HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2020 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPage 1
Location:
This meeting will be held
remotely via Zoom
Staff Liaison:
Karen McWilliams
Meg Dunn, Chair
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair
Mollie Bredehoft, Co-Vice Chair
Michael Bello
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen
Jim Rose Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
November 18, 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 Commission members will 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/92814828882. (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 928 1482 8882. 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
Board for its consideration must be emailed to gschiager@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting.
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
• THANKSGIVING – CHAIR DUNN
• 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 OCTOBER 21, 2020.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 21, 2020 regular meeting of the
Landmark Preservation 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
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.
3.ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE) – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 1608, 1610, and 1618 S College for Alpine Bank
project, requiring demolition of two non-historic resources and onsite relocation
of one historic resource, which would require approval of a modification of
standards in section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Development site
is in the General Commercial (GC) zone district, and the decision maker for this
Type 1 Review will be a hearing officer.
APPLICANT: Zell Cantrell, Galloway
4.HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT OF FORT COLLINS WATER WORKS-FORT COLLINS
WATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 1
DESCRIPTION: Ashley Russell from RATIO/Humphries Poli Architects will provide a short
presentation on the highlights from the HSA report.
•OTHER BUSINESS
•ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 3
1
Gretchen Schiager
From:meg dunn <barefootmeg@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:54 PM
To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Extending our virtual meeting period
Hi Karen,
Given our ongoing COVID‐19 “Safer at Home” recommendation from the State, I think it would be prudent for us to
continue to hold meetings virtually for the foreseeable future. Why don’t we set June 2021 as a cut off point to revisit
this, with the option to revisit the issue sooner if somehow a vaccine is found and quickly disseminated early next year,
and the Safer at Home recommendation is lifted. I know that P&Z is holding a mixed meeting soon, so I think we should
be open to that should the need arise.
So, to summarize: Let’s plan to continue our virtual LPC meetings until June 2021 with the understanding that, should
the need arise, we would be willing to consider an alternative option on a one‐off basis. Given that the members of the
LPC seem to feel that our virtual meetings have been going well, I don’t foresee this happening. But I would like to be
flexible should an applicant or appellant feel the need for an in‐person setting.
Thanks!
‐ Meg
Packet Pg. 4
Date:
Roll Call Bello Bredehoft Knierim Ms. Michell Mr. Murray Nelsen Rose Wallace Dunn Vote
x x x Absent Absent x x x x 7 present
Consent Agenda: 1-Minutes Approval Bredehoft Bello Knierim Michell Wallace Rose Murray Nelsen Dunn
x x x Absent x x Absent x x 7-0
Roll Call & Voting Record
Landmark Preservation Commission
11/18/2020
Packet Pg. 4-1
Visitor Log
[This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.]
DATE: 11/18/20
Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance
Zell Cantrell
Architect
Galloway
6162 S. Willow Drive, Ste 320
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
ZellCantrell@gallowayus.com Item 3, Alpine Bank Dev Rev
Ben Van Hoose
Branch President
Alpine Bank
400 7th Street South
Rifle, CO 81650
BenVanHoose@alpinebank.com Item 3, Alpine Bank Dev Rev
Todd Goulding
Development Consultant Goulding Development Advisors TGoulding@gda-co.com Item 3, Alpine Bank Dev Rev
Glen Davis
Chief Retail Officer
Alpine Bank
Glenwood Springs Item 3, Alpine Bank Dev Rev
Ashley Russell
Architect/Consultant
RATIO Architects
1655 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
ARussell@ratiodesign.com Item 4, Filtration Plant #1 HSA Project
Jenny Roberts
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Item 4, Filtration Plant #1 HSA Project
Mark McLean
City of Fort Collins Operations
Services
Item 4, Filtration Plant #1 HSA Project
Packet Pg. 4-2
Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing
Date: 11/18/20
Document Log
(Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.)
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Draft Minutes for the LPC October Hearing
o Minor clarification made after work session.
2.Staff Design Review Decisions Report
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
3.Alpine Bank Conceptual Development Review
•Updated Staff Presentation 11-28-20
4.Filtration Plant #1 HSA Report
•No updates
EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING:
Item # Exhibit # Description:
3 A Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 4-3
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant
to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable,
Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F.
Name:
Title:
Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board,
Service Area Director, etc.):
Brief statement of interest:
Date: Signature:
REMOVAL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists.
Date: Signature:
cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager
cc (if City employee): HR Director
Updated: March 2014
Mollie Bredehoft
Landmark Preservation Commission Vice Chair
ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
I had conversations with members of the design team, including those from Galloway
about this project.
11/18/2020
Packet Pg. 4-4
LostPacket Pg. 4-5CHAIR DUNN'S THANKSGIVING PRESENTATION
SavedPacket Pg. 4-6CHAIR DUNN'S THANKSGIVING PRESENTATION
Photo by Ken JessenPacket Pg. 4-7CHAIR DUNN'S THANKSGIVING PRESENTATION
Photo by Karen Lloyd D’OnofrioPacket Pg. 4-8CHAIR DUNN'S THANKSGIVING PRESENTATION
Photo by Ken JessenPacket Pg. 4-9CHAIR DUNN'S THANKSGIVING PRESENTATION
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 18, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
STAFF
Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2020 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 12, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LPC October 21, 2020 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 October 21, 2020
Meg Dunn, Chair Location:
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was held
Michael Bello remotely via Zoom
Mollie Bredehoft
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen
Jim Rose
Regular Meeting
October 21, 2020
Minutes
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 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 video
conference.]
•ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Knierim, Michell, Murray, Nelsen, Wallace, Rose
ABSENT: None
STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager
•AGENDA REVIEW
No changes to the posted agenda.
•CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW
No items were pulled from consent.
•STAFF REPORTS
None.
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 October 21, 2020
• PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 16, 2020 regular meeting of the
Landmark Preservation Commission.
Mr. Rose moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 9-0.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
The Commission did not request a staff presentation, nor were there any questions or comments.
3. TENNEY COURT NORTH AND WEST OAK STREET ALLEYS CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark
Preservation Commission for improvements to two alleys: Tenney Court North
and West Oak Street.
APPLICANT: Downtown Development Authority
City of Fort Collins
Staff Report
Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She described the Downtown Development Authority's alley
improvement project, summarized the design elements, and clarified the location. She stated
construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2021 and noted these particular alleys are outside
any designated landmark area, although they do have some proximity to some historic properties.
[Secretary’s Note: Ms. Bredehoft lost connection at this time and the Commission took a short break
until she could reconnect. Upon reconvening, a roll call was taken to confirm all were present.]
Ms. Bzdek reviewed the role of the Commission and the applicable Code sections.
Applicant Presentation
Todd Dangerfield, Downtown Development Authority, discussed the alley improvement program stating
the remaining ten alleys will be complete by 2029. For these two alleys, the design is at 60%
completion. He discussed dumpster consolidation and detailed the coordination efforts with the City
Utilities for infrastructure projects that may need to be done simultaneously.
Kara Scohy, Norris Design, discussed the proposed design elements beginning with the Tenney Court
North Alley. She discussed the proposed gateways, entrances, lighting, dumpster enclosures, seating,
and plantings. She discussed the inclusion of the Poudre River and Canyon in the design.
Ms. Scohy discussed the highlights of the West Oak Street Alley design noting a great deal of the
inspiration came from the history of the Armstrong Hotel and the theme is art deco. She discussed the
lighting, planter pots, and seating.
Mr. Dangerfield discussed plans for protecting historic buildings stating festoon lighting will be the only
items connected to historic buildings for these two projects. He noted a plan of protection for all
buildings is in place. He stated the alleys will be under simultaneous construction with a start date of
April 2021.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 3 October 21, 2020
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Mr. Murray commended on the design around the parking area. He expressed some concern about
truck traffic in the Oak Street Alley. Ms. Scohy replied that has been taken into account with the design.
Mr. Bello asked about eliminating a lane at the alley entrance off Laporte. Ms. Scohy replied a lane is
not being eliminated.
Mr. Knierim asked if there would be any signage regarding the research done for the projects. Ms.
Scohy replied that is being considered. Mr. Dangerfield replied it could be valuable to have some type
of interpretive signage, possibly near the garage stair tower.
Ms. Wallace commended efforts to activate the alleys and the research done to incorporate historical
components. She asked if there will be any design elements that acknowledge the post office and its
period of construction. Ms. Scohy replied the history of the Armstrong ended up being the draw in
terms of inspiration. Mr. Dangerfield also noted the Armstrong is directly adjacent to the alley.
Chair Dunn asked what year the Post Office was built. Ms. Bzdek replied it was built in 1911.
Chair Dunn commended the planters that help to slow bike traffic behind Namaste. She noted that
could be helpful for the rear entrance to Ace Hardware as well. Mr. Dangerfield replied Ace Hardware
had expressed similar concerns and has been an enthusiastic partner. He stated he will return at the
first of the year with more information on the detailed design.
Mr. Murray recused himself from the next item due to a conflict of interest.
4.126 S. WHITCOMB ST: APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION ON DESIGN REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of a staff design review decision for 126 S.
Whitcomb Street. The applicant is proposing demolition of the historic 1932
garage and replacement with a new 1.5 story garage on its location. Staff
denied the request on August 25, 2020, and the owner filed an appeal on
August 26, 2020. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Landmark
Preservation Commission.
APPLICANT: Tara Gaffney (Property Owner)
Chair Dunn reminded everyone that new evidence is allowed for this item as the Commission will be
making a new determination.
Staff Report
Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He stated this is an appeal of a staff decision, however it is
being heard in a de novo fashion. He stated the Commission will be determining whether the garage
on this property is a historic feature. He provided photos of the property and discussed its location. He
discussed the undergrounding of Arthur's Ditch and resulting change to the shape of this lot noting the
only alley access to this property is the four-foot pedestrian right-of-way.
Mr. Bertolini reviewed the role of the Commission, relevant codes, and standards of rehabilitation. He
stated the Commission needs to confirm whether the garage is a contributing feature, and based on
the answer to that question, whether the proposed project meet standards for rehabilitation.
Mr. Bertolini reviewed the timeline of events with this property over the course of this year and stated
this applicant requested to demolish the existing one-car garage and replace it with a new structure,
which was denied by staff.
Mr. Bertolini provided background on the property, noting it is a contributing property to the Whitcomb
Street Historic District. He stated the house was constructed in 1904 and the garage in 1932 and he
reviewed changes made to the property over time.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 October 21, 2020
Mr. Bertolini showed photos and discussed the existing conditions of the property and garage. He
outlined the staff findings related to the ten rehabilitation standards and stated staff ultimately
determined the 1932 garage is a contributing resource to the Whitcomb Street Historic District in that it
represents the addition of the automobile to most middle-class households at that time. The design
assistance report was used to conclude that repair is possible in this case and demolition of the
contributing resource would not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation based
on the analysis. Mr. Bertolini stated the owner filed an appeal of that decision and Council subsequently
approved it for a remote hearing before the Commission.
Mr. Bertolini provided responses to questions raised at the work session specifically noting the garage
doors are not historic and the location of Arthur's Ditch does present some constraints on the site and
prohibits a more typical response to this sort of issue which would allow for the construction of a new
additional building.
Applicant Presentation
Tara Gaffney, property owner, explained the circumstances around her need to replace the garage with
a secure and safe structure that will house a car. She stated she was unaware of the design assistance
dollars received by the previous owners and was unaware of the presence of the house in the Whitcomb
Street Historic District when she purchased it. She stated she was provided plans for an addition to
the home but opted to not pursue that route due to expense.
Ms. Gaffney discussed the historic characteristics of the home and stated the location of the existing
garage is preventing them from building off the alley as there is no alley access. Additionally, the ditch
and required setbacks provide further difficulties. She stated the garage contains no historically
defining characteristics in her opinion, particularly when compared to the house. She stated the new
garage design will mimic the design of the house as much as possible.
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Ms. Nelsen asked how many garages like this exist in the historic district. Mr. Bertolini replied it is a
fairly common modification to find in the area.
Ms. Nelsen asked if this garage is an especially good example particularly given the roof and doors
have been modified. Mr. Bertolini replied it is fairly typical but in terms of integrity, the loss of the doors
is significant. He stated the tin roof is likely original, or at least historic, as is the siding; however, there
would normally be wood panel doors.
Ms. Nelsen asked about the width of door. Ms. Gaffney replied it is about ten feet wide by nine feet tall
and will not fit a modern large car.
Ms. Nelsen asked about the setback measurements. Mr. Bertolini identified the buildable space on the
lot.
Ms. Nelsen asked about a zoning decision in August. Mr. Bertolini replied plans were presented to the
Zoning Department and there were some issues with the overall height of the building in relation to the
zone district and accessory structures.
Ms. Nelsen asked if an addition could be made to the side of the structure. Mr. Bertolini replied the
main limitation is the 600 square foot size for accessory structures.
Ms. Nelsen asked Ms. Gaffney if she has considered adding on to the existing garage. Ms. Gaffney
replied that would present some design and access challenges and was not really considered. She
also noted there is a patio between the house and garage.
Mr. Rose questioned how this garage is considered to be a contributing resource given it is only
mentioned in one sentence in the historic district determination. He stated the garage does not
represent the same level of care and construction as that of the house and is from a different era. Mr.
Bertolini replied staff's decision was related to the context of the historic district and its development
over time.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 October 21, 2020
Ms. McWilliams noted she was the staff member who processed this historic district and stated staff
looked at the significance of the district under more than just architecture. Staff also considered the
broad patterns of development and people connected with it; therefore, a number of secondary
buildings qualify under not just architecture but for broad patterns of development.
Chair Dunn explained the Commission is to examine this based on the Code, not the reasons for the
proposal. She noted this is the only residential local historic district in Fort Collins and it is critically
important to safeguard it. She stated garages often do not match houses in style for this area because
cars did not come until after houses were built which is part of the pattern of development. She stated
that feeds into the significance of the district. She stated the garage is simple in design and is an
example of the upper middle-class neighborhood.
Mr. Bello agreed with Mr. Rose that the materials and character do not necessarily fit with the home.
He questioned whether this garage is important to the neighborhood in terms of defining character and
one could argue the proposal is for a structure that represents the need for the values of today and is
contrary to the original architecture, but is consistent with the historical need to provide a garage.
Mr. Knierim noted the period of significance is through 1940 and the garage was built during that time;
however, building a new garage still fits with the idea of adding a garage to the property.
Ms. Nelsen asked if the period of significance is for the house or the district as a whole. Mr. Bertolini
replied the period of significance is in the district nomination and applies to the district.
Ms. Michell commented on the utilitarian nature of the garage that matches the time in which it was
built. She stated adding on to the garage or replacing it would create a new pattern of development.
Ms. Wallace asked how many other homes in the district have garages. Mr. Bertolini replied most if
not all the contributing properties have a garage. The Commission looked at the district on Google
satellite view and discussed which properties have garages.
Chair Dunn commented on the subject garage being different than others in the district. She
encouraged the Commission to consider the period of significance noting this garage was built during
that period thereby making it historic if it is a contributing feature.
Ms. Nelsen asked about the protocol for purchasing homes in historic districts. Mr. Bertolini replied the
landmark designation is recorded and should be part of the title. He stated both the owner and realtor
should be bringing that to the attention of a buyer.
Ms. Nelsen stated it was unfortunate Ms. Gaffney was not aware of the designation. Ms. Gaffney
replied the knowledge probably would not have changed their minds as they love the home and its
location.
Chair Dunn noted the Commission must also consider whether the project meets the standards. She
noted the use of the property would remain the same, the house would not be altered, the spatial
relationship would be maintained, and the garage design maintains simplicity.
Ms. McWilliams noted City Council has determined the garage to be eligible as a contributing structure;
therefore, the Commission must determine whether the district would be harmed by the loss of this
element and whether the replacement plan meets standards.
Ms. Bredehoft mentioned the spatial relationship of the existing and proposed garage structures noting
the view from the street will change with the proposal.
Ms. Wallace commented on the historic garage additions noting they are utilitarian and less significant
than the home. She stated the design of the proposed garage may be too similar to that of the house
and could water down the integrity of the property and the district.
Ms. Nelsen agreed the proposed garage mimics the house in a way that may provide a false sense of
history.
Chair Dunn stated a different sense of history would exist if people were to mistake the new garage as
having been built at the same time and in the same style as the home.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 October 21, 2020
Mr. Bello noted there are other new garages in the district. Chair Dunn replied the home just to the
north of this is a new house and garage and the property further north also has a new garage. She
stated the historic district was made with a preponderance of historic buildings and those do not
contribute.
Ms. Nelsen suggested the garage doors could be replaced with something more secure as the doors
are not historic. She stated is seems the structural repairs are fairly straightforward.
Chair Dunn suggested changing the door could accommodate a larger vehicle and stated the
Commission could recommend allowing a greater floor area addition to the rear of the garage.
Mr. Bello suggested the Commission consider a motion on significance.
Chair Dunn clarified a motion related to significance should consider whether the garage is a character-
defining feature of the district.
[Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a break from 8:14 to 8:37 for Staff to obtain procedural advice
from Mr. Yatabe. Upon reconvening, a roll call was taken to confirm all were present.]
Mr. Yatabe explained some procedural considerations stating the Commission should make the
determination as to whether this garage is contributing to the district.
Mr. Bello discussed the reasons the garage may not be a contributing structure.
Mr. Rose stated the entire district nomination goes into great length about the importance of the houses
and their style and there is very little mention of other structures; therefore, he stated he has difficulty
finding the garage to be contributing solely by the virtue of the implication it has some importance
regarding evolution and development of the neighborhood.
Mr. Bello moved that the garage does not contribute to the significance of the property because
of the materials and lack of craftmanship associated with the structure, and therefore is not a
contributing factor to the historic character that the main house itself brings to the district.
Mr. Rose seconded.
Ms. Nelsen stated she has difficultly supporting the motion due to its verbiage. She questioned whether
Mr. Bello is implying the structure is not valuable because it is not an example of good craftsmanship
or that it has lost enough integrity that it is not valuable. Mr. Bello replied the garage doors are not
original and the roof may not be original; therefore, the structure as a whole may not contribute to the
integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Rose stated his concerns are not necessarily with integrity but stated the garage does not rise to
the level of being significant. However, he also stated the new proposal is not in accordance with the
rehabilitation standards as it is not differentiated substantially from the historic home.
Mr. Bello agreed the proposed garage may not meet the criteria.
Ms. Bredehoft stated she does not have an issue with the integrity; however, she is struggling with
significance. She stated these garages do add to the district; however, she questioned whether they
are mentioned as being significant in the district nomination.
Ms. Wallace noted each of the garages are different which fits in with the vernacular design.
Ms. Bredehoft clarified it is not the relationship between the garage and the house that is important, but
rather the relationship between the garages and the time period in the district.
Chair Dunn commented on the unity of the district and questioned whether the removal of the garage
will maintain that unity or will result in the loss of something of value that is contributing to the district.
Mr. Yatabe questioned whether any additional information would aid in the decision and noted there
would be an opportunity to continue the item to allow staff to provide that information.
Mr. Rose expressed support for continuing the item as he is not completely comfortable with the motion
and has significant concerns about proceeding without more information. He stated he would like to
have more background in terms of the context of the neighborhood and the configuration of the district
nomination.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 October 21, 2020
Ms. Bredehoft agreed.
Chair Dunn commented on the research that should be included in a good nomination form and stated
this form was not quite to that level of specificity.
Mr. Bello withdrew his motion. Mr. Rose withdrew his second.
Mr. Bello stated he would like staff to return with information regarding how the garage was included in
the makeup of the district and whether it was mentioned or included as being contributing to the historic
nature of the district.
Ms. McWilliams stated staff could do a literature search around the creation of the district or hire an
outside consultant to reevaluate the garages and accessory structures and their levels of contributing
to the district.
Chair Dunn stated she would prefer an outside consultant. Ms. Michell, Mr. Rose, Ms. Nelsen, and Mr.
Knierim agreed.
Mr. Bello moved to continue the consideration of this item to the December meeting. Ms. Nelsen
seconded. Motion passed 8-0.
Mr. Murray returned to the meeting.
5. 237 & 243 JEFFERSON STREET – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark
Preservation Commission for proposed additions to the two buildings at 237 &
243 Jefferson Street in the Old Town Historic District.
APPLICANT: Sunil Cherian (owner); Matt Rankin (architect)
Staff Report
Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report stating this is a conceptual review and the applicant is
seeking comments from the Commission regarding proposed additions to two buildings at 237 and 243
Jefferson Street. She discussed the property location and discussed the role of the Commission in a
conceptual review. She stated the two sets of standards that guide this project are the Old Town District
Design Standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. She discussed the
history of the property and detailed its historic architectural features.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Cherian addressed the Commission and discussed his plans for a possible addition to the property
stating he is seeking input as to the feasibility of the plans from an historic preservation perspective.
He stated he would like to balance the historic nature of the property with its functional use.
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Dunn thanked Mr. Cherian for coming to the Commission.
Mr. Murray stated most of the plans seem to fit the design standards. He commented on the view from
Union and the need to ensure the addition is subordinate to the historic building. He stated retractable
shading is a good idea and commended the initial plans.
Chair Dunn commended the moveable shade feature and suggested it be as airy as possible. She
also commended the idea of including glass as it creates a good way to have modernity fit into the
history. She discussed the importance of maintaining differentiation while still showing a relationship.
Ms. Nelsen asked whether the pergola is for function or ambiance. Mr. Cherian replied he is open to
ideas and stated the ambiance is what is important in terms of bringing the outdoors inside.
Ms. Nelsen commented on the importance of a simpler design and stated the juxtaposition of materials
is worth studying.
Ms. Nelsen asked if an elevator will be required. Mr. Rankin, the architect, replied in the affirmative.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 October 21, 2020
Chair Dunn asked if there are plans to leave the historic back and side walls. Mr. Cherian replied the
corner is tricky. Mr. Rankin replied the area is difficult to address and stated he likes the idea of pulling
the vertical circulation away from the building. He stated he thinks the existing structure should stay
intact and be visible. He commented on potential design solutions and other City requirements.
Chair Dunn stated the initial plans are on the right track and suggested Commission members comment
on materiality guidelines. Mr. Rankin discussed materials used for contemporary additions in other
projects.
Ms. Nelsen stated high-quality materials are important.
Chair Dunn stated using brick could be confusing. She noted restoration work on the historic buildings
could be eligible for tax credits and she recommended the applicants talk to staff about those benefits.
Mr. Cherian asked about the Commission's approach to the inclusion of rooftop solar panels. Mr.
Murray stated the less visible they are, the better. Chair Dunn replied the Commission likes to see
sustainable options done well.
6. ADOPTION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2021 WORK PLAN
The purpose of this item is to discuss and adopt the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Work Plan
for 2021.
Staff Report
Ms. McWilliams explained that the only change since the work session discussion was to add
information about equity and inclusion.
Commission Questions and Discussion
None.
Commission Deliberation
Ms. Nelsen moved to adopt the 2021 work plan as presented.
Mr. Bello seconded. The motion passed 9-0.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Dunn mentioned the upcoming Historic Larimer County Zoom presentation on how northern
Colorado has faced past pandemics.
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Minutes prepared by Tripoint Data, LLC and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.
_____________________________________
Meg Dunn, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT October 21, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, SEPTEMBER 3 TO OCTOBER 7,
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 October 8 to November 4, 2020.
There is no staff presentation this month.
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of
Decision
121 N. Grant Ave.
Restoration/rehabilitation of missing screen door.
City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved October 9,
2020
902-904 Remington
St.
Approval of basement window replacement with
expanding sliding vinyl egress windows (historic
windows already replaced with vinyl; previous
egress replacement approved w/ similar details
in 2019). Fourplex and contributing property to
Laurel School Historic District (NRHP).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved October 12,
2020
300 W. Mountain
Ave.
ADA ramp and entrance landing. City Landmark.
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved October 12,
2020
224 E. Elizabeth St. Rooftop solar on south elevation of new 2003
garage at rear of lot. Contributing building to
Laurel School Historic District (NRHP).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved October 13,
2020
601-603 Mathews
St.
In-kind roof replacement for flat section only
(TPO membrane). Contributing building to Laurel
School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by
staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved October 14,
2020
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 2
225 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing building to Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved October 21,
2020
425 10th St. In-kind roof replacement for non-historic c.1980
shed (TPO membrane). City Landmark
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved October 28,
2020
1501 Peterson St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). City
Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved November 2,
2020
1001 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Non-
contributing building to Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under
Municipal Code 14, Article IV; report waived.
Approved November 4,
2020
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 18, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE) – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAFF
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 1608, 1610, and 1618 S College for Alpine Bank
project, requiring demolition of two non-historic resources and onsite
relocation of one historic resource, which would require approval of a
modification of standards in section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
Development site is in the General Commercial (GC) zone district, and the
decision maker for this Type 1 Review will be a hearing officer.
APPLICANT: Zell Cantrell, Galloway
LPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide conceptual review comments regarding the proposed alterations,
relative to their compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is preparing to submit a PDP application for the proposed Alpine Bank project and has
participated in the conceptual review process with City staff. As a presubmittal requirement for the proposed
project, City staff contracted with Jason Marmor of Retrospect to evaluate the structures at 1610 and 1618 S
College and produce evaluations via intensive-level survey forms. Mr. Marmor found 1610 S College to be
eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under criterion 3(C) based on its architectural significance as a
Craftsman bungalow. The evaluation found that the residential structure retains very good architectural
integrity, with no major alterations since it was constructed in 1928. Mr. Marmor found that the commercial
building at 1618 S College is not eligible for landmark designation as it lacks significance under any of the
criteria. Staff did not require an intensive-level survey of the commercial building at 1608 S College due to
significant recent alterations that render it ineligible for consideration as a historic resource at this time.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
In order to redevelopment this multi-parcel site for the Alpine Bank project, the applicant proposes to demolish the
structures at 1608 and 1618 South College Avenue, move the residential historic building at 1610 South College
to the southern end of the development site and rehabilitate it for adaptive reuse, and construct a two-story,
7,800-square foot bank building with drive-up teller and ATM lanes and onsite parking, as well as the required
northbound deceleration lane and detached sidewalk and associated treelawn along College Avenue.
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review of the proposed changes is the development site
because it contains an identified historic resource.
Packet Pg. 16
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 2
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for
new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site
or surrounding neighborhood context.
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.
The property at 1610 S College was a residence for fifty years, between its
construction date in 1928 and 1978. At that time, its use converted to
office/commercial.
The proposed redevelopment of this site would continue the property’s era of
adaptive reuse as an office/commercial building. To incorporate it into the
proposed redevelopment, the building would be moved to the south,
impacting its existing integrity of location and setting. The applicant proposed
no other alterations or impacts to the building’s materials, design, and
workmanship.
TBD
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.
As noted above, the proposed work does include moving the building at 1610
S College to accommodate the new construction, which will impact the
integrity of its location and setting.
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.
Moving the building immediately to the south has the potential to create a
false sense of history, so the redevelopment will need to include visible
indicators and/or interpretative signage to document that the building has
been moved.
TBD
SOI #4
Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own
right will be retained and preserved.
Documentation of 1610 S College indicates no changes that have acquired
significance in their own right.
N/A
Packet Pg. 17
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 3
SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The application provides for the possibility of a sensitive rehabilitation of the
property to preserve its architectural integrity in design, materials, and
workmanship—an approach that staff recommends to offset the negative
impact on integrity that will result from moving the building to a nearby
location.
TBD
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.
The applicant has identified and documented issues with the brick portion of
the building’s original foundation, which is the most urgent matter regarding
the building’s existing condition. Consultation from the LPC to guide the
appropriate repair or replacement of the foundation, in association with the
proposed relocation, is a primary consideration for the Commission’s review.
Other rehabilitation needs should be highlighted by the Commission for the
applicant’s consideration.
TBD
SOI #7
Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the
gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials
will not be used.
The applicant’s proposal to move the building to the south, while
simultaneously addressing the foundation issues, should be carefully
considered under this standard along with any other proposed exterior
rehabilitation plans for the building.
TBD
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.
Any changes to the building that the applicant may propose to accommodate
its new use in a new location should be considered under this standard.
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.
While the proposed relocation of the building is irreversible under all
foreseeable conditions, there are no design changes to the building that
threaten its essential form and integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship.
TBD
Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 4
3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection
A draft plan of protection that outlines how historic resources will be protected during the process of rehabilitation
and new construction on the site (as well as ongoing use and operations) is required prior to the Landmark
Preservation Commission providing a recommendation to the decision maker regarding a development project.
2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures (H): Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the decision maker may grant a
modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested
equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent
and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project
would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the
city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict
application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such
property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not
caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this
Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the
entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained
in Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings
showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3)
or (4).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Site Form_1610 S College
4. Site Form_1618 S College
Packet Pg. 19
1
Alpine Bank (1608-1618 S College) – Conceptual Review
Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, November 18, 2020
Site
2
1608
1610
1618
1
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 20
Project Summary
3
• Demolish structures at 1608 and 1618 S College
• Move Craftsman residence (1610 S College) south; adaptive reuse
• Construct 2-story, 7,800 s.f. bank building with drive-up teller and ATM
• Add northbound deceleration lane, tree lawn/detached sidewalk
MB1
4
Eligibility Assessments
• 1608 S College (Lewan Bldg) cleared via recon survey
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 21
Slide 3
MB1 Maren Bzdek, 11/3/2020
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 22
5
Eligibility Assessments
• Intensive-level surveys:
• 1610 S College: Eligible (Criterion C – Craftsman Bungalow)
• 1618 S College: Not Eligible
6
-Constructed 1928
-I.C. Bradley’s Addition: residential
on 1600 Blk
- List family
-1960s: Blk conversion to
commercial after CO287 widened
1948
History – 1610 S College
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 23
Craftsman Architectural Features
7
Original materials, design, workmanship
• Side-gabled roof, wood frame bungalow
• Overhanging eaves, exposed beams and
rafter tails
• Wood shingle cladding of gable faces
• Open front porch
• Multi-light sash-and-transom windows
• Semi-subterranean single-car garage
Altered
• front porch posts, stairs/railings
• two rear windows and garage door
replaced
Rehab needs: foundation issue
8
7
8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 24
9
Proposed Site Plan
Review Requirements
10
SOI Standards
Modification of Standards criteria:
• Plans are equal or better than plan that
complies
• Plans substantially address important
need in City Plan
• Exceptional physical conditions and
practical difficulties
• Divergence from standards is nominal or
inconsequential
Design Compatibility with Craftsman
residence
9
10
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 25
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7
11
Key Questions:
• Does the LPC support the applicant’s rationale for a modification of
standards that would allow moving the building to the south?
• Does the LPC have comments/concerns regarding the rehabilitation
treatment plan for the Craftsman residence, including the foundation?
• Does the LPC have comments/concerns regarding new landscaping
and site design?
• Does the design of the new construction comply with all six of the
compatibility standards in 3.4.7(E), Table 1?
• Other questions or concerns?
11
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 26
6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
303.770.8884 • GallowayUS.com
October 26, 2020
Maren Bzdek
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Alpine Bank at SEC of S. College & E. Prospect
1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Relocation of Architecturally Significant Building
Dear Maren,
Please find enclosed the following materials in anticipation of a Conceptual Review by the Fort Collins
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) at their regularly scheduled meeting to be held on
Wednesday, November 18, 2020.
•Project Narrative
•Conceptual Site Plan dated October 26, 2020
•Modification of Standards (DRAFT) relative to relocation of Architecturally Significant Building
Located at 1610 S. College Avenue
•Design Compatibility Standards associated with proposed new Alpine Bank located within 200’
of Architecturally Significant Building located at 1610 S. College Avenue
•Conceptual Exterior Elevations dated October 26, 2020
Please review the enclosed materials and let us know if you have any questions or require additional
information. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. We look forward to discussing our
proposal with you in November.
Sincerely,
GALLOWAY
Zell O. Cantrell
Site Development Project Manager
Zell Cantrell@GallowayUS.com
cc: Glenn Davis, Alpine Bank via Email
Ben Van Hoose, Alpine Bank via Email
Todd Goulding, GDA via Email
Kristoffer Kenton via Email
Dana Clark via Email
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 27
6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
303.770.8884 • GallowayUS.com
Project Narrative
Alpine Bank at SEC of S. College Avenue & E. Prospect Road
1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue – Fort Collins, CO
The proposed project anticipates the redevelopment of multiple properties located at the
southeast corner of S. College Avenue & E. Prospect Road into an 7,800 +/- square foot
branch office of Alpine Bank which would provide banking services both interior to the
building as well as through drive-up teller and ATM lanes located on the exterior of the
building. Access to and from the site is anticipated to come from a single curb-cut to be
located on S. College Avenue as well as from the Alley which borders the eastern edge of the
site which allows access from Prospect Road.
The existing property consists of multiple lots including three different existing buildings all of
which include frontage along S. College Avenue. The northern (1608 S. College) and
southern (1618 S. College) most buildings were both constructed in the 1960s and appear to
have served a variety of retail and commercial uses since that time. The middle building
(1610 S, College) was constructed in the 1920s and served primarily as residential until the
late 1970s when it has since been used for commercial purposes. Access to the three
buildings comes primarily from multiple curb-cuts on College Avenue as well as from the alley
which borders the eastern edge of the properties. The referenced alley provides direct
access to Prospect Road to the north and Parker Street to the South.
Based on two different Concept Review Meetings as well as several follow-up meetings with
Development Review Staff we have developed a site plan that includes a two-story, 7,800 +/-
square foot branch office for Alpine Bank located on the northern portion of the site with
visibility from both S. College as well as E. Prospect. We have consolidated access to site
resulting in a single access from S. College and shared access to E. Prospect. Shared
access to E. Prospect is the result of discussions with city staff in which it is was determined
that direct access from the property is not necessary if we can achieve a shared access
scenario through use of the alley which borders the eastern edge of the site.
Proposed development would include three drive-through lanes located on the east side of
the building away from the S, College frontage. Drive-through will include two teller lanes
operated and one ATM accessible lane. Site has been designed to accommodate vehicular
parking located at the eastern and southern portions of the site oriented from both public
rights-of-ways. We have also incorporated a north bound deceleration/right-hand turn lane
into S. College Avenue to better facilitate right-hand turn movements from S. College to
Prospect. The proposed deceleration lane and subsequent right-of way dedication is a
requirement from the City of Fort Collins. Improvements along S. College also include
incorporation of an 8’ tree lawn and detached sidewalk consistent with Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards. Addition of the deceleration lane, tree lawn, and detached sidewalk
will allow for final build-out of the southeast quadrant of the intersection consistent with the
other three quadrants.
The proposed project as described anticipates the demolition of two of the three existing
buildings and on-site relocation of the third building which has been identified as being
‘Architecturally Significant’ as the result of a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey completed in
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 28
Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 2 of 2
January 2020. The two buildings to be demolished are located at 1608 and 1618 S. College
Avenue. Please note that both of these buildings were the subject of two separate Colorado
Cultural Resource Surveys completed simultaneous with the previously referenced survey
and were not deemed to be historically significant. The building to be relocated on-site is
currently located at 1610 S. College Avenue and would be relocated to the South end of the
site to better facilitate redevelopment of the northern portion of the properties into a branch
office for Alpine Bank.
It is our understanding that the Section 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources of the Land
Use Code does not currently include a provision that would allow for the on-site relocation of
any building deemed to provide some level of historical significance. Therefore, our
application for Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) will include a Request for Modification of
Standards intended to justify and hopefully secure a recommendation to approve the on-site
relocation of this ‘Architecturally Significant’ to better facilitate the proposed development. A
DRAFT copy of this Request for Modification which includes our justifications has been
attached for your review and comment.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 29
6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
303.770.8884 • GallowayUS.com
October 26, 2020
Maren Bzdek
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Alpine Bank at SEC of S. College & E. Prospect
1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources
of Land Use Code (DRAFT)
Background Information
Alpine Bank is currently under contract to lease approximately .96 Acres at the Southeast corner of S.
College Avenue * E. Prospect Road in Fort Collins. Colorado. Property is more commonly identified as
1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue. Property consists of multiple lots which include three
existing buildings. All three buildings either have been or are currently being used for commercial
purposes. Two of the three buildings appear to have been designed for commercial purposes and are
believed to have been constructed in the mid-1960s. The remaining building is a residential design
and believed to have been constructed in 1928.
All three properties are currently zoned General Commercial District (C-G) which allows for a variety of
retail and commercial uses including “Offices, Financial Services & Clinics” as defined in the Zoning
District Matrix of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The proposed development would be subject
to a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP), subsequent Type 1 Review and Public Hearing, and
eventually a Final Development Plan (FDP). The decision maker for Type 1 Hearings is an
Administrative Hearing Officer which is a land use attorney from outside of Fort Collins.
In order to facilitate the proposed project, we anticipate the demolition of two of the three buildings and
on-site relocation of the third building which has been identified as being ‘Architecturally Significant’ as
the result of a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey completed in January 2020. The two buildings to be
demolished are located at 1608 and 1618 S. College Avenue. The building to be relocated on-site is
currently located at 1610 S. College Avenue and would be relocated to the South end of the site to
better facilitate redevelopment of the northern portion of the property into a branch office for Alpine
Bank.
While we have not formally submitted our application for PDP, we have had two Concept Review
Meetings with the Development Review Team and several follow-up meetings and calls to work
through a variety of issues. One of which is the possible relocation of the architecturally significant
building located at 1610 S. College Avenue. Based on those discussions and our understanding of
Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources of the Fort Collins Land Use Code there are no
provisions in place for the relocation of structures deemed to be of architectural significance.
Modification of Standards Requested
We are requesting a Modification of Standard Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources of the
Fort Collins Land Use Code which would allow for the relocation of a building deemed to be of
architectural significance based on the following justifications.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 30
Alpine Bank
S. College & E. Prospect
October 26. 2020
Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 2 of 5
Justifications
1. Proposed deceleration lane creating undesirable proximity of Architecturally Significant
Building to College Avenue – Proposed redevelopment will require the addition of a
deceleration/right-hand turn lane to north bound College Avenue to Prospect Road. Proposed
deceleration lane will require a right-of-way dedication on behalf of the property owner as well
as the addition of a detached sidewalk and tree lawn to the College Avenue frontage. Per
recommendations found in the Traffic Impact Study by Kimley-Horn dated October 2020 the
length of the deceleration lane should be maximized and expected to about 190’ which will
correspond with the proposed location of the right-in/right-out access. These improvements
result in approximately 30’ of encroachment into the property vs. existing conditions which will
eliminate any existing historical or residential context in and around the building. The
proposed on-site relocation would not only allow us to shift to building further south but also to
shift the building to the east and allow us to create some separa tion or buffer between the
existing building and College Avenue.
Figure 1.1 – Site Plan
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 31
Alpine Bank
S. College & E. Prospect
October 26. 2020
Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 3 of 5
2. Spacing of revised access point from College – Right-of-way dedications and addition of a
deceleration lane will also require modifications to existing access along College Ave. Per
recommendations found in the Traffic Impact Study by Kimley-Horn dated October 2020 the
length of the deceleration lane should be maximized and expected to about 190’ which will
correspond with the proposed location of the right-in/right-out access. It should be noted that
the preferred location does take into account spacing between existing access points located
further south on S. College Avenue. Please note that proposed access location conflicts with
location of existing building to remain. Please see Exhibit 1.1 above for additional details.
3. No Existing Historical Context at Present Location – Existing location on S. College in
which the building is flanked on both the north and south sides by buildings constructed nearly
four decades later provides no historical context for the building at this time. Referenced
buildings are both believed to be constructed in the 1960s a represent a significant departure
in architectural style from the building located at 1610 S. College. While it is believed that
several similarly styled residential houses were once located along S. College Avenue prior to
construction of these two adjacent buildings in the 1960s, those build ings no longer exist
making this building the only remaining example of this type of architecture along this stretch
of S. College. Since no historical context remains in the existing loc ation, we believe
relocation to the south does not represent a significant departure from the current context. We
further believe that relocation to the south and possibly to the east away from S. College
actually presents an opportunity to provide or enhance the surrounding context to better reflect
what might have existed when the building was originally constructed in the 1920s.
4. Integration into overall development in a way that allows for a functional site plan for
new use as well as adaptive reuse – Existing location of house essentially bisects the site
into one mostly developable area to the north and a mostly undevelopable area to the south.
By leaving the building in place we would be trying to redevelop the property around it wi th a
somewhat inconsistent or incompatible use located in the middle of the property. Simply
shifting or relocating the building to the south would allow for a more cohesive or contiguous
development of the property to the north. We have included two hypothetical site plans below
for reference. Note that current location of historically significant building creates two
undesirable scenarios for proposed access – one in which stacking for the deceleration lane is
too short and the other in which in extends so far south the spacing between additional access
points along College is insufficient.
Exhibit 4.1 – Hypothetical Exhibit 4.2 – Hypothetical
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 32
Alpine Bank
S. College & E. Prospect
October 26. 2020
Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 4 of 5
The location of the existing building further limits our ability to develop the property in a
functional manner by forcing customer parking away from the proposed building. In both
hypothetical site plan scenarios customer parking is not at all convenient and therefore not
functional for a retail banking facility such as Alpine Bank.
5. Structural Concerns – Based on a preliminary review of the foundation of the existing building
there are definitely concerns that will need to be addressed in order to safely reuse. With both
ends of the building indicating some form of movement we believe soil movement may be an
issue. Not only will the existing foundation need to be repaired, but we will also need to
determine the source of the movement and correct if possible. For these reasons, we believe
relocation of the building onto a new foundation system at the sout h end of the site is the best
long-term solution for the reuse of this building. See photos below for reference.
Exhibit 5.1 Exhibit 5.2
Exhibit 5.3 Exhibit 5.4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 33
Alpine Bank
S. College & E. Prospect
October 26. 2020
Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 5 of 5
Section 2.8.2(H) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code(LUC) provides that “the decision Maker may grant
a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental
to the public good.” Even more than not being detrimental to the public good, the requested
modification would benefit the public for the following reasons: (i) allow for the redevelopment of this
quadrant of this prominent intersection with a first class community oriented banking service not
currently present in the community; and (ii) allow for the preservation and reuse of an existing historical
resource in a manner consistent with maintaining historical context, redevelopment into a cohesive and
functional site plan, and maintain the future structural integrity of the building ; and (iii) allow for
improvements along S. College Avenue in a manner that will enhance traffic safety in a manner
consistent with the other three quadrants of this intersection.
In addition to not being detrimental to the public good, the decision maker must a lso find, pursuant to
Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC, that the modification meets one of four criteria. Within this modification
request we believe we have substantiated that we meet the following criteria.
Criteria 1 of 4 – “The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better that would a plan which complied with the standard for
which the modification is requested.
The plan as submitted which anticipates the relocation of the existing historical resource will promote
the general purpose of the standard by allowing the resource to be preserved, reused, and
incorporated into the proposed development in a manner that will not only enhance the overall
development but also address public safety. The proposed relocation will not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic resources on nearby property because the adjacent properties along S. College
have not been deemed of historical significance and the relocated building will not be moved from the
property. The relocation will also allow for the design of a site plan compatible with and protect the
historical resource by integrating it into the overall site plan in a functional manner.
Criteria 2 of 4 – “the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing,
defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city
by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an
adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard
would render the project practically infeasible”
The plan as submitted will benefit the city by allowing for the redevelopment and subsequent off-site
improvements at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of S. College & E. Prospect . The proposed
improvements will not only be consistent with recent improvements at the other three quadrants on the
intersection but also address an overall community need of improving traffic safety at the intersection
through improved design and traffic movement.
Please review the enclosed materials and let us know if you have any questions or require additional
information. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. We look forward to discussing our
proposal with you in November.
Sincerely,
GALLOWAY
Zell O. Cantrell
Site Development Project Manager
Zell Cantrell@GallowayUS.com
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 34
6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
303.770.8884 • GallowayUS.com
Design Compatibility Standards
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective or the
mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
The massing of the proposed design will integrate a variety of massing strategies to specifically relate
to the existing historic structure and the adjacent residential neighborhood. The new structure in
addition will provide appropriate scale and massing at the intersection as part of the midtown design
standards.
2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create gradual massing
transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development
site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of
stepbacks required by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions
closest to historic resources.
The building placement, orientation, setbacks along with scale and massing were thought through as
they relate to the surrounding block and historical on-site structure. The two- story massing on the
new construction is in the northwest portion of the footprint to establish a strong, identifiable presence
on the corner of S. College and E. Prospect. The design will then step down to a single -story module
to the south as it approached the historic building. The lower, wrap-around porch and planter boxes
are intended to aid in creating a strong sense of “human scale” and urban streetscape while providing
additional buffer from the busy street. While not historic the surrounding residential neighborhood to
the east is treated in a similar fashion with the mass of the building stepping down as it approaches the
alley.
3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of
authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast
concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards.
The proposed materials for the new building are intended to be high-quality, durable, materials
including brick on the lower level to match the proportion of the brick on the historical building with
cedar shakes above. The weathering characteristics of the cedar will add to the authenticity and
natural semblance of the façade, traditional craftsman details are intended to be used throughout the
building to add additional unifying characteristics to the building to emphasize its connection to the
historic structure
4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources
on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select
the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any
stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) Type, 2) Scale, 3) Color, 4) Three-dimensionality, and 5) Pattern.
1) The proposed design will incorporate a broad, open porch typical of the Craftsman style and
similar in design to the front porch on the existing historic structure. The porch will create a
semi-private space functioning as a social interface with the street. This will help establish a
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 35
Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 2 of 2
“pedestrian friendly” quality as well as strengthen the design relationship with the existing
structure. In addition, deep roof eaves, columns, exposed beams, and a muted, earthly color
palette will establish the connection to the Craftsman era and historical structure.
2) The building will be subdivided into principal modules that will step down as it moves towards
the historic structure and the adjoining residential neighborhood.
3) The new building and the historic building while using the same exact color palette will utilize
the traditional colors founds on the craftsman style buildings, in addition where applicable the
two buildings will be unified in color by materials such as the brick and paint colors.
4) The new building will utilize materials such as brick, wood siding, shake shingle siding, etc.,
to create a strong residential relationship to the existing craftsman bungalow, all of which will
provide a similar three-dimensionality for the materials of the street face of the building.
5) The new building will utilize a similar fenestration pattern and style as the existing historical
building to further tie to the two buildings together architecturally.
5. Use at least one of the following: 1) Similar window pattern, 2) Similar window proportion of height
to width, and 3) Similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley.
1. As mentioned above the fenestration style and pattern is intended to be reflective of the
traditional craftsman style of the existing historic building. While the existing building’s
“pattern” is not existent due to the scale of the building it is our intent to reflect more on the
style of the period while providing a pattern relative to the scale of the new building.
2. Similar to above the windows will need to be different in height and width due to the overall
scale of the building and it’s intended use, i.e. commercial vs. residential so the widows on the
new building will be more about relating to proportion rather than exact height and width.
3. Similar to above given the scale of the new building and it’s intended commercial use, the
solid-to-void pattern will be slightly different than what is found on the history residential
building, again our intent is that the new building relates in style and period, not an exact
representation.
6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and belt
courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting or
across a side alley.
Strong horizontal references will be used including gabled, low-pitched roof forms typical of the
Craftsman style on current building on-site. The proportion of materials will also mimic that of
the existing structure.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 36
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 37
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
I. IDENTIFICATION
1.Resource number: 5LR.14742
2.Temporary resource number: N/A
3.County: Larimer
4.City:Fort Collins
5.Historic building name: List House
6.Current building name: None
7.Building address: 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Note: Prior to c. 1979, when it was converted from residential to
commercial use, the building’s address was 1616 South College.
8.Owner name and address:Remington North LLC
1400 South Colorado Blvd., Suite 410
Denver, CO 80222
II.GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9.P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W
NW ¼ of NW ½ of NW ¼ of NW ¼ of section 24
10.UTM reference
Zone 13; 449664 m E; 493508 m N
11.USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO
Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15'
12.Lot(s): 5
Block: 1
Plat: I.C. Bradley Addition Platted: 1925
Parcel Number: Parcel No. 97242-16-005
13.Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal
description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97242-16-005, comprising Lot 5 of Block
1 in I.C. Bradley’s Addition to Fort Collins. The site boundary encompasses the area associated
with its historic residential use. The parcel is 50 ft wide x 160 ft deep, and encompasses the
historic dwelling and surrounding yards. No outbuildings or other free-standing structures are
presently located on the property. The boundary encompasses the area associated with the
building’s historic use.
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
14.Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular
15.Dimensions in feet: Length: 50.5 ft. x Width: 28 ft.
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 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 38
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
16. Number of stories: 1.0
17. Primary external wall material(s): Wood – Narrow clapboard siding
18. Roof configuration: Gable – side gable
19. Primary external roof material: Composition shingles
20. Special features: Porch; garage
21. General architectural description: This single-story, wood frame dwelling is a very well
preserved/unaltered example of a modest Craftsman-style house, and contains 1,127 ft² of
living space. The house has a full concrete basement with exposed, above-grade red brick (or
red brick-veneered) walls penetrated at intervals by small basement windows. Its exterior walls
are clad with narrow clapboard siding which may be original. The building’s main mass is
rectangular in plan, and is covered by a moderately-pitched side gable roof with wide
overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. On the gable ends, chamfered square-sided
wooden beams extend beneath the eaves. The rear portion of the main mass of the house is
end-gabled, with similar eave and gable face details.
The façade is asymmetrically arranged, and faces west. A partially recessed/partially projecting
open front porch occupies the right/south portion of the façade. The porch is accessed by
(modern) wooden stairs with stained wood balustrade handrails. At the corners of the porch’s
clapboard-clad closed rails are plain modern wooden posts supporting the low-pitched shed
porch roof. The porch retains its original beadboard ceiling, as well as its board floor. The main
entry is situated on the façade within the porch, and appears to retain the original Craftsman-
style multi-light glazed wooden door. Flanking the entry are identical Craftsman-style 3-over-1
light sash and transom windows, and to the left of the porch on the façade is a tandem set of
similar 3-over-1 light sash and transom windows.
The side elevations share common features, such as gable faces that are clad with square-cut
wood shingles, which surround centered, small, 1-over-1 double-hung attic-level windows.
However, fenestration on the side elevations differs. The north elevation is fitted with three
sets of windows, including, near the front of the building, a tandem set of small (fixed?)
Craftsman-style windows, each with three narrow lights. Farther back is a tandem set of taller,
but small 3-over-1 sash-and transom windows, and near the rear/east end of the building is a
solitary 3-over-1 sash and transom window.
The south elevation has less space for windows due to the cut-out for the inset front porch.
Still, there are six windows on the building’s south side, all of which are 3-over-1 sash and
transom windows. These include two similar small 3-over-1 sash-and transom windows, three
closely spaced taller and narrower 3-over-1 light windows, and a solitary window placed
towards the east end of the elevation.
Attached to the rear, southeastern end of building is a lower height, small gable-roofed
enclosed rear porch or “mud room” which is clad with the same narrow clapboard siding as the
main mass of the house. The porch appears to be an original, Craftsman-inspired part of the
house, and building permit records do not indicate that it could be an addition built between
1928 and the very early 1950s. Its roof is relative low-pitched. Due to the sloping ground, the
porch is elevated. On its south side is an entry that is accessed by a small plain set of wooden
steps. The entry is covered by a shallow gabled wooden canopy supported by substantial
wooden Craftsman-style knee braces, and an old painted wood panel door is installed. The
rear/east end of the porch features two large fixed nearly square windows that may be modern,
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 39
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
and the north side of the porch is equipped with a solitary small 1-over-1 double-hung window.
The remainder of the home’s rear (east) elevation is clad and fenestrated similar to the gabled
side elevations.
On the rear/east end of the building, offset to the north end of the building, is an unusual
feature: a semi-subterranean, integral, single car garage that is an original feature of the house.
It is equipped with a modern roll-up sheet metal garage door and is accessed via a gently sloping
driveway consisting of what appears to be original concrete two-tracks, with the space between
the tracks filled in more recently with flagstone.
22. Architectural style/building type: Craftsman/bungalow
23. Landscaping or special setting features: This house stands as an isolated residential building
along South College Avenue just south of Prospect Road. From Prospect south, College Avenue
(Highway 287) is a busy commercial corridor with a wide variety of commercial buildings of
various ages (most post 1960) lining both sides of the highway, including in the 1600 block of
South College Avenue. The rectangular lot containing the house contains 7,190 ft² (0.17 acre)
and it slopes down toward the east. The parcel is not fenced, and its landscaping includes a
cluster of several medium-sized deciduous trees near the lot line by the house’s northeast
corner. The stump of another tree is located adjacent to the rear porch entry. Several large but
low juniper shrubs are established in the front yard, including flanking the front porch stairs. A
modern signboard supported by 4x4-inch posts also stands in the front right (south) portion of
the front yard. The rear portion of the lot behind the house is devoid of outbuildings or other
features.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1928
Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 1976, issued to owner W.M. Weber on March 14,
1928 for construction of a new residence
26. Architect: Unknown
Source(s) of information: No information found
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown
Source(s) of information: No information found
28. Original owner: W.M. Weber
Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 1976, issued to owner W.M. Weber on March 14,
1928 for construction of a new residence
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): This handsome, single-story, wood frame Craftsman bungalow was constructed
in 1928, after a building permit (Permit No. 1976) was issued by the City of Fort Collins to
owner W.M. Weber on March 14, 1928 for construction of a new residence as described below
in the building permit log book:
“Frame/ brick, 28x32, 6 rooms & bath, 10,000 bricks, full basement, shingle roof, brick
exterior, oak floors, flue 9x12 inside, house to line up with other buildings: floor joist 2x8 - 16c
[16-inch centered?], rafters 2x6, studding 2x4, open roof sheathing, tar paper, wood lath, 1x8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 40
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
boards sub floor, 1,000 brick, double plates and headers, 1x8 boards wall sheathing, ceiling
joists 2x4.”
Owner W.M. Weber is also listed as the builder, and the estimated cost for the work was
$3,000. Only one other building permit was found for the property between 1928 and c. the
early 1950s (Permit No. 7141), dated October 29, 1942, issued to owner George M. List for
“reshingling,” estimated to cost $175.
When examined in late December 2019, the only other changes noted as compared to
photographs on early (retired) Larimer County Assessor’s property cards involved the front
porch. The October 1948, January 1969 and May 1978 Assessor’s photograph shows that the
front porch, while partially obscured by shrubbery, appeared to have wooden porch roof
support columns that were larger and slightly tapered than at present, and that the current
(12/2020) porch supports replaced the original porch posts sometime after May 1978.
Nevertheless, the replacement post are generally similar I shape and size to the original posts.
Another change to the original property was replacement of the original porch stairs with the
current (December 2019) stained wooden (redwood) steps and balustrade handrails.
Photographs included on now obsolete Larimer County Assessor’s property cards for the
parcel indicate that in October 1948 the dwelling was accessed by a set of concrete (?) stairs
flanked by low brick masonry walls. The 1948 stairs lacked handrails. In January 2, 1969
photograph clearly show the same concrete steps and brick sidewalls, but it had also been
equipped on both sides with wrought-iron balustrade handrails. Thick shrubbery blocks the
view of the dwellings front porch steps on the May 1978 Assessor’s photograph. The present
stairway is entirely wooden, but appears to be about the same size and is in the same place as
the original stairway. No other exterior changes to the dwelling were noted.
30. Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31. Original use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling (c. 1928-1979)
32. Intermediate use(s): Commercial (c. 1979-1981); Residential-student housing (1982-c. 1987)
33. Current use(s): Non-profit business office (2002-2019)
34. Site type(s): Residential - house
35. Historical background: This handsome Craftsman bungalow was constructed in 1928, and
originally had an address of 1616 South College Avenue (this address was changed in 1979 to #
1610, when its use changed from residential to commercial). In 1925, no buildings evidently
stood on this block, which lies south of the historic residential area of Fort Collins that extended
south from the “Old Town” commercial district to Prospect Road, and near the southeast corner
of the Colorado State University campus. However, on March 10, 1925 , a new residential area
- I.C. Bradley’s Addition – was platted, and shortly afterward numerous lots were sold and
residential construction commenced. By 1927 no fewer than nine homes had been constructed
along the east side of South College Avenue (1600 , 1604, 1608, 1612, 1620, 1630, 1634, 1636
and 1644). The following year (1928), W.M. Weber obtained a building permit to construct a
primary residence on an empty lot near the north end of the 1600 block; the resulting bungalow
had an address of 1616 South College Avenue. The home’s architectural style and form – a
Craftsman bungalow – was a relatively late but typical example of a widely popular style of
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 41
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
early twentieth century residential American architecture. In Fort Collins, during the 1920s
numerous small Craftsman style dwellings were built throughout the city. They were
constructed both in new subdivisons, as well as scattered randomly in the late 19th and early
20th century “Eastside” and “Westside” neighborhood areas (east and west of College Avenue,
and north of Prospect Road).
It is possible that W.M. Weber did not occupy the house, but that it was sold to the List family.
Although the house was constructed in1928, no listing for the address (1616 S. College Avenue)
was included in the 1929 Fort Collins city directory. By 1931, however (the next available city
directory edition), the home was occupied by George Milton List, chief deputy state
entomologist, and his wife Ruth A. List. The List family resided in the bungalow from c. 1930 to
c. 1968 – nearly four decades. City directories provide different job titles for George List over
time; in 1933 he was identified as an instructor at Colorado Agricultural College (CAC), and in
1936 he was employed as “entomologist in charge” at the Colorado State College Experiment
Station. In 1938 his position was listed as associate professor at C AC; in 1940 he worked as a
“teacher [at the] College of Entomology and Zoology” at CSC, and by 1950 he was a professor
and head of the Entomology Department at Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M)
College.
During their tenure at 1616 South College Avenue, the Lists raised two daughters, including
Laura A. List, who in 1936 was attending CSC, and Ruth L. List, who was a student at CSC in 1940.
George List retired from Colorado A&M around 1953, and the 1954 city directory indicates that
Mr. List had become an emeritus professor. The Lists’ daughters had embarked on their own
lives sometime in the 1940s, while George and Ruth A. List continued living together at the same
address until c. 1959, when George List evidently passed away. His widow continued to live
alone in the bungalow until c. 1968, when she was joined by another widow, Mrs. Myrtle J.
Geiger, whose occupation was identified in the city directory as “companion.”
Ruth A. List had moved out of the house in 1969, and passed away on June 19, 1970 at age 84.
She was buried next to her husband George List, in Fort Collins’ Grandview Cemetery.
After the passing of Mrs. List, the dwelling was evidently rented or sold to Eugene G. Schallan,
a salesman at the Fort Collins office of Kansas City Life Insurance and his wife Vi. J. Schallan. In
1969 the Schallan family shared the house with their children – daughters Christine (born 1958),
Debbie (born 1953), and Vicki, who was then a student at Colorado State University. The
Schallans occupied the bungalow from c. 1969 – c. 1972, when they all evidently moved away
from Fort Collins. In 1973, the only occupant of 1616 South College Avenue was Dean Goeldner,
whose occupation was not listed. By 1975 the home was vacant, but from c. 1976 - c. 1978 it
was rented to two CSU students: Geoff Turner and James Walther.
Around 1978 the property’s use changed from residential to commercial, at a time when many
of the homes on the block had been replaced by commercial uses and buildings. According to
the 1979 Fort Collins city directory, the bungalow’s address was changed from 1616 to 1610
South College Avenue, and it was occupied by three businesses: Alpine Trophies Inc., Farmers
Insurance Group, and Golden Pear Catering Service. A man named Fred G. Lee was also listed
as an occupant, and he may have been the owner of one of the businesses housed in the
building.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 42
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
The bungalow’s commercial use was short-lived, and by 1981 it served as a residence for a
succession of CSU students, housing up to four tenants. Its use as student housing for short -
term student renters continued for approximately six (6) years until c. 1987, when a change of
ownership likely occurred. From 1987 until c. 2002, city directory entries state “no information”
for 1610 South College Avenue.
During the last phase of the property’s history (as of January 2020) – from c. 2002 to 2019 – the
bungalow has been used to house offices of the Fort Collins-based non-profit youth-focused
social services organization called “Realities for Children/ Realities Foundation. According to
the organization’s website (accessed January 1, 2020), “Realities for Children was incorporated
in 1995 and has been funding the unmet needs of Larimer County children who have been
abused, neglected or are at-risk since 1996.” The non-profit organization closed its office at 1610
South College Avenue c. 2019, and moved to a new location at 308 East County Road 30 in Fort
Collins.
36. Sources of information:
Beier, Harold
1958 Fort Collins, History and General Character. Research and Survey Report. Prepared by
Harold Beier, Community Development Consultant, Fort Collins, Colorado, for the City
of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, April 1958.
Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1925 through 2019 (with gaps). From the collection
of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
Larimer County Assessor
1948 Property Card for 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97242-16-005).
From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
1969 Property Card for 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97242-16-005).
From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
1978 Property Card for 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97242-16-005).
From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
2019 Current (2019) Larimer County Assessor’s property record for (Parcel No. 97242-16-
005), available through the Assessor’s website (https://www.larimer.org/assessor/).
Accessed December 12, 2019.
Realities for Children Charities
2020 Website: www.realitiesforchildren.com, accessed January 1, 2020.
Simmons, Thomas, and Laurie Simmons.
1992 City of Fort Collins Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture
Historic Contexts. Report prepared by Front Range Research Associates for the City of
Fort Collins Advance Planning Department.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 43
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37. Local landmark designation: Yes ____ No __X__ Date of designation: Not Applicable
Designating authority: Not Applicable
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;
__ X__ 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)
________ Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture
40. Period of significance: 1928-1978
41. Level of significance: National _____ State ______ Local __X___
42. Statement of significance:
Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility:
The single-story, wood frame residence located at 1610 South College Avenue is evaluated as
not embodying sufficient significance for association with important historical events, trends,
or people; however, it is evaluated as an architecturally significant building.
In terms of Criterion A, the home was built in 1928 during a decade when a prosperous
economy, growing university, the Wellington oil boom and other factors resulted in a
substantial influx of new residents to Fort Collins. Between 1920 and 1930, the city’s population
grew from 8,755 residents in 1920, to 11,489 in 1930 - a 31.2% increase. The home at 1610 South
College Avenue was built within (toward the end of) this dynamic decade, along with others
along the east side of the 1600 block. However, these houses were located on the sparsely
undeveloped fringe of Fort Collins’ main, historic residential area lying north of Prospect Road
and extending both east and west of College Avenue. While the subject property is a product of
the 1920s period of growth in Fort Collins, it is but one of many hundreds of properties that
share the same origin.
In terms of Criterion B, the property was occupied for approximately forty years, from c. 1930 -
1969, by the List family. George M. List was a successful professional entomologist who worked
at Colorado Agricultural College (CAC; now CSU) from at least as e arly as 1931 until his
retirement c. 1953. While at CAC, he served variously as “entomologist in charge” at the
Colorado State College Experiment Station, associate professor at the College of Entomology
and Zoology” at the university, and by 1950 he served as the head of the Entomology
Department at Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M; now CSU) College. After his
retirement List was honored as an emeritus professor. While George List indeed was a val uable
faculty member and expert in his field, he was one of a succession of many professors at CSU
(and its predecessors) who advanced the state of their fields of expertise while teaching a
steady stream of college students. In spite of his professional success, George List’s individual
historical significance is evaluated as not extraordinary, and his work was not performed in the
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 44
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
dwelling he lived in near the university. For these reasons, the residence is not significant for its
association with George List nor any other residents who lived there.
With respect to Criterion C, this dwelling on this property is an almost entirely unaltered
example of a modest side-gabled, wood frame Craftsman-style bungalow in Fort Collins. It
displays many diagnostic characteristics of the style, including a side gable ro of with wide
overhanging eaves with exposed beams and rafter tails, wood shingle cladding of the attic level
gable faces; an open front porch, and numerous original multi-light sash-and-transom windows
with narrow, vertically oriented lights/panes. The front door is also a distinctively Craftsman-
style element. Because it is such an intact and recognizable example of the style and its side-
gabled form, as well as for its unusual original semi-subterranean singe car garage, the property
is evaluated as eligible for Local Landmark designation under Criterion C.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This house retains outstanding
exterior architectural integrity, with very few changes noted. These changes include the
apparent replacement of the two front porch roof supports (on the façade) with slightly smaller-
dimension wooden roof support posts. Also, the wooden front porch steps and handrails were
constructed sometime after may 1978, replacing the original concrete steps (which by 1969 had
wrought iron handrails added).
Other changes, not visible from the street/sidewalk are on the rear elevation, and include the
two fixed windows on the east end of the rear porch, which may be non-original, and the rear
elevation garage door, which is modern. These minor alterations are not visible except from the
rear of the property. Because of its high level of architectural integrity the dwelling still conveys
its significance as an excellent example of modest Craftsman-style domestic architecture. The
property was one of a contiguous series of homes built in the 1920s on the east side of the 1600
block of South College Avenue and it is the sole survivor at this time (January 2020). These
houses were sited along a busy Fort Collins thoroughfare that also served as a busy state
highway, rather than in a “typical” entirely residential neighborhood. While there was a
substantial change in setting that occurred when the homes were replaced by commercial
buildings in the late 20th century, this development was inevitable and the property has never
been part of a residential area that had a truly residential character (or fabric). Therefore, the
loss of historic setting does not diminish the property’s ability to convey architectural
significance.
VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
44. National Register (individual) eligibility field assessment:
Eligible X Not (Individually) Eligible Needs Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X _ No Undetermined ___
Discuss: A potential historic district analysis was beyond the scope of the investigation;
however, this former dwelling is the only remnant of a row of historic homes built in the latter
1920s (after platting of I.C. Bradley’s Addition in 1925) on the west side of the 1600 block of
South College Avenue.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building:
Contributing _ Noncontributing _
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it:
Contributing Noncontributing _ Not Applicable X _
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 45
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
VIII. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
47. Local Landmark (individual) eligibility field assessment:
Eligible X Not (Individually) Eligible Need Data
IX. RECORDING INFORMATION
48. Photograph numbers: 5LR.14742 #1-45
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 1610 South College Avenue, Ft. Collins,
CO
50. Date(s): January 3, 2020
51. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor
52. Organization: RETROSPECT
53. Address: 332 East Second Street, Loveland, CO 80537
54. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155
History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 46
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
Location of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.14742), shown on a portion of the U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984).
▪
1610 S. College Avenue
5LR.14742
38
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 47
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
Sketch map of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.14742).
50 feet
N
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
garage 160 feet Enclosed rear porch
Alley
Front porch
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 48
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1948 view of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s
property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 49
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1969 view of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s
property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 50
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1978 view of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s
property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 51
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, looking south.
1610 South College Avenue, looking southeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 52
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, looking northeast.
1610 South College Avenue, looking northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 53
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, façade, looking east.
1610 South College Avenue, front porch steps, looking southeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 54
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, front porch steps, looking east.
1610 South College Avenue, front porch, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 55
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, main entry and Craftsman-style sash-and-transom window, looking SE.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 56
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, main entry with Craftsman-style glazed front door, looking east.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 57
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, window o façade, looking southeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 58
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, another window on façade within front porch, looking northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 59
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, painted original beadboard front porch ceiling.
1610 South College Avenue, light fixture attached to front porch ceiling.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 60
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking northeast.
1610 South College Avenue, south side of front porch, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 61
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, narrow clapboard siding.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 62
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, window on south elevation near front porch, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 63
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, side gable on south elevation, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 64
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, close-up of window on south elevation.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 65
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, rear/east portion of south elevation, looking northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 66
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, looking rear portion of south elevation, looking northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 67
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking west-northwest.
1610 South College Avenue, eaves on south elevation.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 68
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, beam supporting projecting gable eave on south elevation.
1610 South College Avenue, brick basement wall on south elevation, looking ENE.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 69
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, basement window on south elevation, looking north.
1610 South College Avenue, tandem basement window on south elevation, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 70
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, close up of basement wall on south elevation near rear vestibule.
1610 South College Avenue, enclosed rear porch vestibule at SE end of dwelling, looking NW.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 71
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, rear enclosed porch/vestibule, looking northwest.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 72
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, south side entry on rear enclosed porch/vestibule, looking northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 73
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, original door on south side of rear enclosed porch/vestibule, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 74
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, gables canopy over rea vestibule entry, looking NNW.
1610 South College Avenue, rear/east elevation, looking west.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 75
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, enclosed rear porch/vestibule, looking southwest.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 76
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, looking enclosed rear porch/vestibule, looking SSW.
.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 77
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, rear/east elevation, looking WSW.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 78
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, semi-subterranean garage on east/rear elevation, looking west.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 79
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, garage on east/rear elevation, looking WSW.
1610 South College Avenue, garage door, looking WSW
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 80
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 S. College Avenue, looking junction of rear elevation and projecting enclosed rear porch/ vestibule.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 81
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, tandem Craftsman-style windows on rear/east elevation.
1610 South College Avenue, rear view, looking southwest.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 82
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.14742
1610 South College Avenue, north elevation, looking southwest.
1610 South College Avenue, north elevation, looking south.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 83
I. IDENTIFICATION
1.Resource number: 5LR.10494
2.Temporary resource number: N/A
3.County: Larimer
4.City:Fort Collins
5.Historic building name: “Vern’s Carpet, Tile and Linoleum;” “Vern’s Top Shop”
6.Current building name: None/Vacant
7.Building address: 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
8.Owner name and address:Remington North LLC
c/o Integrated Property Services
1400 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite 410
Denver, CO 80222
II.GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9.P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W
NW ¼ of NW ½ of NW ¼ of NW ¼ of section 24
10.UTM reference
Zone 13; 4496653 m E; 493500 m N
11.USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO
Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15'
12.Lot(s): 6
Block: 1
Plat: I.C. Bradley’s Addition Platted: 1925
Parcel Number: Parcel No. 97242-16-006
13.Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal
description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97242-16-006, including the commercial
building and rear parking area, encompassing the area associated with its historic commercial
use.
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
14.Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular
15.Dimensions in feet: Length: 76 ft. x Width: 48 ft.
16.Number of stories: 1.0
17.Primary external wall material(s): Masonry-concrete block
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 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 84
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
18.Roof configuration: Flat
19.Primary external roof material: Unknown
20.Special features: None
21.General architectural description: Located on the east side of the 1600 block of South College
Avenue, this single-story masonry commercial building was built in 1965. It is set back from the
street, and a small paved parking lot extends from the front of the building to the si dewalk
paralleling College Avenue.
The building has a rectangular plan, measuring 48 feet wide and 76 f eet deep. It has cast
concrete block masonry parapet walls and is covered by a flat roof. It is accessed by a centrally-
located wide concrete stairway with painted steel balustrade handrails. The façade was created
with horizontality as its primary design characteristic - an aesthetic and functional approach
tailored to the commercial use of the building. The façade contains a recessed, full-width glazed
multi-space storefront, with a narrow concrete walkway along its length. The outer edge of this
elevated walkway is enclosed by decorative steel railings with geometric design elements.
The façade is symmetrically arranged, with a central main entry equipped with three contiguous
glazed metal frame storefront doors. These doors are flanked on both sides with very large 1 x
1 fixed metal-frame storefront windows. Above the storefront is a wide, flat, and flat-topped
(parapet) concrete awning structure that forms a wide band for signage. Contrasting multi-
colored sandstone ashlar masonry veneer covers the lower walls below the storefront windows,
and continues up the edges of the side walls to the awning/signboard structure. Red tabular
sandstone sills run along the lower edges of the storefront windows, atop the ashlar veneer -
clad lower walls. The same sandstone ashlar was used to construct small planters near the ends
of the façade. According to builder Vic Deines, who was interviewed by Cindy Harris in 2001,
the stone used for the planters and wall cladding was quarried at Masonville, Colorado.
Both side elevations – north and south – are identical in design and construction. They are solid
expanses of decorative concrete block masonry, and contain neither any window or door
openings (including sealed openings). The front portion (approximately a third the length) of
the building has tall side walls to accommodate the extra height of the canopy parapet along
the façade, but step downs in height for the remainder of both side elevations. The decorative
masonry is relatively subtle and consists of alternating bands of plain, relatively smooth
concrete bricks and larger square blocks bearing three-dimensional vertically-elongated
diamond elements.
The rear (east) elevation has a strictly utilitarian design. A steel stairway with pipe handrails
leads to a wide steel landing, also with pipe railings, providing access to two entrances, each
with a painted metal door. Between these doors are two small (double-hung?) windows, and a
large 1-by-1 window is placed towards the south end of the elevation. The lower level, below
these doors and windows, is equipped with an entry with a painted metal door, and two small
windows similar to those on the upper floor. On the northern portion of the rear elevation are
a basement-level door (also painted metal), and a large garage door opening sealed with a
modern roll-up garage door. This integral garage is accessed via a sloping excavated driveway
with concrete retaining walls that support pipe safety railings.
22.Architectural style/building type: No style/Commercial building/Specialty store
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 85
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
23.Landscaping or special setting features: This commercial property is located on the east side of
College Avenue, the long-established primary north-south route (and state highway) through
Fort Collins. South of Prospect Road (and Colorado State University) – and including the 1600
block – College Avenue is lined almost entirely with commercial properties, most of which were
constructed after 1960. The subject commercial building at 1618 South College Avenue is
flanked by a large (two lot) commercial property on the south (#1630), and a single story
Craftsman bungalow to the north (#1610) that was used over time as a residence, and later
briefly to house businesses, followed finally by use as a non-profit social services organization
office. The commercial property to the south set back is set back from College Avenue (and the
parallel pedestrian sidewalk), which provided an area for an asphalt paved customer parking
lot that occupies the entire northern lot of the two-lot property – adjoining the subject parcel
at 1618 South College Avenue. Photos on old Assessor’s property cards for the subject
properties indicate that the large north parking lot for 1630 South College required the removal
of a historic two-story dwelling, and occurred sometime between 1966 and 1978. On the
adjoining southern lot of 1630 South College stands a two story, masonry walled, flat-roofed
commercial building constructed in 1963 and remodeled in 2009.
The rear portion of the parcel is also asphalt-paved for likely use by trucks bringing flooring to
Vern’s Carpet, Tile and Linoleum store, and for store trucks delivering the often heavy and bulky
merchandise to customers. No landscaping or trees are located on the property.
24.Associated buildings, features, or objects: None
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25.Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1965
Source(s) of information:
o Fort Collins City Directories. From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum
Local History Archive.
o Larimer County Assessor’s retired property cards for Parcel No. 97242-16-006, dated
1966 and 1979, in collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History
Archive, and available through the Fort Collins History Connection website.
26.Architect: Unknown
Source(s) of information: No information found
27.Builder/Contractor: Unknown
Source(s) of information: No information found
28.Original owner: Vernon C. and Lois D. Schilling
Source(s) of information: 1966 Larimer County Assessor property record
29.Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or
demolitions): According to the Larimer County Assessor’s property records for 1618 South
College Avenue, this commercial building was constructed in 1965 by local builder Vic Deines,
and likely replaced an existing historic residence that was razed. According to the 2010
Architectural Inventory Form prepared by Historitechture for the property, City of Fort Collins
issued building permits for several exterior improvements/changes to the building, including
installation of two signs in 1970, exterior painting and door replacement in 1998, and
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 86
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
replacement of exterior stairs and railing in 2008. Based on review of Assessor’s photos,
photos from the 2001 Architectural Inventory Form prepared by Carolyn Hartl and Cynthia
Harris, and direct observation in 2020, the railing and stairs in question are likely those on the
front, rather than the rear end of the building; however the replacement stairs and railing
appear to have been done virtually in-kind.
A significant change to the building’s facade occurred sometime between 2001 and 2010 –
based on review of the photos included on the inventory forms prepared for this property in
those years. As originally constructed in 1965, the upper portion of the façade – a projecting
concrete block band above the slightly recessed storefront – was covered by an attached full-
width “signboard” structure. It was described as it appeared in 2001 by Carolyn Hartl and
Cynthia Harris: “An ornamental grille in goldtone metal with a geometric pattern runs the
width of the building. It is positioned at the roof line and extends downward approximately
four feet. This feature provides a backing for signage.” The 2001 photographs show this
structure being composed of a row of ten large square elements each containing eight rows of
small solid square elements. Narrow vertical spaces separate each panel. Attached to this
upper façade grille, and offset to the right/south was a large attached three-dimensional
Upper and lower case sign spelling out “Vern’s,” and it does not appear to have been
illuminated by neon or incandescent lights. As noted earlier, the “signboard” or grill spanning
the top of the sign, along with the “Vern’s” sign, were removed sometime between 2001 and
2010, and more likely between 2005 and 2010, since Vern’s Carpet, Tile and Linoleum moved
out of the building c. 2005.
30.Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31.Original use(s): Commercial-Specialty Store
32.Intermediate use(s): None
33.Current use(s): Vacant/Not in Use
34.Site type(s): Store/office building
35.Historical background: This masonry-walled commercial building was constructed in 1965, and
was one of several commercial properties on the west side of the 1600 block of South College
Avenue whose construction required the demolition of a row of historic dwellings constructed
in I.C. Bradley’s Addition in the 1920s. The only remnant of the row of these 1920s homes is the
adjacent Craftsman bungalow at 1610 South College.
This building is associated with the commercial development of South College Avenue
beginning in the late 1950s and 1960s. As the authors of Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S; The City’s
Postwar Development, 1945-1969 (2011) explain, prior to the late 1950s “locals still considered
any address south of Prospect Road to be out in the country; this perception was not surprising
since, at the time, both Prospect and Drake were still dirt roads, College Avenue was just two
lanes wide in that section, and the area nearby still was farmland.”
With support from community boosters including the Chamber of Commerce, southward
expansion commerce in Fort Collins rapidly followed the establishment of new residential
subdivisions in the 1950s and 1960s. The development of College Avenue south of Prospect
Road included an ambitious 1.5-2 million dollar development project: the University Shopping
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 87
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
Center, a multi-business retail plaza on the west side of College Avenue. According to Cindy
Harris and Adam Tomas, authors of Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S, commercial development was
driven in part by a significant investment made by the State Highway Department, which
planned to widen and divide College Avenue (State Highway 287) from Olive Street to Drake
Road - the southern city limits - in 1959. With the highway widened and modernized, new
businesses sprang up along the South College Avenue, including on the west side of the 1600
block, in the 1960s. Although a thorough review of building construction dates along the
corridor was not possible, the commercial property directly south of the subject property, at
1630 South College, was built in 1963, while 1618 was built two years later, in 1965. A common
characteristic of commercial properties along South College Avenue is the incorporation of
motorist-oriented amenities enabling driving customers to notice and access businesses
adjacent to the highway, such as driveways and paved parking lots. 1618 South College Avenue
has such features, including a small paved parking lot in front of the building.
Constructed by local builder Vic Deines, the building was occupied from c. 1966 - c. 2005
primarily by businesses owned and operated by Vernon C. Schilling. Vernon and his wife Lois
were the original owners of the property. Schilling’s businesses included “Vern’s Carpet, Tile
and Linoleum,” and “Vern’s Top Shop,” which operated concurrently. A prosperous economy
and homebuilding in the 1960s created demand for all sorts of home construction and décor
suppliers, including retail flooring stores. In 1973 the company was owned by four partners:
Stan Schilling, Bob Salisbury, Scott Severin, and Don Butler. Other small businesses were housed
in the building, which was divided into two office/store spaces, included Arts Unlimited, Inc.,
an arts and crafts supplies store operated by Frederick R. and Carol W. Josefly (c. 1966 -1968);
Nationwide Finance Company/ Nationwide Acceptance Company (c. 1972-1975); Western
Securities Company (c. 1979); a hair salon called Heads First, operated by partners Debbie
Keister, Ida Trujillo and Danielle Derbais from c. 1980-2003; Coit Drapery and Carpet Cleaners
(c. 1985-2000); and The Catholic Store (c. 2002-2006). City directories omitted entries for the
years 2007-2009; however, from c. 2010-2015, Coit Restoration Services occupied space in the
building. In 2010 another business was also listed: A Matter of Time, which may have been a
clock shop. However, the building appears to have been vacant from c. 2016 to the present
(January 2020).
36. Sources of information:
Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1965 through 2019 (with gaps). From the collection
of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
Harris, Cindi and Adam Thomas
2011 Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S; The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969. Prepared by
HISTORITECTURE, L.L.C., for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department.
Larimer County Assessor
1966 Property Card for 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97242-16-006).
From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
1979 Property Card for 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97242-16-006).
From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 88
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
2019 Current (2019) Larimer County Assessor’s property record for (Parcel No. 97242-16-
006), available through the Assessor’s website (https://www.larimer.org/assessor/).
Accessed December 12, 2019.
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37.Local landmark designation: Yes ____ No __X__ Date of designation: Not Applicable
Designating authority: Not Applicable
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 _____ Not Applicable
42.Statement of significance:
Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility:
Previous Significance Evaluations: The property at 1618 South College Avenue has been
recorded and evaluated for significance twice previously, in 2001 and 2010. The first such
assessment was made by Colorado State University historic preservation program students
Carolyn Hartl and Cynthia Harris, who prepared a Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (April
15, 2001) for the property, which was assigned site number 5LR.10494 by the Colorado Office
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. At that time, the building still housed Vern’s Tile and
Linoleum retail store. Without elaborating, Hartl and Harris evaluated the property as “not
significant based on the National Register Criteria,” and that its integrity was intact since the
building lacked exterior alterations or additions.
The second recording and evaluation of the property was conducted by Adam Thomas of
consultant Historitecture, from which an inventory form was completed on July 2, 2010.
Thomas evaluated the architectural significance of the building, stating that “Architecturally, it
represents a somewhat altered Modern Movements style commercial building.” Although the
“Modern Movements” classification of postwar commercial architecture is quite broad and
varied, Thomas listed the building’s character-defining features, and concluded that “The level
of significance for this resource is not sufficient for this property to qualify for individual listing
in the National Register of Historic Places or the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties.
However, this resource qualifies for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark.” The 2010 inventory form
states that the building “exhibits a moderate level of physical integrity,” and that “The exterior
changes detailed in the construction history appear to have been mostly replacement in-kind
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 89
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
and, therefore, had little impact on the aspects of design, materials, and workmanship.”
However, the 2010 integrity assessment failed to note the di sappearance of the distinctive
façade-wide signboard grille which constituted a major decorative and diagnostic element of
the building. Removal of the signboard from the façade also included the distinctive and
character-defining “Vern’s” sign.
Current Significance Evaluation (January 2020): The building located at 1618 South College
Avenue is associated with post-1960 commercial development along the College Avenue
corridor extending south of Prospect Road in Fort Collins. The property was built in 1965 and
may be one of the earlier commercial properties established along this corridor from this period
of commercial development. Unfortunately, however, insufficient detailed contextual
information is available at this time to interpret the chronological pattern of development along
College Avenue south of Prospect Road in Fort Collins. The original and long term business
housed in the building – a retail flooring company called Vern’s Carpet, Tile & Linoleum – is one
of numerous and widely varied businesses in Fort Collins that have provided products and
services, including flooring, to residents of Fort Collins since its founding, and neither Vern’s
Carpet, Tile & Linoleum/Vern’s Top Shop nor Vernon and Lois Schilling are significant in terms
of Fort Collins history. For these reasons, 1618 South College Avenue is evaluated as ineligible
for Local Landmark designation under Criteria A or B.
This 1965 commercial building is relatively nondescript, but exhibits some interesting aesthetic
design attributes associated with commercial architectural design in the 1950s and 1960s,
including a ubiquitous postwar modernist emphasis on horizontality, which the Fort Collins E-
X-P-A-N-D-S historic context states, was also evident in the design of residences in the 1950s
and 1960s. Other postwar commercial architectural design attributes utilized by the architect
of 1618 South College Avenue include the flat parapet roof, (subtly) patterned decorative
concrete block side walls, the use of sandstone ashlar and decorative steel railings on the
façade, a wide glazed storefront, and a small front parking lot serving the driving customer.
Small commercial buildings from the 1960s vary greatly in terms of design, and 1618 South
College Avenue is evaluated as an understated and relatively plain example of postwar
commercial architecture. It also has lost major original design elements from the façade – the
decorative, patterned signboard grille that covered the top portion of the building and the
attached original distinctive “Vern’s” business sign.
Because of its undistinguished design and diminished architectural integrity due to the loss of a
major original façade design element, the building is evaluated as not qualifying for Local
Landmark eligibility under Criterion C.
43.Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This 1965 commercial building
retains a considerable amount of architectural integrity in terms of its form, lack of additions,
unaltered side and rear elevations, and a portion of the façade; however, loss of the original
metal signboard grille and “Vern’s” sign have removed major character-defining features from
the facade. Consequently, its overall integrity is evaluated as fair-good, but is insufficient to
support Local Landmark eligibility for architectural significance.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 90
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
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 _ No Undetermined X
Discuss: A potential historic district analysis was beyond the scope of the investigation.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building:
Contributing _ 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.10494-#1-37
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 1618 South College Avenue, Ft. Collins,
CO
50.Date(s): January 4, 2020
51.Recorder(s):Jason Marmor
52.Organization: RETROSPECT
53.Address:332 East Second Street, Loveland, CO 80537
54.Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155
History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 91
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
Location of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.10494), shown on a portion of the U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984).
▪
1618 S. College Avenue
5LR.10494
38
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 92
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
Sketch map of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.10494).
stairs
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
Parking lot
Driveway to below
grade garage
stairs
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 93
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1966 view of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s
property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 94
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1969 view of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s
property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 95
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1978 view of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s
property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 96
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, looking southeast.
1618 South College Avenue, looking northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 97
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, façade, looking east.
1618 South College Avenue, façade, looking east-northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 98
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, central stairway to elevated façade and main entry, looking northeast.
1618 South College Avenue, horizontal element across top of façade, above main entry.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 99
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, with partially dismantled sign looking .
1618 South College Avenue, elevated storefront on facade, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 100
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, elevated storefront on facade, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 101
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, northern portion of elevated storefront on facade, looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 102
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, multi-color sandstone ashlar masonry pillar,
placed at end of façade, looking NNE.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 103
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, sandstone ashlar masonry veneer beneath storefront windows on facade.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 104
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, closer view of sandstone ashlar masonry veneer on facade.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 105
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, façade, looking south. Note ashlar planter near pillar at end of facade.
1618 S. College Avenue, looking wrought-iron railing along edge of elevated storefront, looking NE.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 106
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, close-up of railing along façade, including decorative design elements.
1618 South College Avenue, looking façade and north elevation, looking southeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 107
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, south elevation made of decoratively patterned concrete blocks, looking SE.
1618 South College Avenue, looking patterned banding on concrete block exterior wall, north elevation.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 108
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, detail of concrete block pattern on exterior side walls of 1618 South College
Avenue, north elevation, looking south.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 109
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking northeast.
1618 South College Avenue, closer view of south elevation, looking northeast.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 110
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking northeast.
1618 South College Avenue, close-up of decorative concrete blocks on side elevations.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 111
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, concrete block pattern on south elevation looking north.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 112
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, south and rear/east elevations, looking northwest.
1618 South College Avenue, rear elevation, looking southwest.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 113
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, rear/east elevation, looking west.
1618 South College Avenue, rear elevation, looking west-northwest.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 114
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, rear elevation, looking northwest.
1618 South College Avenue, upper level (main floor but sloping terrain) looking southwest.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 115
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, southern portion of rear elevation, looking west.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 116
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, steel stairs to upper story landing on rear elevation, looking north.
1618 S. College Ave., semi-subterranean garage on northeastern, rear corner of building, looking NW.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 117
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, sloped concrete driveway/ramp leading to semi-subterranean garage
on rear elevation, looking northwest.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 118
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
Architectural Inventory Form
5LR.10494
1618 South College Avenue, lower level windows on rear elevation, looking northwest.
1618 South College Avenue, closer view of lower level rear windows.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 119
Landmark Preservation Commission Conceptual Review November 18, 2020Alpine Bank at College & ProspectITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-1
2• Southeast corner of College Avenue & Prospect Road• 1608 S. College Avenue• 1610 S. College Avenue• 1618 S. College AvenueSite Location/Existing ContextAlpine Bank1608 S. College1608 S. College1618 S. College1618 S. College1610 S. College1610 S. CollegeITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-2
3Alpine Bank3Proposed Redevelopment• Redevelop existing properties into a 7,600 square foot retail bank to include drive-through facilities• Redevelopment to require demolition of two of the three existing buildings• Redevelopment to propose relocation of one of the three buildings.ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-3
4Alpine Bank4Proposed Site Plan• Bank building located at NW corner of site at hard corner• Two-story structure• Drive-through operations located on east side of building away from right-of-way• Parking located to south• Historically significant building located near SW corner of siteITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-4
5Alpine Bank5Deceleration Lane/Access Location• Redevelopment to require dedication of property to accommodate deceleration/right-hand turn lane• Location of consolidated access point based on draft Traffic Impact Study is 190’Proposed accessProposed accessITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-5
Current ContextAlpine Bank at College & ProspectITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-6
7Alpine BankITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-7
8Structural ConcernsAlpine Bank at College & ProspectITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-8
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-9
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-10
Landmark Preservation Commission Conceptual Review November 18, 2020Alpine Bank at College & ProspectITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-11
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant PresentationPacket Pg. 119-12
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
STAFF REPORT November 18, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT OF FORT COLLINS WATER WORKS-FORT COLLINS WATER
TREATMENT PLANT NO. 1 (SHF PROJECT #2020 M1-011)
STAFF
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
In July 2020, the City of Fort Collins concluded a State Historical Fund grant project to produce a historic
structure assessment of the Fort Collins Water Treatment Plant No. 1 in the Gateway Natural Area. The project
was completed by RATIO/Humphries Poli Architects, and includes multiple treatment recommendations that
will assist the City’s Operation Services with future project planning and budgeting and an appropriate
sequence of prioritized actions that will protect and preserve this National Register-eligible property, which is
currently vacant and awaiting an adaptive reuse or finalized preservation plan.
Ashley Russell from RATIO/Humphries Poli Architects will provide a short presentation on the highlights from
the HSA report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Gateway Presentation
Packet Pg. 120
Gateway Water Treatment BuildingAshley Russell November 18, 2020ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 121
BriefHistory•Gateway Water Treatment Building (originally known as the Poudre Canyon Treatment Plant) •Constructed between 1905 - 1910•Additions in 1927, 1955, and 1977•Chemical feed & storage buildings in 1947•Closed in 1987•RATIO Architects conducted Historic Structure Assessment for the City of FortCollins (2019 – 2020)•Eligible for National Register of Historic Places StatusNGATEWAY WATER TREATMENT BUILDINGITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 122
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 123
197719271955ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 124
Site•Generally in GoodCondition•Vegetation•Wooden Fence•Site WallITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 125
Exterior Envelope•Masonry – Overall Fair•Repointing•Rising Damp, Water Staining, & Efflorescence •Parapet Caps•Oxide Jacking•Spalling•Exterior Appendages – Overall Fair •Chimneys•Concrete Stairs/ Landings•Drainage – Overall Fair/Poor •1910 Sheet Metal•1927 Built Up Roof•Through-Wall Scuppers & GuttersITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 126
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 127
Structure•Foundation System – Overall Good•1927 Concrete Foundation•Floor Structure – Overall Good•1910 Floors & Concrete Slab–Poor•Roof Framing - Overall Good•1910 Collar Ties•1927 Steel PlatesITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 128
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 129
Openings•Windows– Overall Poor•1910 Double Hung Windows•Glass Block Openings•Steel Windows•Exterior Doors– Overall Poor•Finishes•Hardware•Rusting/ Weathering•Interior Doors –Fair•Paint Deterioration •1927/1955 Storefront DoorITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 130
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 131
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 132
Interior Finishes•Walls– Overall Good/Fair•1910 – Exposed Bricks, Debris, and Staining•1927 – Rust Staining•Paint Deterioration•Wallpaper & Wood Paneling•Ceiling– Overall Poor•1910 Board & Bead Ceiling•Ceiling Tiles & Black Mold•Floors– Overall Poor•1910 Wood Platforms•Quarry Tile•Carpet •Dirt & Debris•Built-In Cabinetry – Overall Good•Trims – Overall Poor•Missing Tiles•Detached Rubber Base•Stairs – Overall Good•Spiral StairsITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 133
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 134
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 135
Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing•Mechanical – Overall Poor•No active mechanical systems•Equipment is past its useful life•Will need upgrades•Electrical •Systems –Poor•Lighting –Good•Fire Detection & Security -Good•Plumbing – Overall Poor•No active plumbing systems•Will need upgradesITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 136
Filter Buildings•Site –Fair•Concrete Deficiencies & Accessibility•Exterior –Fair•Chimneys, Water Staining, and Efflorescence•Drainage•Structure -Good•Openings -Fair •Windows & Doors•Interior Finishes –Fair •Paint & Cleaning•FloorITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 137
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 138
Preservation Plan Phasing•Prior to Any Repair Work•Hazardous Material Testing & Removal•Further Investigations•Phase 1– Stabilization & Mothballing •Phase 2 – Remaining Exterior/ Structural Repairs, Site Work, Accessibility•Phase 3 – Interior & MEP Systems Prioritized List of Repairs•Critical – Failure of the building, threat to health/ safety, adjacent material deterioration•Underground Tank Structure•Masonry & Water Infiltration•Serious– Building failure within 2-5 years, May have health/ safety concerns•Accessibility•Windows & Doors•Minor– Standard preventative maintenance•Interior Finishes•Site Work•Routine Maintenance – Best practices for standard preventative maintenance •Review Roof Sealant Yearly•Monitor Vertical CrackingPotential Reuse•Overall the building retains excellent integrity & could be displayed for public use•Change of Occupancy•Educational/ Retail •Original equipment preserved & maintained •Code & Accessibility Upgrades•Little Brown Bat ColonyITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 139
Questions? Thank You!ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 140