ Determined Not Eligible- SR
______ Need Data
______ Contributes to eligible NR District
______ Noncontributing to eligible NR District
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 62
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
19. Primary external roof material: Composition shingles
20. Special features: Porches
21. General architectural description: This small, single story, wood frame dwelling is a well-
preserved, austere, vernacular wood frame single-family dwelling built c. 1920-1925. The
building is small and of simple design, and historical evidence suggests that it may have been
built by its original owner (laborer/carpenter John A. Leiby) in late 1920-1921, soon after
obtaining a building permit from the City of Fort Collins to construct the dwelling. Resting on a
stone foundation and lacking a basement, the rectangular-plan dwelling measures 20 feet wide
and 24 feet deep, encompassing 480 ft² of living space. The home’s exterior walls are clad with
narrow horizontal wood clapboard siding. It is covered by a very low-pitched front gable roof
with wide overhanging eaves and exposed 2 x 4 rafter tails. The roof’s low-pitch, wide eaves
and exposed rafter tails are suggestive of Craftsman-style influence. The house lacks any historic
decorative detailing or elements.
The façade is asymmetrically arranged, with the main entry offset towards its right/east end.
The façade is equipped with two windows. Directly adjacent to the main entry is a nearly square
1-over-1 one double-hung wood sash window. Farther west on the façade is tall, narrow 1-over-
1 light double hung window. The latter window has non-original wood lath lattice decorative/
non-functional shutters, and the same modern material has been placed beneath the front
gable. A small, roofless open front porch is placed on the eastern part of the façade. The porch
is on a love concrete pad or footer, has a deck made of modern synthetic plank deck flooring,
and is equipped with a simple modern balustrade railing constructed of stained 2 x 4 rails with
2 x 2 balusters. The porch is open on its east end, and requires only one wooden step to climb.
The building’s east elevation is symmetrically fenestrated with two identica and evenly spaced
tall and narrow i-over-1 double-hung windows. The west elevation is not clearly visible due to
its location directly adjacent to a detached garage on the parcel on the west side of 330 East
Myrtle. It likely has the same fenestration as the east elevation. The rear or north elevation
contains an entry offset to the east, to the right of which is a small 1-over-1 double hung
window. To the right of this small window is a large, rectangular, clapboard-sealed window
opening. A ribbed sheet metal-covered concrete collar extends from the east end of the rear
elevation and appears to be a cellar entrance. Puzzlingly, the Larimer County Assessor’s
property record does not mention the existence of a basement or cellar. Similarly, the house
lacks a chimney.
22. Architectural style/building type: Vernacular Wood Frame/ single family dwelling
23. Landscaping or special setting features: This historic house and detached garage are situated on
a rectangular residential lot that is nearly four times as deep (190 ft.) as it is wide (50 ft.). An
unpaved alley which bisects the block follows an east-west alignment behind the parcel. A
concrete sidewalk parallels East Myrtle Street, passing in front of the property.
This residential property exhibits some unusual characteristics regarding the placement of the
house on the lot and access to the home’s main entry from the sidewalk along Myrtle Street.
The extremely deep setback of the house from the street (approximately 120 feet) sets it apart
from the placement of houses on most residential lots within the historic neighborhoods of the
original Fort Collins town site. The house is situated directly adjacent to the west property line
and the side of a large detached garage on the parcel to the west (326 East Myrtle Street). A
modern stained cedar privacy fence extends towards Myrtle Street from the southwest front
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 63
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
corner of the house, placed closely paralleling the driveway leading to the neighboring garage
and separating the two parcels.
Another very unusual trait of this property is the lack of a concrete or flagstone walkway
providing direct access from the sidewalk to the street. There is, however, a short, narrow
angled concrete walkway that extends in a southwesterly direction from the front porch,
toward the driveway of the adjacent property to the west (326 East Myrtle Street), where it is
blocked by the above-mentioned cedar fence. It appears likely that this narrow angled path was
originally connected to the driveway associated with the 326 East Myrtle Street, which runs
along the east edge of the parcel. This curious feature suggests a potential historical association
(ownership) between the subject residential property and the adjacent property at 326 East
Myrtle Street; however, no evidence was found to substantiate that theory. At the porch entry
a buff-colored flagstone walk leads around the house’ southeast corner and along the entire
east elevation leading to the backyard access gate. A short length of similar flagstone path
branches off perpendicularly from the main path and into the east side yard, which includes an
old steel pipe clothesline that is oriented north-south.
In terms of landscaping, the deep front yard, as well as the east side yard and backyard are
covered with closely-cropped grass lawns. Several very large trees are established along the
east property line, including a very large spruce or fir tree. Several other small trees/clusters of
trees also are established on the parcel, including a small cluster of unidentified small deciduous
trees near the edge of the front porch.
The backyard is enclosed by a tall chain link fence, with access through a chain link gate near
the northeast rear corner of the house. The interior side of the chain link fence has been covered
by a layer or mat of vertically oriented, dried reeds or other plant stalks, converting it into a
privacy fence. A very narrow concrete walkway leads from the rear porch, angling northeast
toward to the center of the backyard fence, where there is a chain link gate to the alley.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: The only extant outbuilding on the parcel is a single-
story, 12 ft wide x 18 ft long, detached, wood frame automotive garage located at the northeast
rear corner of the parcel, adjacent to the east-west oriented alley bisecting the block. It was
likely constructed c. 1926-1948 (see Section 29, “Construction History,” below). The building
represents a very common utilitarian design for early 20th century detached residential garages.
The garage has a concrete pad foundation/floor, and is covered by a moderately pitched roof
with wide overhanging eaves, exposed rafter tails, and wood shake shingles. The building’s
exterior walls are clad with horizontal board drop or tongue-in-groove siding. Large hinged
wooden double doors with cross-bracing are installed on the north (alley) and south (backyard)
elevations. A horizontally-oriented, three-light fixed window is centered on the west side
elevation. This window has been decoratively embellished at both ends with small wood lath
lattice shutters, similar to the shutters placed on the large window on the façade.
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25. Date of Construction (Dwelling): Estimate: Actual: c. 1920-1921
Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 585, issued August 24, 1920 by City of Fort
Collins to property owner John A. Leiby.
26. Architect: Unknown
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 64
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
Source(s) of information: No information found
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown; possibly owner John A. Leiby
Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 585, issued on August 24, 1920 to John A. Leiby,
derived from “Log of Building Permits,” 1920 – c. early 1950s, in collection of the Fort Collins
Discovery Museum Local History Archive, and available through the Fort Collins History
Connection website; also Fort Collins city directories for the years 1925 and 1927 (information
regarding John Leiby’s work occupation).
28. Original owner: John A. Leiby
Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 585, issued August 24, 1920 by City of Fort
Collins to property owner John A. Leiby for construction of a new residence.
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): The Larimer County Assessor’s property record for 330 East Myrtle Street
indicates an inaccurate construction date of 1904 that based upon information provided by
the owner (Samuel and May Combs) and included on the 1948 Assessor’s property card.
However, while the precise construction date for this property is unclear, it occurred
sometime between c. late 1920 and 1925 based upon the building permit date (August 24,
1920) as well as the 1925 Sanborn fire insurance map and city directory. The National Register
of Historic Places nomination for the Laurel School (or Midtown) Historic District, which
includes 330 East Myrtle Street, provides a construction date of c. 1924, which falls within the
estimated construction date range.
The original building permit (Permit No. 585) was issued to property owner John A. Leiby on
August 24, 1920, for construction of a “4 room frame dwelling 20x24. Concrete foundation.
Shingle roof.” Leiby estimated that the work would cost $300 to complete.
Leiby placed the house much further back from the street than most homes erected in Fort
Collins. It was built 5-9 years before the Fort Collins municipal government instituted its first
zoning ordinance in 1929 which included property requirements regarding allowable uses and
setbacks.
From 1930 through 1954, several building permits were issued by the City of Fort Collins to
owners and builders for construction of, and improvements to, 330 East Myrtle Street. On
October 31, 1930, a permit (Permit No. 2801) was issued to builder P. L. Cheney on behalf of
property owner M. M. St. Clair for interior remodeling, which consisted of “[illegible; possibly
“enclosure”] of NE corner of room for toilet without side window, 12x34 inches, one opening
in chimney.” The estimated cost of the work was $25, suggesting it was relatively minor work.
Two building permits were issued for work on the property in the early 1950s; both were
obtained by then-owner Warren Wilkes. The first permit (Permit No. 12569) was issued to
Wilkes on January 11, 1952, to “Insulate attic and walls of residence – [with] rock wool,” for
an estimated cost of $165. Then, on July 23, 1954, Willkes obtained another building permit
(Permit No. 13778), in order to “Reshingle roof with wood shingles, no shingles left on roof,
remove old shingles – garage and house.
The only other alterations to the house noted include sealing of a large window opening on
the rear elevation, the addition of a modern small front porch, and the addition of decorative
lath lattice details including faux window shutters and a triangular panel placed beneath the
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 65
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
front gable. The latter details are easily removable. The garage is virtually unmodified; the
only obvious exterior change is the addition of very small painted wood lath lattice shutters at
the ends of the sole west elevation window.
The construction date for the detached garage could not be determined with certainty,
although the available evidence suggest that it was built sometime between December 1925
(Sanborn map edition), when no garages or other outbuildings are shown on the lot, and
October 1948. The latter date refers to the Larimer County Assessor’s property record that
includes a sketch with dimension and a photograph of the identical building. Other than the
decorative placement of small, painted wood lath lattice shutters at both ends of the sole
west elevation window.
30. Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31. Original use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling
32. Intermediate use(s): None
33. Current use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling
34. Site type(s): House
35. Historical background: The very small (480 ft²) single-family dwelling located at 330 East Myrtle
Street in Fort Collins was constructed c. 1920-1925. On August 24, 1920, the City of Fort Collins
issued Building Permit No. 585 to property owner John A. Leiby for construction of a four-room,
20 x 24 feet, wood frame dwelling on [the east half of] Lot 145 of Block 9. The house included a
concrete foundation and shingle roof, and Leiby estimated that the work would cost $300. It is
possible, if not probable, that John Leiby built or helped build the house for his family to live in.
Although the building permit for 330 East Myrtle Street was issued in the summer of 1920,
available city directory data suggests that 330 East Myrtle Street was first occupied sometime
between 1922 and 1925, by the family of John A. Leiby. Curiously, while John A. Leiby obtained
the 1920 building permit, his family is not listed in the Fort Collins city directory in 1922 for
unknown reasons. However, by 1925, both city directory data and the Sanborn Fire Insurance
Company map verify that the house (only; no detached garage) was standing and occupied by
the Leiby family. In 1925 John Leiby was employed as a laborer, and he shared the house with
his wife Iva Luella Leiby and their daughter Dessie E. Leiby, who was then a student. Later that
same year (September 1925), tragedy struck the family when Ivy Leiby – John’s wife and
Dessie’s mother – passed away at the young age of 37. She was b uried in Fort Collins’ Grandview
Cemetery.
Following his wife’s death, John Leiby continued to live at 330 East Myrtle Street for
approximately five years; his daughter Dessi had evidently moved out of the home. In 1927 John
Leiby’s occupation was identified as “carpenter” in the city directory. Relocating c. 1930 after
selling 330 East Myrtle Street – likely to M.M. St. Clair - John lived until the age of 74, passing
away on December 4, 1957. He was interred in Grandview Cemetery next to his wife’s grave.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 66
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
Between c. 1930 and sometime in the 1940s, there occurred a succession of three relatively
short-term tenants or owners. In 1931 the small house was occupied by laborer Jacob W. Lehr
and his wife Julie E. Lehr, who was not employed outside the home. By 1933, the Lehrs had
moved to another residence at 240 North Shields Street, and 330 East Myrtle Street was listed
as vacant in the city directory. The next known occupant was Mrs. Cleta Rice, who was
employed (likely self-employed) as a seamstress. Evidently widowed, Mrs. Rice lived alone in
the house until c. 1937-1938, when she relocated to another dwelling at 414 East Pitkin Street.
In 1938, 330 East Myrtle Street was inhabited by Donald W. Acott, a student at Colorado State
University. It appears that by or during 1940 Donald Acott married, and shared the tiny dwelling
with his wife Helen and another relation (possibly Donald’s mother) – Doris Acott, who in 1940
was employed as an office assistant for Dr. Dolph, a dentist whose office was located at 116
West Mountain Street in downtown Fort Collins. According to the 1940 city directory, Donald
Acott’s occupation was described as “student and works at College.”
During the late 1940s and 1950s, 330 East Myrtle Street was both owned and occupied by
Warren W. and Fern E. Wilkes. During this time period, Warren Wilkes was employed by the
Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association (REA), a utility company, working in various capacities
including as a lineman, truck driver, tree trimmer, and foreman. Fern was evidently not
employed outside the home. Warren and Fern continued to occupy 330 East Myrtle Street until
c. 1959-1960, when they relocated to another residence on the western outskirts of Fort Collins
at 2708 West Mulberry Street.
Possibly in part because of the small size of the house and its relative proximity to Colorado
State University, its history from 1960 to the present (March 2020) comprised a frequent
turnover of numerous short-term tenants, punctuated by several multi-year periods of vacancy.
During the 1960s, no fewer than five tenants occupied the Myrtle Street house, beginning with
CSU student Arvin D. Hullinger and his wife Annette C. Hullinger, who was employed in 1960 as
a laboratory technician at CSU. Circa 1962-1963 the Hullingers had moved, and in their place as
tenants of 330 East Myrtle Street was another couple – CSU student Bob Conger and his wife
Donna, who worked as a clerk-stenographer at CSU. In 1964 the Congers had been succeeded
as tenants by Theodore A. Kunzie, owner of Ted’s Barber Shop at 122 North College Avenue,
and his wife Marilyn, who was then employed as a clerk/cashier at Poudre Valley National Bank
at 101 South College Avenue. Subsequently, by 1966 CSU student Dan J. Smith and his wife
Sharon, who worked as a stenographer-clerk at the First National Bank, had moved into 330
East Myrtle Street. However, by 1969 the Smiths had been by another CSU student, John Garth
Hall, along with his wife Mollie and the couple’s two year-old son John Robert Hall.
An especially rapid turnover of tenants occurred in the 1970s. In 1971, CSU student Glen D.
Esplin, his wife Helen H. Esplin and their infant son Edward lived at 330 East Myrtle Street.
However, the following year the Esplins had been succeeded by yet another CSU student, Garth
W. Lamb, and his wife Jan. Other occupants of the house in the 1970s included Doug Foster
(1973), and single attorney John Gascoyne (1975), followed in 1976 by CSU secretary Lavera
Rochlitz. Then, from c. 1977 through 1979, the home was vacant.
The home was largely vacant in the 1980s; the only occupants noted in city directories for this
address are Pam Peterson, who was employed as news editor for KCOL Radio (1612 Laporte
Avenue), in 1980-1981, and Jean M. Behringer in 1986. Beherenger was employed as a data
processing technician for the Mental Health Center in Fort Collins. It then appears to have been
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 67
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
vacant from c. 1987 through c. 1992. The home was occupied continuously by a succession of
tenants, from 1993 through 2005. Residents during this time period included Jay S. Ziegler (c.
1993-1996), Eric L. Lopez and Miles Stanley (c. 1997-2000); K.K. Wagner (c. 2001); and Jill M.
Sannes (c. 2002-2005). Subsequently, it appears that the house was vacant from c. 2006 until
2011, when Alia Marie Dietsch moved in. Ms. Dietsch occupied the 330 East Myrtle Street
dwelling until c. 2015, when she hadmoved out and was replaced by Linda Marie Strange. The
most recent occupant was Polly White, who moved to the house in 2018.
36. Sources of information:
City of Fort Collins
Building Permit information for 330 East Myrtle Street, derived from Log of Building
Permits, 1920 – c. early 1950s, in collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local
History Archive. Available through the Fort Collins History Connection website.
Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1902 through 2018 (with gaps). From the collection
of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
Kane, James S.
1979 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Laurel School Historic
District, dated June 28, 1979. Placed on the National Register of Historic Places on
October 3, 1980.
Larimer County Assessor
1948 Property Card for 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97132-07-012). From
the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
1969 Property Card for 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97132-07-012). From
the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
2020 Property information record for 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97132-
07-012). Larimer County Assessor’s website, accessed online, March 20, 2020.
Marmor, Jason
1998 City of Fort Collins Architectural Inventory Form, Eastside Neighborhood Survey
Project, for 330 East Myrtle Street (5LR.2982). Prepared on March 24, 1998. On file at
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1925 Fire Insurance Maps of Fort Collins.
1948 Fire Insurance Maps of Fort Collins.
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37. Local landmark designation: Yes ____ No __X__ Date of designation: Not Applicable
Designating authority: Not Applicable
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 68
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
__ __ A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our
history;
______ B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
__ __ C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
_____ _ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
________ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
___X ___ Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable
40. Period of significance: Not Applicable
41. Level of significance: National _____ State ______ Local __X___ Not Applicable
42. Statement of significance:
This property is one of 665 total properties, and one of 549 contributing elements within the
Laurel School (or Midtown) Historic District. The district was officially placed in the National
Register of Historic Places on October 3, 1980.
The character and significance of the Laurel School Historic District’s significance is concisely
summarized on History Colorado’s website: “Located south of Fort Collins’ downtown core, the
district developed over a sixty year period from the mid-1870s into the 1930s. Also known as
the Midtown Historic District, it is a good example of early community planning and also
illustrates the social evolution of Fort Collins. Of the 665 properties, 549 contribute to the
district’s historic and architectural integrity. Residences range from the most prevalent simple
Victorian cottages to good examples of period styles such as Italianate, Queen Anne, and
Eastlake, several of which were designed by prominent local architect Montezuma Fuller. A
number of bungalows further reflect the evolution in residential architecture. Scattered
throughout the district are schools, churches, and other buildings typically associated with such
neighborhoods.” (https://www.historycolorado.org/location/laurel-school-historic-district).
Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility:
The Leiby/Wilkes House (5LR.2982) is a very modest “working class” home in the historic
Eastside Neighborhood area of Fort Collins.
This house was built in the early 1920s, at the beginning of a decade of considerable population
growth and home building. While associated with this trend, this particular house is somewhat
dissimilar from the vast majority of small homes built in the Eastside Neighborhood area in the
1920s in terms of its size, simplicity of design, and extremely deep lot setback. The house was
mainly owner occupied until c. 1959-1960; after that time it, like numerous Eastside
Neighborhood area homes it was utilized as rental property, frequently renting to students at
nearby Colorado State University.
The property is evaluated as not significant for its association with the 1920s urban growth in
Fort Collins, nor any other important historical trend. It therefore does not qualify as a Fort
Collins Local Landmark under Criterion A. Archival research verified that the residential
property at 330 East Myrtle Street is not directly associated with any people (architects, owners,
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 69
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
or occupants) who were known through archival research to have contributed significantly or
had a major influence with respect to the history of Fort Collins, Larimer County, the State of
Colorado, or the United States. Therefore, it cannot qualify for Local Landmark designation
under Criterion B.
While this house retains a high level of exterior architectural integrity, it is an undistinguished,
plain and nondescript example of a small vernacular wood frame dwelling that lacks stylistic or
decorative elements of any kind. Also, while the extremely deep setback and lack of sidewalk
access are interesting and very unusual design characteristics in Fort Collins’ historic
neighborhood areas, they are insufficient to render the property Local Landmark-eligible under
Criterion C.
For all these reasons, the Leiby House at 330 East Myrtle Street (5LR.2982) is evaluated as not
qualifying as individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Local Landmark. However, due
to its excellent integrity, and in spite of its lack of individual significance, the residential
property at 330 East Myrtle Street is evaluated (again) as a contributing element of the Laurel
School Historic District as well as a contributing element of a potential larger historic residential
Local Landmark district in the Eastside Neighborhood area of Fort Collins.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Although the property lacks
significance under the available criteria, the Leiby House is very little altered. Its greatest
exterior change is the sealing of a large window opening on the rear elevation, and the property
retains substantial integrity of location, design, materials, craftmanship, setting, feeling and
association. The historic wood frame detached garage on the property also retains excellent
architectural integrity.
VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
44. National Register (individual) eligibility field assessment:
Eligible Not (Individually) Eligible X Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X _ No Discuss:
If there is National Register district potential, is this building:
Contributing X _ Noncontributing _
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it:
Contributing Noncontributing _ Not Applicable X _
VIII. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
47. Local Landmark (individual) eligibility field assessment:
Eligible Not (Individually) Eligible X Need Data
IX. RECORDING INFORMATION
48. Photograph numbers: 5LR.2982-#1-35
Negatives or digital photo files filed at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center
(Current Planning) - Historic Preservation Department, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO
80524
49. Report title: Historic and Architectural Assessment for 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins, CO
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 70
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
50. Date(s): February 11, 2019
51. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor
52. Organization: RETROSPECT
53. Address: 1031 East 4th Street, Unit B, Loveland, CO 80537
54. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 71
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
Location of 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins (5LR.2982), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological
Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984).
▪
330 E. Myrtle Street
5LR.2982
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 72
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
`
Sketch map of 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins (5LR.2982).
EAST MYRTLE STREET
N
Detached garage 190 feet 50 feet
Alley
Detached garage
Modern open
front porch
Dwelling Clothesline ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 73
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
July 1, 1996 Photo of 330 East Myrtle Street. Fort Collins History Connection website
(fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/bs/id/582/rec/2), Accessed March 28, 2020.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 74
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, looking north-northwest.
330 East Myrtle Street, looking north-northwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 75
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, looking northwest.
330 East Myrtle Street, looking north.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 76
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, looking north-northwest.
330 East Myrtle Street, façade, looking northwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 77
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, façade, looking north-northeast.
330 East Myrtle Street, façade, looking north.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 78
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, Left portion of façade showing clapboard siding and small double-hung windows.
View looking north.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 79
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, gable on façade.
330 East Myrtle Street, small open front porch, looking northeast.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 80
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, façade with small open front porch, looking west-northwest.
330 East Myrtle Street, east elevation, looking northwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 81
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, east elevation, looking west.
330 East Myrtle Street, east elevation, looking southwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 82
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, double-hung window on east elevation.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 83
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, flagstone path along east side of house, looking south.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 84
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, rear/north elevation, looking southwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 85
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, rear entry on north elevation, looking southeast.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 86
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, small double-hung window on rear/north elevation, looking south.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 87
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, sealed window opening on rear/north elevation.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 88
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, east side yard and flagstone walkway, looking northeast.
330 East Myrtle Street, backyard (garage at left), looking south-southwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 89
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, backyard, looking southwest.
330 East Myrtle Street, backyard, looking northwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 90
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, backyard with narrow concrete path, looking
south.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 91
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, looking backyard and detached garage, looking northeast.
330 East Myrtle Street, detached garage, looking northeast.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 92
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, west elevation of detached garage, looking east.
330 East Myrtle Street, closer view of garage’s west elevation, looking east.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 93
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, detached garage from backyard, looking northeast.
330 East Myrtle Street, north end of detached garage facing alley, looking southwest.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 94
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, north end of detached garage on alley, looking southeast.
330 East Myrtle Street, front/north elevation of detached garage, looking south.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 95
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.2982 – 330 East Myrtle Street, Fort Collins
330 East Myrtle Street, hinged double doors on north end of detached garage, looking south.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 96
1
Design Review (NRHP) – Demolition and New SF
Construction, 330 E. Myrtle Street
Landmark Preservation Commission – Item #4
July 15, 2020
Commission’s Role
Review proposed alterations and issue report. Provide additional comment
regarding:
• Effects of demolition to the Laurel School Historic District
• Whether new construction meets Rehabilitation Standard 9 in relation to the
Laurel School Historic District
Staff issues report on behalf of LPC
2
1
2
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 97
Existing Property
3
Background
• c.1920 – property
constructed
• c.1925-1948 – garage
constructed
• 1980: Property (house
& garage) listed in
National Register
(contributing to Laurel
School Historic District)
4
1925 Sanborn
3
4
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 98
Existing Property & Proposed Alterations
1. Demolition of c.1920 residence;
2. Construction of a new single-family residence
5
Neighboring Properties
6
326 E. Myrtle Street 525 Peterson Street (south elevation)525 Peterson Street (east elevation)
5
6
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 99
300 Blk of E. Myrtle Street
7
New Construction Site Plan & Materials
8
• Siding
• Hardie board
lapsiding
• Fiber cement
board/batten
paneling
•EIFS-style
coating
• Roof
• Asphalt
shingle
• Windows
• Not specified
7
8
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 100
Rendering & Sample Project
9
Sample project at 1125 W Oak Street from
same builder
New Construction – South Facade
10
9
10
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 101
New Construction – West Elevation
11
New Construction – East Elevation
12
11
12
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 102
New Construction – Rear/North Elevation
13
Staff Findings of Fact
• The property at 330 E. Myrtle Street is not a City Landmark, but is
designated as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic
District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980.
• Upon review, the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
• Upon review, the new construction generally meets Standard 9.
14
13
14
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 103
Questions for Commission
1. Does the new single-family dwelling meet Rehabilitation Standard 9 in
relation to the Laurel School Historic District?
1.Are there project elements that could be altered to improve the
compatibility and/or distinguishability of the new construction in
relation to the Historic District?
2.What effects will the loss of the historic residence have on the larger
historic district?
15
15
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Revised - presented at hearing
Packet Pg. 103-1
Attachment 4 – Responses to LPC Questions (Work Session July 8)
Responses provided 7-14-2020 in bold
1.Requested a rendering of project showing abutting or block context and
massing of new building in relation to neighboring buildings.
Provided by applicant
2. Provide general height and width for neighboring buildings to allow
Commission to analyze massing/scale of new building.
Neighboring buildings along the 300 block of E. Myrtle range from 16' - 23'
in height and 22' - 40' in width.
3.How will house match up with setbacks and eave lines of neighboring
properties;
The new home will have a conforming setback whereby all eave and
building heights meet the requirements for the zone. The house will be set
in such a way that its front will generally align with the fronts of the other
homes on the block. The existing house sits quite far back on the lot, not in
line with neighboring homes, and it encroaches the rear West setback line
by 3'.
4.Will new home’s base/foundation top be higher than neighboring houses?
No, it will be lower than most of the homes around.
5.What is the width of new house in relation to existing houses?
The new house is 39', opting to not use a front driveway.
6.Provide an explanation on why the stylistic treatment was selected as it
appears complex.
I like how it captures the elements of historical styling. I don't find it
complex.
7.Provide information on concept for materials and massing; How do materials
relate to neighborhood and nearby buildings; also explain how massing/scale
relates to nearby context.
The surrounding homes are primarily siding, brick, and/or stucco. The new
home will be a combination of siding and stucco. We took into
consideration the eave and building height restrictions making it a subtle 2
story home, in turn reducing visual "over" massing.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
added 7-14-20
Packet Pg. 103-1
8. Provide an overlay site plan showing existing and proposed house as a useful
comparison
Provided
9. Provide information regarding whether old home could be saved/incorporated
along with new construction.
The existing house sits much too far back on the lot to incorporate it into
the new home. The building has structural issues.
10. Provide additional information about landscape treatment; are you removing
trees? What other changes to landscape should be expected?
Our only plan at this time is to clean up the trees in the rear NE corner of
the property. Comcast and Centurylink have a cluster of cables entangled
in the trees.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
added 7-14-20
Packet Pg. 103-2
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 added 7-14-20Packet Pg. 103-3
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
added 7-14-20
Packet Pg. 103-4
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
added 7-14-20
Packet Pg. 103-5
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
added 7-14-20
Packet Pg. 103-6
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 15, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
OVERVIEW OF COLLEGE DOWNTOWN AND HOWES & MELDRUM HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEYS
STAFF
Karen McWilliams
PROJECT INFORMATION
This item is intended to introduce the Landmark Preservation Commission and community to two historic
property surveys currently underway in the Downtown area. Both survey projects are being conducted by Ron
Sladek, Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
The first is the College Downtown Survey, a historic building survey of fifty commercial properties along five
blocks of College Avenue between Mulberry Street and Laporte Avenue. The survey is funded with the help of
a State Historical Fund grant from History Colorado. This survey will document important commercial
properties located in the heart of Downtown and evaluate their eligibility for National Register of Historic Places
listing and Fort Collins Landmark designation.
The second project is the Howes and Meldrum Survey, to document and record fifty historic properties in the
neighborhood north of the CSU campus, specifically along Howes and Meldrum Streets between Mulberry and
Laurel Streets. Historically residential, this neighborhood is currently transitioning into a mix of commercial,
multi-family and single-family resources. Again, the survey will document and evaluate the significance and
integrity of these properties and identify those properties that are eligible for designation at the national, state,
or local levels.
The Downtown encompasses more than the historic core of “Old Town." As noted in the 2017 Downtown Plan,
the Downtown is comprised of nine subdistricts or “character areas,” and its boundary incorporates areas
stretching from Vine Drive south to the Colorado State University campus and from Canyon Avenue eastward
to Lemay Avenue. These historic property surveys are part of the City’s continuing efforts to document and
evaluate its built environment.
Packet Pg. 104
CITY OF FORT COLLINSHISTORIC SITES SURVEYS‐ COLLEGE AVENUE ‐‐ HOWES & MELDRUM ‐ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 105
COLLEGE AVENUESURVEY AREALAPORTE AVE.TOMULBERRY ST.ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 106
HOWES & MELDRUMSURVEY AREAITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 107
SURVEY PROCESS•Field Documentation•Archival research•Site form preparation•Project report•Public toursITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 108
DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCEAGE OF THE RESOURCENATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES50 YEARS UNLESS OF EXCEPTIONAL SIGNIFICANCESTATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIESNO MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENTCITY OF FORT COLLINS LANDMARKNO MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENTITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 109
DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCEINTEGRITY OF THE RESOURCESEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY DEFINEDBY THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACESLOCATIONSETTINGDESIGNMATERIALSWORKMANSHIPFEELINGASSOCIATIONITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 110
DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCEFORT COLLINS CRITERIAMUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14‐5 A. EVENTS: ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A RECOGNIZABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITY, STATE OR NATIONB. PERSONS/GROUPS: ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS OR GROUPS OF PERSONS RECOGNIZABLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITY, STATE OR NATION WHOSE SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT HISTORY CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND DOCUMENTEDC. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION: EMBODIES THE IDENTIFIABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION; REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A CRAFTSMAN OR ARCHITECTWHOSE WORK IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM OTHERS BY ITS CHARACTERISTIC STYLE AND QUALITY; POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES OR DESIGN CONCEPTS; OR PART OF A RECOGNIZABLE AND DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF PROPERTIESD. INFORMATION POTENTIAL: HAS YIELDED, OR MAY BE LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 111
DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCEELIGIBILITY OF THE RESOURCEBASED UPON AGE, INTEGRITY AND SIGNIFICANCE‐YES‐NO‐ NEEDS MORE DATAITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 112