Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Annual ReportAn accurately completed annual report is a CLG requirement Colorado Certified Local Government 2021 Annual Report Federal Fiscal Year 2021: October 1, 2020 – September 30, 2021 Due Date: November 1, 2021 Please save this file in the original PDF format, DO NOT PRINT AND SCAN. Submit via email to lindsey.flewelling@state.co.us Name of County/Municipality: Name of Commission Board: Contact Name: Contact Title: Contact Phone: Contact Fax: Contact Email: Contact Address: City: State: CO Zip: Website for your historic preservation program: Provide a list of all local government staff members with duties assigned to your local preservation program and their job titles. Then, list the percentage of their job duties that are related to historic preservation and check each staff member that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. Please include any consultants contracted to perform designation, design, or tax credit reviews on a regular basis. Name Title Percent SOI Qualified Preservation Planning & Operational Documents In Federal Fiscal Year 2021 were any of the following newly developed or revised: 1)Preservation Ordinance (including Amendments)? 2)By-Laws or Administrative Rules? 3)Preservation Plan? 4)Survey Plan? 5)Design Guidelines: a.For the entire county/municipality? b.For a specific district(s)? Name of district(s): Commission or Board 6)Provide a list of all current Commission/Board Members. Check any Commission/Board Members newly appointed in Federal Fiscal Year 2021 and attach their resumes and/or applications. Also, check all Commission/Board Members that are professionals in preservation-related disciplines and list their profession beside their names. New Preservation Name Member Professional Discipline(s) If 40% of the current Commission/Board is not comprised of preservation-related professionals, please describe your efforts to recruit. How does the Commission/Board seek additional expertise in the fields of architecture, architectural history or archaeology when needed? 7) 8)Do the members of the Commission/Board represent the general ethnic diversity of the community? 9)List the SHPO-approved educational/training sessions attended by Commission/Board Members in Federal Fiscal Year 2021. Please list name of session or conference (list conference, not individual sessions when a conference was attended) and the name(s) of Commission/Board Member that attended. 10)What is your Commission/Board’s regular meeting schedule? (i.e. First Thursday of every other month at 6pm) 11)Please list the number of meetings and dates held in Federal Fiscal Year 2021: Regular Meetings Special Meetings Work/Study Sessions Total Number Total Number Total Number Dates Dates Dates Historic Contexts & Surveys 12) List any Historic Context Studies completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2021. 13) List any Cultural Resource Surveys completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2021. 14) How many resources were inventoried in Federal Fiscal Year 2021? Inventoried means any buildings, structures, objects, or sites for which the Commission/Board obtained information not previously held. This information may come from newly surveyed properties or properties nominated that had not been surveyed. Inventoried properties can be either eligible or non-eligible for listing. Designations 15)How many contributing resources (buildings, structures, objects, sites) are locally designated? This count includes ALL listings since the Commission/Board was originally formed. For Districts, count all contributing buildings, structures and sites individually. 16)How many contributing resources (buildings, structures, objects, sites) were locally designated in Federal Fiscal Year 2021? For Districts, count all contributing buildings, structures and sites individually. Please list. For Districts, list name with number of contributing resources in parenthesis. Project Review 17)How many design review applications were considered by the Commission/Board for designated resources in Federal Fiscal Year 2021? a.Total Reviewed b.Review by Full Commission c.Review by Design Review Subcommittee Only d.Reviewed by Staff Only 18)How many design review applications were considered by the Commission/Board for non-designated resources in Federal Fiscal Year 2021? a.Total Reviewed b.Review by Full Commission c.Review by Design Review Subcommittee Only d.Reviewed by Staff Only 19)Did your County/Municipality comment or participate in any Section 106 Reviews as a consulting party in Federal Fiscal Year 2021? If yes, list name of project or property and the Federal Agency initiating the review. Narrative Questions 20)Did your Board/Commission develop, sponsor, or participate in any public outreach, education, or interpretive events/meetings/tours/materials in Federal Fiscal Year 2021? If yes, please describe. 21) What CLG accomplishment/achievement/event in Federal Fiscal Year 2021 makes the Commission/Board most proud? 22) Describe any problems – operational, political or financial – encountered by the CLG in Federal Fiscal Year 2021. 23) Describe any planned/projected Commission/Board activities for Federal Fiscal Year 2022. Attachment Checklist All documents listed below are required for a complete report unless listed as “if applicable” or “if adopted.” Providing a link to an online document, if downloadable, may be substituted for actual attachment of a document when available. Please include all documents as separate attachments. All meeting minutes for Federal Fiscal Year 2021 (unless previously submitted) Sample of Public Notice announcing commission/board Meeting Sample advertisement for new commission/board members List of all locally designated properties (from inception of local listing) Resumes or applications for commission/board members appointed in FY21 (if applicable) Current preservation ordinance and amendments (if adopted during FY21) Current by-laws or administrative rules for the commission/board (if adopted during FY21) Current Preservation Plan or preservation chapter in Comprehensive Plan (if adopted during FY21) Current Survey Plan (if adopted during FY21) Historic Context Surveys completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2021 or date submitted to SHPO (if applicable) Historic Resource Surveys completed in Federal Fiscal Year 2021or date submitted to SHPO (if applicable) Please provide links to any online documents or dates when Contexts or Surveys were submitted to SHPO: Landmark 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 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. Landmark 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 on 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 November 18, 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 November 18, 2020 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. [Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.] • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Knierim, Nelsen, Wallace, Rose ABSENT: Murray, Michell STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager • THANKSGIVING Chair Dunn discussed the Commission's appreciation of the Cameron Peak Fire Fighters' efforts to save historic structures. She discussed some historic structures that were lost in the fire as well as the many that were saved in the Poudre Canyon area. She also noted the YMCA camp in Estes Park and the Bobcat Ridge buildings were saved. • AGENDA REVIEW There were no changes to the posted agenda. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 November 18, 2020 • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from the consent agenda. • STAFF REPORTS None. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • 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. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the November 18, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES DESCRIPTION: Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks 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. Ms. Bzdek provided a brief explanation of the report. 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 Ms. Bredehoft recused herself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She reviewed the project location at the southeast corner of College and Prospect, noting it was originally developed as a residential block, and discussed surrounding properties at the intersection. She noted the properties at 1608 and 1618 South College are being proposed for demolition and the craftsman-style home at 1610 South College is being proposed to be moved to the south and adaptively reused as part of the development plan. Ms. Bzdek stated the applicant is proposing the construction of a 2-story, 7,800 square-foot bank building with an associated drive-up teller and ATM component. Additionally, improvements to the northbound deceleration lane will be required as will the installation of a tree lawn and detached sidewalk. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 November 18, 2020 Regarding the property at 1618, the intensive-level site survey completed by the independent professional surveyor did not show the property rose to the level of individual significance for a Fort Collins Landmark designation and expressed concern about the loss of integrity of the property. Ms. Bzdek stated the property at 1610 South College did receive a determination of eligibility and is being treated under the review process moving forward as a historic resource on the redevelopment site. She discussed the history of the structure and its features and alterations over time. Ms. Bzdek stated there are two primary areas for the Commission to consider for its conceptual review comments: the review following the Secretary of the Interior standards of the proposed treatment for historic resources, and the design compatibility analysis under the Land Use Code requirements in Section 3.4.7. She also noted the applicant has applied for a modification of standard to move the building on the site and discussed how modifications are considered. Applicant Presentation Zell Cantrell, Galloway, introduced the team members in attendance: Ben Van Hoose, Alpine Bank local branch president; Glen Davis, Alpine Bank Chief Retail Officer; and Todd Goulding, development consultant. Mr. Cantrell gave the Applicant presentation and detailed the proposed project and associated intersection and sidewalk improvements. He stated relocating the historic resource not only allows for the site to be redeveloped functionally, but also allows for some historical context to be created and for the formation of a proper foundation for the building. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Rose asked when the house was repainted to the existing colors. Ms. Bzdek replied she would investigate that detail. Mr. Rose commented on the more contemporary color choice. Ms. Nelsen noted the applicant had mentioned complementing the existing colors of the house with the proposed design. Mr. Cantrell replied they are currently working with materials that will both complement the house and work within the Midtown Plan. He asked if the Commission has a preference on materials and colors and whether they are meaningful in this situation. Mr. Rose replied it is significant and commented on the original painting of the structure likely being whitewashed. He stated it would not be inappropriate to revert to the original color scheme. Chair Dunn questioned whether the gable shingles were likely stained wood. Mr. Rose speculated they were likely painted at some point in order to preserve them. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed use of the building after its relocation. Mr. Cantrell replied they have yet to make a final determination on its use, but stated it could continue to be used commercially or be returned to a residential use, though that may not be feasible given the location. Ms. Nelsen asked how the grading will be managed for the relocation. Mr. Cantrell replied the grading across the site is similar from north to south; however, the fall from west to east is less than he originally thought. He stated the team is trying to determine whether the garage can be relocated or incorporated into a new foundation. Chair Dunn commented on the garage door not being original; therefore, a different door could be used, and it does not necessarily need to be operable. Mr. Rose agreed and stated the opening would be the most important part of preserving the garage. Mr. Knierim agreed that is a creative way to keep the integrity of the look and would meet the standards. Ms. Nelsen stated that while she likes the idea of showcasing the door, she is not sure it is essential to the overall building and its role in the community. She expressed concern with marked changes to the grading that would change the proportions of the door. Mr. Cantrell stated a non-operational door would be much more conducive to flood control and stated his team could determine a creative solution. Ms. Nelsen stated that is an acceptable solution as long as the proportions of the opening are maintained. Mr. Bello stated he does not see the opening as a character-defining feature and stated it could be eliminated altogether. Mr. Rose stated the interior layout may be critical in knowing if the garage was the original function. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 November 18, 2020 Mr. Van Hoose stated he has been inside the structure and he does not recall there being access from the garage structure to the home. Ms. Bzdek noted the intensive-level site form identifies the garage structure as an original feature with an altered opening, though it is not a typical craftsman feature. Ms. Nelsen noted the public is going to have much more interaction with the rear of the building given the proposed site plan, which would be another factor in considering the preservation of the opening. Chair Dunn stated the Commission would definitely want to know how it will be treated if moved. Chair Dunn asked if the brick foundation skirt is original noting it would be an important feature to preserve if so. She asked about the plans for reusing the sandstone at the Lewan and Vern's buildings. Mr. Cantrell replied there is not an option to incorporate it into the new building, however it could be incorporated into some site features such as the plaza to the south. He noted it could be made available for people to salvage to ensure it is not wasted. Chair Dunn requested Commission input regarding the applicant's rationale for the modification of standard that would allow moving the building. Mr. Rose stated there is rationale for moving it for several reasons, particularly as it would encourage rehabilitation by securing the foundation. He stated moving the house further to the south gives it a bit more of a residential setting given the required deceleration lane. Mr. Knierim agreed with Mr. Rose and noted the building would only be moved a short distance. Ms. Wallace commented on the points of integrity, noting the short move helps to maintain integrity. Chair Dunn stated that while it may not be nominal to move a building, it does end up being inconsequential in this case as the setting was already altered and the proposed changes help to retain the setting better than if it were left in the current location. Mr. Rose commented on the need to research how the back porch is configured relative to the house itself, noting it is not of the craftsman style. He also commented on saving the bricks as part of the building's foundation when relocated. Mr. Bello asked if salvaging the brick goes contrary to providing an indication of representing a true craftsman construction type. Mr. Rose replied there is no agreed-upon taxonomy of a craftsman style and stated, if the brick is original, it is a unique part of this structure making it all the more important to save. He stated there is no need to recreate a museum quality craftsman. Chair Dunn commented on the importance of landmarking properties that are uniquely Fort Collins. Chair Dunn stated the porch could remain as is. Ms. Nelsen encouraged replacement in-kind of any damaged stairs or railings. Chair Dunn requested Commission input on landscaping. Mr. Rose supported the placement of as much green space as possible around the relocated home, though stated it does not need to be lavish per the historic photos. Chair Dunn requested Commission input on the new construction. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed materials. Mr. Cantrell replied they are considering a primarily brick or stone base in concert with the Midtown Plan criteria. Chair Dunn noted the sandstone in the other two buildings could potentially be used and the local sandstone is quite hard. She supported the use of the brick, however. Ms. Nelsen supported the use of any sturdy material for the base. She commented on the modern interpretation of the craftsman approach for the new building and stated the porch is nice from a massing standpoint. Mr. Cantrell stated Alpine Bank has yet to build the same building twice and they have been excited about the craftsman style. Mr. Davis commented on the bank’s strong historical sensibility and appreciation for craftsman design. He stated Alpine Bank tries to reflect the communities it serves. He commented on the repurposing of buildings for its banks in Snowmass Village and Basalt. Mr. Rose noted the craftsman style is purely residential in America; however, he appreciated the scale, respect for materials, fenestration, window placement, and residential vocabulary. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 November 18, 2020 Ms. Bzdek explained the next steps in the process for the applicant noting they will be returning before the Commission for a recommendation. Mr. Cantrell stated this will be a Type I review and he is about two weeks from submitting an initial PDP application. He anticipated coming back before the Commission early in 2021. Chair Dunn stated the proposed design is definitely moving in the right direction and she commended the welcoming, pedestrian-friendly design. Mr. Van Hoose and Mr. Davis thanked the Commission for their time. Ms. Bredehoft returned to the meeting. [Secretary's Note: The Commission took a short break at this time. A roll call was conducted upon return to confirm all were present.] 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. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek briefly explained the project, noting a grant was received from the State Historical Fund in 2019 to conduct the historic structure assessment of the treatment plant, which was recently completed. Ms. Bzdek noted the Water Works is a complex of buildings that sits in what is now Gateway Natural Area and all buildings were constructed between 1910 and 1955. She noted the property is also home to a seasonal little brown bat population and explained it is not eligible to be a Fort Collins Landmark as it is outside the city's growth management area; however, it is eligible for listing on the National Register. Ms. Bzdek introduced the consultant, Ashley Russell, to summarize the results of the historic structure assessment, Mark McLean from Operations Services who is responsible for the management plan for the buildings, and Jenny Roberts from Natural Areas who oversees the bat research at the site. Consultant Report Ms. Russell discussed the site location and its history. She showed photos and detailed conditions of the buildings. She stated the treatment plant retains excellent integrity overall and has the ability to be repurposed for public use, though that would require a change in occupancy. Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Nelsen commended Ms. Russell’s work and presentation. She asked about the hazardous materials that were mentioned. Mr. McLean replied asbestos and lead paint were found in the buildings. Chair Dunn asked if hazardous materials need to be dealt with if a building is to be moth-balled or if that only needs to occur if a building is set to be reused. Mr. McLean replied some of the work would need to be done if the building is moth-balled as there is some asbestos on window glazing; however, the interior hazardous materials could be addressed if the building were to be repurposed. Chair Dunn asked about the bat colony. Ms. Roberts replied there are a number of research organizations interested in the bat roost and noted it is the largest know maternity roost for little brown bats, at least in Northern Colorado, though they hibernate elsewhere. The bats are at this location from mid-April through September. Chair Dunn asked if work would need to occur outside those months. Ms. Roberts replied that would be the best practice. She went on to detail the research being done on the bat population. Ms. Nelsen asked about the best way to proceed with the roost. Ms. Roberts replied the best option would be to secure the 1910 portion of the building for the bats as attempting to relocate them is risky as this species does not necessarily readily take to alternative structures. Chair Dunn asked how moth-balling would affect the building's environment for the bats. Ms. Roberts replied anything that affects air flow, temperature, humidity, or the ceiling structure could have negative impacts. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 November 18, 2020 Chair Dunn asked about the future of the building and how priorities would be determined. Mr. McLean replied he would like to think that portion of the building could be reserved for the bats moving forward regardless of the future use of the property. Ms. Bzdek replied Historic Preservation staff has taken the stance of providing assistance from a technical and planning standpoint to consider potential solutions while ensuring no possibilities are ignored. She stated staff would like to see the most critical issues addressed per the assessment and would like the City to be able to leverage support from the State Historical Fund. She stated this assessment work has provided a good foundation for addressing the next phases. Chair Dunn commented on the need for the historical plan to match with the ecological plan. Ms. Russell commented on the need to research how moth-balling would impact air flow and temperature. Staff discussed funding constraints and possible paths forward for the buildings. x OTHER BUSINESS None. x ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on ___12/16/20_________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 December 16, 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 December 16, 2020 Minutes x CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. (**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.) x ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Knierim, Michell, Murray, Nelsen, Wallace, Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager, Overton x AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. x CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. x STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 December 16, 2020 x PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the December 16, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed unanimously. x DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks 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. Staff Report The Commission did not require a staff report, nor were there any questions or discussion. 3. 126 S. WHITCOMB ST: APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION ON DESIGN REVIEW (CONTINUANCE FROM OCTOBER 2020) DESCRIPTION: This item is a continuance from October’s Regular Meeting. The 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) Mr. Murray recused himself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting the location of the property and discussing the proposed project to demolish the 1932 garage building and construct a new 1.5-story garage in the same location. He reminded the Commission of its role to determine the status of the garage and whether the project meets the Secretary of the Interior standards. He noted staff originally denied this project finding the garage was a contributing resource; therefore, demolition would not meet standards. Mr. Bertolini discussed the issues that led to the continuation of this item, including which secondary structures in the landmark district contributed to the history and significance of the district, which unfortunately was not made clear in the 2013 landmark district nomination. He stated staff engaged Mary Humstone of Humstone Consulting to provide a report on the topic. Mr. Bertolini noted other properties in the district have gone through garage demolition projects; however, those structures were not found to be contributing to the landmark district. Applicant Presentation Ms. Gaffney gave a brief presentation noting the pandemic is driving the desire for this space, which will ultimately be historical. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 December 16, 2020 Public Input None. Commission Questions Chair Dunn asked Mary Humstone, consultant, to comment on her report on this property, particularly related to how outbuildings contribute to the district. Ms. Humstone replied outbuildings contribute to the overall understanding of the properties, and garages specifically represent a large change in American society in the first part of the 21st century. She stated garages are an important piece of a district and should be considered along with primary residences. Mr. Rose asked Ms. Humstone about the dates of the house and the garage noting the garage was built during the depression era which tells a story of its own. Ms. Humstone agreed and noted there were few entire houses being built during the depression, just garages and additions. Commission Discussion Chair Dunn asked the Commission to weigh in on whether the garage is contributing. Mr. Rose stated that he believes the garage is a contributing structure to the Whitcomb District and the property and any effort to improve its overall architectural quality may be a mistake as it does speak to the time it was built. Ms. Wallace agreed and stated it is important to show the more vernacular style of the garage. Mr. Knierim concurred as well. Ms. Nelsen commented on the other garages that Ms. Humstone's report found to be contributing and stated it is important to stabilize the structure but opposed demolishing it or modifying it in any significant way. Chair Dunn asked whether the Commission needs to vote on whether the garage is a contributing resource to the District. Mr. Yatabe indicated the Commission should vote on it. Ms. Michell and Ms. Bredehoft agreed the garage is a contributing structure. Mr. Rose moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the garage structure at 126 South Whitcomb Street is determined to be a contributing resource to the Whitcomb Street Landmark District. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Bello dissenting. Commission Discussion Ms. Bredehoft requested additional information regarding the approved removal of another garage on the block. Mr. Bertolini replied the main house was found to be contributing despite the 1994 second story addition, but only insofar as it reflected the overall development patterns of the district; therefore, the demolition and replacement of the garage was deemed to not have a significant effect on the historic district. Karen McWilliams, Historic Planning Manager, noted the aforementioned property was not designated for architecture and both the main structure and garage had been significantly altered at the time of the district formation. Chair Dunn suggested reviewing each standard. Standard 1 Chair Dunn noted the property will retain its residential use. Ms. Bredehoft commented on the need for a new garage to meet setback standards whereas the existing garage does not, thereby affecting spatial relationships. Chair Dunn noted the demolition and reconstruction of the garage is not a minimal change. Mr. Bertolini clarified that staff looked at the whole property, not just the garage. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 December 16, 2020 Ms. Nelsen agreed the property will retain residential use; however, the proposed building would have additional uses. Standard 2 Chair Dunn commented on losing the distinctive material of the garage. Standard 3 Ms. Nelsen stated, contrary to staff's analysis, she believes the proposed garage seeks to mimic the house and does create a false sense of history. Mr. Knierim agreed the new structure would change the story and not exhibit the physical record of its time. Ms. Wallace agreed the proposed garage looks like a miniature version of the house and it therefore does not meet this standard. Mr. Rose agreed the proposed garage is more contemporary. Standard 4 Ms. Nelsen agreed with staff’s analysis that the garage is significant in its own right. Standard 5 Chair Dunn pointed out that demolition would not preserve distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques. Ms. Nelsen commented on the simplicity in materials and craftsmanship being valuable for the structure. Standard 6 No comments. Standard 7 & 8 Not applicable. Standard 9 Chair Dunn commented on the proposed garage creating a false sense of history as it is not differentiated enough from the style of the house. Standard 10 Chair Dunn stated destroying the garage would damage its integrity. Overall Comments: Ms. Nelsen stated the proposal does not meet the standards; therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness would not be warranted. She stated there may be other options that could help the applicant meet her needs. Commission Deliberation Ms. Wallace moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project, according to the standards outlined in Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the finding that it does not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed 8-0. [**Secretary’s note: Mr. Bello abstained which is counted as an affirmative vote, per Mr. Yatabe.]. Ms. Bredehoft suggested the possibility of adding on to the existing garage. Chair Dunn noted no construction could occur on top of the undergrounded ditch but stated there may be a possibility for a second garage or an addition to the rear of the house. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 December 16, 2020 Ms. Nelsen and Chair Dunn mentioned several possibilities that may help the applicant. Mr. Rose stated there is more potential for using the available land behind the garage without having a visual impact from the front of the property. He suggested not adding onto the rear of the house. Ms. Gaffney asked if there is an existing Certificate of Appropriateness for the existing plans to stabilize and provide a six-foot addition to the current garage. Mr. Bertolini replied those plans were developed with the design assistance grant for the previous owners and were not ever approved; however, that would be a much quicker approval process. He noted Ms. Gaffney would need a full construction set of drawings for submittal. Ms. Gaffney thanked the Commission members for their time and consideration. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break. Mr. Murray rejoined the meeting, and a roll call was taken upon reconvening to ensure all members were present.] Mr. Yatabe explained to the Commission members that an abstention is treated as an affirmative vote. Chair Dunn asked about the garage door being part of the record of the hearing. Mr. Yatabe replied it is part of the record; however, staff would be evaluating a new application should the applicant move forward with different plans. 4. 140 N MCKINLEY AVENUE (ROBERT AND ORPHA BUXTON HOUSE AND ATTACHED GARAGE) – REAR ADDITION – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition to the City Landmark at 140 N. McKinley Avenue, the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the LPC. APPLICANT: Casey Churchill and Shannon Altenhofen (Property Owners) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report stating this is a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition to the property at 140 North McKinley, which is a City landmark. He noted the Commission is being asked to review what the property owners have provided thus far and provide feedback to assist in the development of detailed plans that will follow preservation standards. He noted this project will come before the Commission seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the property and its 1998 landmark nomination and designation. He stated the proposed project is a rear addition to provide additional bedroom space and a finished basement. He noted the massing of the addition is completely behind the historic home and the addition is differentiated. He stated staff's initial analysis of the concept plans is that they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation noting the plans meet the four main criteria considered with additions to historic buildings: compatible, distinguishable, reversible, and subordinate. He noted that while the addition is fairly large for a house of this type, the design should be complimented. Mr. Bertolini stated he does not have a firm response from Zoning yet regarding the floor area requirements; however, it appears they should be compliant in looking at the Neighborhood Conservation District requirements as the basement space will not count against the floor area requirements. Applicant Presentation Mr. Churchill did not have a formal presentation but discussed his ownership history of the property and desire for the addition to make the space livable for his family. He discussed the reasons for the proposed design to ensure the integrity of the front structure is maintained. Public Input None. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 December 16, 2020 Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn asked if they have explored the possibility of digging out the crawl space. Mr. Churchill replied the expense of that was not feasible. Mr. Bello stated this is a reasonable approach that provides a minimal impact to the existing home. Mr. Rose commented on the need for delineation between the existing home and addition suggesting a change in siding width. Ms. Nelsen asked about the treatment of the exterior corners and how the interior corners would resolve with the new siding meeting the old. Mr. Murray also commented on the typical profiles of metal corners of this time and stated using the more standard straight corners could be a good way to differentiate the addition. Ms. Nelsen commented on the size of the addition and stated it is done in a way to minimize negative impacts. She stated a hip roof would help minimize the massing. Chair Dunn mentioned the state's preference that additions are not more than 33% of the size of the original house. She questioned whether allowing this large of an addition would prevent the owners from accessing state tax credits. Mr. Bertolini replied that while 33% is a general rule of thumb, there is no hard and fast size requirement, and the owners would still have access to tax credits and incentives, though most of the cost of this project would not qualify. Ms. Wallace stated she was concerned about the size of the addition and questioned whether the Commission would have considered the property to be eligible for historic designation if it came before them after having the addition. She expressed concern the addition may diminish the integrity of the property. Chair Dunn stated she is conflicted on the proposed size of the addition, though it is well hidden. She also questioned whether the Commission would landmark the property if it came before them with the addition. She commented on the tax credits being an asset that goes with the property and questioned whether this addition would remove that asset. Mr. Murray noted this addition has limited visual impact from the front of the property. He suggested the possibility of a hybrid situation in placing some of the square footage under the existing house to reduce the square footage on the first floor. Chair Dunn summarized the members' comments stating there is some concern about the addition size, but it is generally acceptable. She asked about the windows. Mr. Churchill replied the plan is to mimic the windows that are in the rest of the house. Chair Dunn stated the window openings seem similar to the house. Ms. Nelsen agreed the window openings look similar but are distinguishable. She stated the existing versus new is clear in the fenestration. Mr. Rose stated the wall penetrations are of the same scale though the new windows appear to be casement rather than double-hung. He supported keeping the overall scale and size of window openings similar to each other. Chair Dunn requested input as to whether the addition is adequately differentiated and screened from public views by non-vegetation features. Ms. Bredehoft stated she has no concerns about the visibility of the addition and commended the proposed design. Mr. Bello stated a hip roof would help with visibility. Ms. Nelsen stated the design is going in the right direction; however, the addition may be more visible from the front elevation roofline than the analysis makes it seem. She suggested there may be a way to improve the roofline by breaking up the roof forms. Chair Dunn requested input on egress windows. Ms. Nelsen stated it might be better not to see them from the front of the house. Chair Dunn commented on adding space under the house being the best solution for these types of situations. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 December 16, 2020 5. 711 PETERSON, THE W.E. BOYD RESIDENCE (ADDITION) – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to construct an addition to this contributing property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District (NCM Zone District). APPLICANT: Richard Sadowsk, Kim Dickson (owners); Kim Morton (design representative) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting the role of the Commission is to review the draft report, provide additional comments regarding how the project does or does not meet the standards, and what effects the project might have on the property's contributing status to the historic district. She provided information on the property's location and history and outlined the proposed project to add a main floor bedroom and bathroom allowing the owners to age in place. She stated the proposed design would demolish a section of the north wall and construct the new 223-square-foot addition on the north elevation. Additionally, a new gravel walk that would circumnavigate the north side of the addition is also being proposed. Ms. Bzdek outlined the Commission's questions from the work session, including a request for explanation about the decision-making process that led to siting the addition in this location, a fuller explanation of the design inspiration and its relationship to the original building, what alterations would be needed to accommodate the addition, more detail about the material dimensions, and whether the decorative shingling would remain in place. Applicant Presentation Ms. Morton, design representative, introduced herself and the property owners. Mr. Sadowske spoke to the Commission about his history with the property and his goals for the addition noting it would allow for him and his wife to age in place with a first story bedroom and bathroom. He discussed the reasons for locating the addition where it is proposed citing the view to the backyard and potential future garage access from the alley. He discussed the importance of alley access for the property. Ms. Morton provided further details about the proposed addition design. She noted the two-track drive does not continue the full length of the driveway to the garage. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray asked if the applicant has considered making the upstairs bedrooms accessible. Ms. Morton replied the staircase is quite small and steep and retrofitting that for a motorized chair would be difficult. She noted the existing bathroom is quite small and would be difficult for accessibility. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed cantilevered areas and how they relate to the existing house. Ms. Morton replied the goal was to minimize the addition and work within setback constraints. She stated the cantilever allows for a workable bathroom that keeps the large window intact. Ms. Nelsen asked if there is a precedent for cantilevers in the neighborhood. Ms. Morton replied the intent was to have it be something unique to mark the addition as being new. Mr. Murray mentioned the four categories of consideration for addition per the Secretary of Interior standards: compatibility, distinguishability, reversibility, and subordination. He stated the addition is subordinate and compatible and can be designed to be distinguishable but questioned whether it is reversible. Chair Dunn stated the size of the addition is quite small; however, it is highly visible from the front of the home and hides the garage so therefore may not be considered subordinate. She stated the location of the addition is her main concern. Mr. Murray agreed the addition blocking the garage is a problem with the design. Ms. Nelsen commented on the proposed cantilever being attention-drawing and not necessarily compatible with the existing house. Chair Dunn stated the vertical elements on either side of the cantilever portion are what stands out to her. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 December 16, 2020 Ms. Morton noted the garage will still be visible from the north and there will still be a visual connection between the proposed addition and the garage. She stated no one would be opposed to changing the siding material if suggested. Ms. Nelsen questioned whether continuing the architectural language of the house with the addition is the correct treatment. Ms. Bredehoft stated she would prefer the addition to have some unique treatment but be at the same level of craftsmanship as the house. Chair Dunn questioned whether the continuation of the horizontal line confuses the addition with being part of the original house. She suggested carrying it over in a more modern way. Ms. Morton concurred. Mr. Bello questioned whether this discussion is relevant given the addition may not be appropriate at all. Chair Dunn replied the Commission is responsible for sending a report to the SHPO as this is a National Register property. She stated the addition can still move forward even if the Commission does not feel it meets the Secretary of Interior standards. Mr. Murray stated the proposed addition would not negatively affect the contributing factor of this property. Ms. Bzdek clarified the role of the Commission stating it should provide some summary findings regarding the Secretary of Interior standards for any proposed work as well as a general comment regarding the property's contribution to the historic district. Ms. Morton clarified the addition would not be removing any existing materials. Chair Dunn stated a more simplified gable end would help differentiate the addition. Mr. Murray stated a hip roof could be more subordinate to the home's gable. Chair Dunn stated having an addition with a notably different roofline than the home would detract from the home's roofline feature. Ms. Nelsen agreed the gable is appropriate for the addition. Mr. Murray discussed the Secretary of Interior standards and related staff findings. Ms. Nelsen stated there may not be a better solution to keep the house functioning for its owners in terms of the addition's placement and general massing. Chair Dunn stated the proposed addition is done as sensitively as it can be in terms of standard 5. Mr. Knierim discussed the importance of differentiation in terms of standard 9. Mr. Rose commented on the lot and house being long and narrow and stated the addition being simpler and more clearly delineated could allow it to meet the standards. Commission members discussed the ways in which the project does not meet the standards. Chair Dunn stated any addition on the side of the home would not likely meet standards. She noted it will ultimately be up to the state to determine whether the home remains a contributing property to the district. Mr. Murray suggested adding a comment to the motion indicating the addition would not affect the overall integrity of the property and its contributing to the historic district. Ms. Nelsen and Ms. Bredehoft questioned whether that determination is appropriate. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alterations to the W.E. Boyd Residence at 711 Peterson Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that our findings shall be conveyed to the owner, and shall be filed for potential transmittal to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the property’s historic status. Ms. Nelsen seconded. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 9 December 16, 2020 Mr. Murray questioned whether the intent of the motion would make the property non-contributing. Chair Dunn replied that has not been the intent of similar motions in the past. Mr. Rose noted the applicants have indicated these plans are conceptual and suggested a clearer delineation between the existing home and the addition could allow the home to meet the standards and still contribute to the district. Ms. Nelsen agreed the project does have the potential to meet the standards; however, it does not as proposed, which is outlined in the motion. Mr. Bello and Chair Dunn noted the proposed addition would still block the garage. Chair Dunn stated voting on this letter does not suggest the applicants could not return with a different design; however, it would still allow them to move forward. The motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Rose dissenting. Chair Dunn requested staff arrange for someone from the state to come to a future work session to discuss this process in more detail. 6. CITY OF FORT COLLINS HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE DESCRIPTION: For the Commission’s consideration at this meeting, City staff members will provide a presentation on the Housing Strategic Plan outlining progress to date, public engagement feedback, work with consultant Root Policy Research, and outcomes from Council’s Ad Hoc Housing Committee. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek introduced the item and introduced Meaghan Overton, Senior City Planner. Ms. Overton discussed the Housing Strategic Plan process that has moved quickly through public outreach, strategy identification and evaluation, and drafting. She noted the Plan is set to be considered by Council in February for first reading. Ms. Overton discussed the vision for the Plan: that everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford. Ms. Overton detailed the public outreach process and resulting input around housing challenges. She also discussed the list of strategies that have been identified and the draft criteria for evaluating those strategies. She commented on the goals of Council's Ad Hoc Housing Committee consisting of Councilmembers Gorgol, Cunniff, and Stephens. Ms. Overton mentioned the six topics the Commission may want to discuss: conducting a displacement or gentrification analysis, considering a demolition tax or fee as a revenue stream for affordable housing, removing barriers to the development of accessory dwelling units, revising occupancy limits and family definitions, Land Use Code changes, and enhancing programs that support home rehabilitation of existing building stock. Mr. Bello suggested an examination of design standards that increase home construction prices. Ms. Overton replied that was one of the driving factors behind the Land Use Code audit. Chair Dunn commented on older housing typically being turned into multi-unit dwellings and on the possibility of placing accessory dwelling units in large lots in non-Old Town areas. She also mentioned the connection between housing affordability and transportation which affects gentrification. She noted occupancy limits negatively affect affordability. Ms. Nelsen commended the staff work on this topic. Ms. Overton noted the hope is that Council will adopt a Plan with clear priorities and metrics and a community summit is planned for the spring to begin implementation. Chair Dunn commented on the benefits of a demolition tax. x OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn mentioned the Historic Larimer County Holy Places for the Holiday tour and noted this is Ms. Bredehoft's and Ms. Wallace's last meeting. Commission members thanked them for their service. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 10 December 16, 2020 x ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair -DQXDU\ Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 January 20, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Michael Bello This meeting was held remotely. Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting January 19, 2020 Minutes x CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. (**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.) x ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Brad Yatabe, Gretchen Schiager, Judy Schmidt Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: “We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.” x INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER Chair Dunn introduced Walter Dunn who had just been appointed to the Commission. Mr. Dunn shared about his background in history, archaeology, and construction. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 January 20, 2021 x AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. x CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. x STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the January 20, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed 8-0. x DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. The Commission did not request a presentation, nor did they have any questions on this item. 3. THE QUARRY AT WATERMARK –DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed development at Shields and Hobbit Streets of 326 multi-family dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The site is undeveloped. The northeast portion of the site plan, containing three buildings, is within the historic influence area and subject to the design compatibility requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the land use Code. The application is subject to a Type 2 Review, for which the decision maker will be the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: North Spring Creek Properties, LLC; Russ Lee, Ripley Design, Inc. Mr. Yatabe recused himself from this item due to a conflict. Ms. Schmidt stepped in as legal counsel. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, explaining that the Commission’s role is to provide a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board based on its compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 January 20, 2021 She described the proposed development, noting that due to its proximity, the Sheely Drive Historic District is the area of adjacency. She explained that the standards outlined in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code contain the review criteria for the development proposal which focuses on compatibility with the historic resources in regard to massing, fenestration pattern, design detail and building materials. She reviewed the Commission’s requests for information from the work session. She informed the Commission that formal minutes are not taken at neighborhood meetings, so she was unable to provide them as requested at the work session. Applicant Presentation Jessica Tuttle, Watermark Apartments, presented details about the proposal, highlighting information requested by the Commission at the work session. She talked about the transition from the 16-foot villa to the two-story villa and then up to the three-story and higher density portions along Shields. Public Input Colleen Hoffman, a resident of Wallenberg Drive, stated the design proposal looks pretty good. She asked to see the previous proposal in comparison with the latest design. Ms. Tuttle shared the relevant slides and commented that the proposal is now much more compatible with the Sheely Drive homes. Ann Hunt inquired about the stonework around the bottom in front. Ms. Tuttle responded that the bottom base below the window on all sides will be wrapped in a band of stone similar to the Sheely Drive homes and the top is lap-siding fiber-cement high-quality material. Steve Herron, Watermark Apartments, added that it is a cultured stone with a capstone cap. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Bello asked about the square footage and the number of bedrooms in the units. Ms. Tuttle responded that each of the two sides is a 1000 sq. ft., two-bedroom unit. Chair Dunn said the applicant and staff had done a great job answering their questions and providing all the details they needed. Ms. Tuttle commented that the whole process had been good for the project. Commission Discussion Mr. Murray agreed with Chair Dunn and stated the applicant had answered his questions. Mr. Knierim agreed and added that the low-sloping gable in front fit well with the character of the District. Chair Dunn appreciated Ms. Hoffman’s earlier question which allowed everyone to see the older, more complex version, and how the updated design addressed that. Mr. Murray suggested that the addition of bleeding mortar work as seen in the Sheely Drive area might improve the compatibility even more. Chair Dunn commented that bleeding mortar might not be appreciated these days. Ms. Nelsen asked if cultured stone, which is concrete made to look like stone, meets the high-quality material requirement in 3.4.7. Ms. Bzdek responded that is up to the Commission to determine. Mr. Murray stated if cultured stone is done right it will look good for the next 20 years or so. Chair Dunn said while she is not a fan of cultured stone, from a distance it looks similar enough. Mr. Bello agreed, and while he thought the rear elevation was little flat, it is a good project in his opinion. Ms. Nelsen appreciated that the cultured stone wrapped around the sides and the back. Chair Dunn commented that the back faces the historic district. Ms. Tuttle explained that the back side of the villa faces the back side of the Sheely Drive homes, and there is a fence in between. She explained the front of the villa is visible from Wallenberg Drive. Chair Dunn inquired about the Wallenberg right-of-way. Ms. Tuttle explained that Watermark Apartments owns the space where the existing trail lies. The right-of-way line is between the concrete trail and the pavement for the street. The City has an easement for the trail for access and maintenance, and there has been some discussion about the possibility of deeding some of the trail to the City. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 January 20, 2021 Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of The Quarry by Watermark, finding it complies with all of the applicable standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, Table 1 with respect to the three one-story duplex buildings within the historic influence area, as summarized in the staff report. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 8-0 Chair Dunn stated this is a fine project that will fit in well with the Historic District. Mr. Yatabe returned to the meeting. 4. MAGNOLIA DWELLINGS – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 335 E Magnolia, a single-family residence, to construct a four-unit multifamily building. Development site is in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. The existing zoning is Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM), and the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Owner: 335 Magnolia LLC (Contact: Jordan Obermann); Applicant: Russell + Mills (Shelley LaMastra); alm2s (Ian Shuff) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board and briefly described the proposal. She talked about the intensive-level survey conducted in 2019 which found the property does not contribute to the National Registry of the district, nor is it eligible for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. Ms. Bzdek reviewed and clarified the area of adjacency. Ms. Bzdek discussed the review requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and stated the Commission will need to determine whether the design of the new construction complies with all six of the required standards. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff introduced himself and Craig Russell from Russell + Mills, the landscape architect on the project. Mr. Russell talked about the character of the frontage historic homes in old town, noting the wide tree lines. He talked about the foundation plantings around the front porch and explained that the stepping stones are an attempt to tie into the historic use of large sandstone pavers. He talked about using pre-cast concrete rather than stone, while focusing on the scale. He described details about the landscape plan and talked about creating privacy from the property to the east. He talked about the plant pallet and use of a simple, informal planting style. Mr. Shuff addressed the Commission’s work session questions about massing, placement of buildings and circulation. He explained the massing was placed in the back intentionally and pointed out the location of the main doors. Mr. Shuff discussed the neighborhood context and contributing properties, pointing out a mix of architectural styles, including Queen Anne, American Foursquare, Craftsman and Classic Cottages. He explained how the building design relates to the neighborhood in fenestration, interest, gabling, grade change and stepping the building down, adding that the step down on three sides of the building exceeds the Land Use Code requirements. Mr. Shuff noted from the street elevation looking south the main face of the building is most visible. He talked about how privacy concerns were addressed, partly with trees and a six-foot privacy fence between the properties. Mr. Shuff compared the height of the building to the neighborhood context to illustrate the general massing. Mr. Shuff discussed the use of high-quality materials including stone and lap-siding with some board and batten siding in back. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 January 20, 2021 He pointed out the building form type, roof and front porch design, as well as the fenestration pattern and other façade details, stating they are compatible with the neighborhood. Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Murray asked about the location of the closest Queen Anne, whether the alley is paved, and the life-expectancy of the trees. Mr. Shuff said the closest Queen Anne was 330 Peterson. He stated the alley is not paved, adding that the neighbors do not want it paved, but the City may require it. Mr. Russell said the junipers and flowering trees usually last 60-75 years. Ms. Nelsen appreciated the detailed responses to the work session questions and asked about the sill height of first story windows. Mr. Shuff stated they are three feet high, and explained they are higher for furniture placement. Ms. Nelsen said she understood the reasoning but pointed out that makes it different than others in the area. She added that fitting four units in that space is quite an accomplishment. Mr. Murray asked about sight lines with regard to privacy. Mr. Shuff said most views will be obscured by the privacy fence. Mr. Shuff noted that privacy is not really a 3.4.7 item. Mr. Bello commented that looking at the elevation comparisons with existing homes, the proposed building is complex with lots of roofs and gables which is an expensive way to build something. He suggested it might be less expensive and fit in better if it were simpler. Ms. Nelsen was not sure what could be simplified without losing character. Mr. Shuff stated that they considered hip roofs to make the roofs less dominant, adding that he is open to that with just one gable face if the client were interested. Mr. Bello asked whether the units are for sale or rent. Mr. Shuff stated they are condos for sale. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern about making all of it a hip roof which might be out of place and overwhelming, and stated she understood the desire for at least one gable. Chair Dunn counted eight roof forms on the proposed project, while the surrounding houses have one to three, making this project significantly busier than surrounding houses. Mr. Bello agreed. Chair Dunn pointed to several of the properties Mr. Shuff had used as examples in his comparisons and stated that most of them were not in the area of adjacency and should not be considered. She noted that those that are in the area of adjacency have much simpler roof forms. Mr. Shuff asked whether having the same number of roof forms is required by Code. Chair Dunn responded referencing Standard 6 of 3.4.7 regarding use of design elements, including rooflines, to relate to the historic resources. Staff displayed the homes across the street on Google Maps, noting that each have two or three roof forms. Chair Dunn stated the proposed project has more than double of what is seen historically. She stated the complexity does not fit with neighborhood and is probably more expensive anyway. Ms. Nelsen agreed it is more complex but argued it helps to break up the massing and scale while still being fairly sensitive to the existing context. Chair Dunn stated the building could be articulated and still simplified. She said it stands out and does not fit with the historic character, adding that the massing can be mitigated without adding such a spotlight on it. Mr. Murray pointed out an elevation in the packet that showed a simpler roof line. Mr. Shuff said it was the same design just a different elevation that does not show as much of the roof. Mr. Murray asked if that is what would be seen from the street and Chair Dunn said it be what is seen from close up. Chair Dunn asked about the height, and Mr. Shuff responded that the project was four to five feet taller than the two-story apartments next door, adding that he did not compare it to the green one-story house on the corner. Mr. Shuff stated his belief that the pitch of the roof is more compatible with the overall surrounding homes. Ms. Nelsen asked if the gable above the front entry porch could be changed to a hip roof. Mr. Shuff said that would be possible, but that gables are more predominant in the area. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 January 20, 2021 Commission Discussion Chair Dunn suggested discussing compliance with each standard separately. Standard 1 Mr. Bello had no concerns with the width. Ms. Nelsen stated the width seems compatible. Standard 2 Mr. Murray appreciated that the massing was pushed over to the bigger buildings and believes the step backs comply with the standard. Standard 3 The Members did not express any disagreement with Staff’s finding that the project complies. Standard 4 Mr. Murray said the board and batten siding does not match, but since it is in the back, it does not show from the street or adversely impact the historic resources. Ms. Nelsen agreed and added that overall, the materials are compatible. Standard 5 Chair Dunn commented that Applicant had done a good job with the proportions of the windows. Standard 6 Mr. Murray talked about the variety of styles and eras of homes in the neighborhood. Chair Dunn pointed out one Queen Anne house with a steeper roof pitch and five roof forms in front. Mr. Dunn drew the Commission’s attention to the corner house at Magnolia and Mulberry, which is in the area of adjacency and seems more similar to the proposed building. Chair Dunn counted five roof forms on that home. Mr. Murray additionally noted the bay window with the compound roof. Ms. Nelsen asked for clarification on the Code in terms of the area of adjacency. Ms. Bzdek explained that a 200-foot radius can be considered, but the project must comply with all six standards for any historic resources on the site or abutting the site. She clarified that the homes across the street are not abutting. She said in this case, the Commission should consider the overall area of adjacency rather than just those closest to the project which are not of the predominant style as those in the whole area. She stated this was an eclectic environment in which to insert the new construction. Chair Dunn asked if the 1972 two-story apartment buildings with the Mansard roofs are shorter than the today’s building Code would require. Mr. Bello and Ms. Nelsen both speculated that they are 8’ ceiling heights. Ms. Nelsen commented that up to a 2.5-foot difference would be expected between a house 30 years ago and today. Mr. Shuff commented that current Code might not allow such a low a slope and clarified that residential housing cannot have a flat roof in some areas. Ms. Nelsen inquired about whether a motion could communicate that the project mostly meets 3.4.7 but might need finessing on the roof. Mr. Yatabe stated that the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation based on whether it satisfies the criteria, and to state why it does or does not. Mr. Bello asked if they could make a condition that the rooflines be looked at for compatibility. Chair Dunn asked whether the Applicant could go to the Planning and Zoning Board without coming back to the Commission if they made changes to the design based on the Commission’s recommendation. Mr. Yatabe explained that the Planning and Zoning Board could choose to send it back to the Commission if substantive changes are made. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the Magnolia Dwellings project at 335 E Magnolia, finding it does not comply with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, based on the following findings that it does not comply with Part 6, Table 1 of the Code related to design details, particularly the complexity of the rooflines as compared to the adjacent properties. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 January 20, 2021 Mr. Murray seconded. Chair Dunn stated that we desperately need more housing, especially in this area, and this is a great project from that perspective. She approved of the porches having a similar style to existing porches in the area. She commented that the project could fit in better if it were modeled after the Foursquares in the area of adjacency. Mr. Bello agreed, stating that was the only issue and it was otherwise a great project. He hoped they would take the Commission’s advice. Mr. Rose said he would not support the motion. He agreed there is a desperate need for affordable housing. He stated this was a very good project with thoughtful articulation and that the roofline helps to diminish the overall scale and mass. He stated it would be unfortunate if adjusting the roofline resulted in increasing the massing. He added that the design is a sincere attempt to do something with density while attempting to integrate into difficult site in a sensitive way. Mr. Shuff interjected that they really wanted a recommendation for approval and would be willing to agree to conditions such as adjusting the roofline. Mr. Bello said he was willing to pull the motion and restate it as an approval with conditions. Mr. Yatabe said the Code talks about a recommendation and does not mention conditions. Mr. Bello asked whether the Commission has imposed conditions on a recommendation in the past, and Ms. Bzdek responded that they had done so in situations where the Commission was comfortable allowing Staff to follow up on the conditions in the final review process prior to going to hearing. Mr. Yatabe stated the Code does not specifically prohibit conditions, and that in this case an approval with conditions is essentially the same message as was conveyed in the motion for denial, if that language is preferable Mr. Yatabe stressed the importance of being specific about the condition. Mr. Murray suggested instructing Staff help to simplify the rooflines to reflect the abutting historic properties, although that would just refer to the 1950’s houses which may not be preferable. Mr. Bello suggested approval without conditions, but outside of the motion recommending changes to the Applicant. Mr. Knierim agreed. Ms. Nelsen stated that as a whole the project does meet 3.4.7, and she would be concerned about efforts to reduce the complexity of the roofline because of the potential impact that may have on the overall design. She would be inclined to recommend approval full stop. Ms. Michell disliked the roofline and did not think it fit with the neighborhood but expressed concern that trying to fix it might make it worse. Neither Mr. Dunn nor Mr. Knierim had anything to add to what had already been stated. Motion failed 4-4 with Mr. Rose, Mr. Knierim, Mr. Bello, and Ms. Nelsen dissenting. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Magnolia Dwellings project at 335 E Magnolia, finding it complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7. Ms. Nelsen seconded. Chair Dunn asked whether the Planning and Zoning Board would see both motions. Ms. Bzdek responded that Staff would issue a summary memo of the Commission’s findings that includes the motion and any substantive discussion points that were not specified as findings in the motion. Motion failed 4-4 with Ms. Michell, Mr. Murray, Mr. Dunn, and Chair Dunn dissenting. Mr. Bello asked if they could vote on his first motion again, explaining that he only voted against it because he planned to make this other motion and assumed it would pass. Mr. Yatabe emphasized that the Code says the Commission will make a recommendation. He added that there may be a rule for reconsideration of a motion, but he would need to research that. Mr. Shuff interjected that they are willing to work with Staff to make changes to the roof form. Mr. Dunn suggested that putting forward the split decision regarding Part 6 would be the best approach. Mr. Murray asked if they could make an amendment to a motion. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a break 8:28 to 8:35. A roll call taken upon reconvening to confirm all were still in attendance.] Mr. Yatabe explained that a motion to reconsider is not preferred. A variation to a previous motion could be made, or someone who voted against the first motion could make a motion to reconsider which would need to be seconded, or a new motion can be made. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 January 20, 2021 Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Magnolia Dwellings project at 335 E Magnolia, finding it complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, provided the Applicant works with Staff to help the design relate better to the abutting historic resources. There was no second. There was discussion about whether to continue the item to next month to give the Applicant an opportunity to revise their plans. Mr. Bello moved to continue the item to the February meeting, Ms. Michell seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 5. 359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER) – PROPOSED ENCLOSURE TO UPPER ADDITION DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the addition of an upper patio enclosure on the northwest corner of the historic building at 359 Linden Street (Ginger and Baker). APPLICANT: Chris Aronson (VFLA); Jack and Ginger Graham (Owners) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She provided some background on the building, reviewed the role of the Commission, and clarified that Staff is the decision maker for this item. She explained that the project must comply with the design review requirements in Chapter 14, Article III, of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, as stated in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(D)(2). Ms. Bzdek reviewed the area of adjacency and provided an overview of the previously approved plans for the building’s renovation in 2015 and the addition of the lower-level patio sunshade last year. She summarized the currently proposed plans, pointing out some design features and additional views. Ms. Bzdek asked the Commission to consider key questions relating to Standards 2, 7, 9 and 10. Applicant Presentation Mr. Aronson discussed some of the design approaches that were considered and the evolution of the design. He explained details about the construction and connections for the enclosure. He addressed questions from the work session, clarifying that there was no previous enclosure and confirming the glass will be translucent and not tinted. He explained that they chose a different product that what was used for the upper patio for structural purposes. He also stated there was no historic parapet at the first floor. Ms. Graham explained the importance of the project to the future of the business. Mr. Graham expanded on her comments, explaining in more detail how the uncovered patio significantly limits the seating capacity of the restaurant in the colder months. He emphasized that the financial viability of the business depends on the approval of this addition. Ms. Graham added that temperature control has also been challenging in the summer. Mr. Aronson discussed how the project and design will meet Standards 2, 9, 7 and 10. He stated that no historic elements would be removed with this project, nor would the view of the historic window be obstructed. He also explained the measures they are taking to avoid structurally attaching to the historic structure. He noted that the new form will respect the historic building and that they have tried to make it as transparent as possible, even though the use of steel is structurally unavoidable. He also confirmed that this addition would be removable in the future if necessary. Public Input None Commission Questions Chair Dunn asked whether non-historic additions were previously removed from this building. Mr. Aronson said that was correct. Chair Dunn asked if the steel structure would go through the teaching kitchen to the floor. Mr. Aronson answered in the affirmative. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 9 January 20, 2021 Mr. Murray asked about the approved addition on the north patio that was not built and whether more additions are planned in the future. Ms. Graham responded that they do intend to execute the plans for the north patio, but the timing has not worked out yet. They hope to complete both projects in 2021, after which the only uncovered space would be part of the lower patio where the bike racks, utilities, and stairs to the teaching kitchen are located. They may pursue an enhancement to the lower north patio in the future for street interaction with a possible food element such as a pizza oven or smoker. Other than that possibility, they do not have additional plans, and there are no other areas that could be enclosed. Mr. Murray asked if they had considered opening up the “slice of pie” addition. Mrs. Graham explained that the entire glass wall does open, but weather has prevented them from opening it as often as they would like. Ms. Graham explained that this proposed enclosure would add another 25 seats to the Cache restaurant, which is currently limited to 20 seats due to COVID restrictions. Under normal conditions, this enclosure will allow more events to be held regardless of weather. Chair Dunn commented that the addition only connects to the existing building on one corner, so as far as additions go, it is a very light touch. Commission Discussion Chair Dunn guided the discussion around the Code standards. Standard 2 Mr. Murray said he understood the need for the enclosure but expressed concern that at the street level only the front will really show the original feeling. He also questions whether some of the load will be on the old building. Ms. Graham stated that they worked hard to preserve the imagery of the historic building coming from Old Town and ensure that the public could appreciate the full effect of how the original old grain building looked. Chair Dunn suggested identifying the character-defining features of the building. She mentioned the unique gables and the storefront. Ms. Graham added that the white paint, the steep parapets, the steep roof with the cupula, and the scale were specifically called out in the historic report. Chair Dunn commented that the historic building is more visible than it would have been if the addition plans that had been approved by a previous Commission had actually been built. She said the visibility of the building will depend on how transparent the new structures will really be. Ms. Graham said their goal is for maximum transparency. Ms. Nelson commented that the only thing partially obstructed by the new enclosure is the southwest most parapet. She stated the project meets Standard 2. Standard 7 The Commission did not express any concerns regarding this standard. Standard 9 Ms. Nelsen commented that the schematic details provided were helpful. She stated that the addition seems to have very little impact on the historic part of the building, so it meets Standard 9. Standard 10 Mr. Knierim appreciated that there is very little direct interface between the new addition and the historic structure. Chair Dunn asked for any additional comments or discussion. Ms. Michell liked the glass and how the shape compliments the pie wedge. Mr. Bello stated that the addition fits in and does not negatively impact the important elements of the building. Mr. Dunn agreed, adding that the addition is not putting extra stress on the building since they have avoided attaching directly to it, and it would be easily disassembled. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 10 January 20, 2021 Mr. Rose commented that it is a sensitive approach to dealing with the economic challenges and an imaginative way to solve a problem while honoring the historic integrity. He noted that the roof slopes are the same and the materials are repeated. He stated it is a totally acceptable solution. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of a Minor Amendment to add an upper patio enclosure to 359 Linden, finding it complies with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, specifically the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, and further instruct staff to issue the required report to the State Historic Preservation Office summarizing these findings. Mr. Rose seconded. The motion passed 8-0. x OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn announced she is giving a talk at noon on Monday on the history of historic preservation as a preview to the Saving Places Conference. Ms. Bzdek suggested Chair Dunn give the presentation at an upcoming LPC work session. x ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.2/17/21 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 February 17, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Michael Bello This meeting was held Walter Dunn remotely via Zoom. Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting February 17, 2021 Minutes x CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. x ROLL CALL PRESENT: Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Mike Bello STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Gretchen Schiager Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: “We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.” x AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated there were no changes to posted agenda. x CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. x STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 February 17, 2021 x PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Knierim moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the February 17, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 7-0. x DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks 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. Commission Questions Mr. Murray asked why aluminum clad vinyl clad windows were approved for 633 Remington. Mr. Bertolini explained the property is not a local landmark, therefore design review authority is advisory only. 3. TENNEY COURT NORTH AND WEST OAK STREET ALLEYS CAPITAL PROJECTS 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 Mr. Dunn recused himself from this item stating his company did the survey for the project. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek briefly introduced the item noting the LPC does act as a decision maker when alley improvements impact designated historic resources. She stated staff’s assessment is that the proposed improvements will have no direct impact on the only historic landmarked property abutting the work, which is the Armstrong Hotel. Applicant Presentation Todd Dangerfield, Downtown Development Authority, gave a brief overview of the project, progress, and timeline. Kara Scohy, Norris Design, shared a video about the history of the alleys and evolution of the design. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn asked about the transformer box on Olive at the Armstrong. Mr. Dangerfield replied it will remain. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 February 17, 2021 Chair Dunn asked how pedestrians will be kept from falling into stairwells near Jay’s Bistro. Mr. Dangerfield replied some of that will be corrected when the alley paving is redone as grades will change. He noted the main issue with rear step entries has always been water infiltration and the grade changes will help with positive draining. He stated planters and enhanced lighting will also guide pedestrians away from stairwells. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds the proposed alley improvements to Tenney Court and West Oak Street Alleys have no effect on the setting of the Armstrong Hotel, an abutting designated Fort Collins landmark, and therefore the work does not constitute alterations requiring review under Chapter 14, Article IV – Design Review of Proposed Alterations to Designated Resources. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dunn commended the DDA on its efforts to add art and pedestrian-friendly features in these projects and stated the historic downtown is enhanced by those efforts. Mr. Dunn returned to the meeting. 4. ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 1608, 1610, and 1618 S College for construction of a new Alpine Bank building with parking and drive-up teller lanes, 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 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She discussed the location of the project and noted the Commission’s conceptual review comments were provided in November and the applicant is now requesting a formal recommendation to the Hearing Officer. She briefly reviewed the proposed project and discussed the historic features of the building that will be retained as part of the project. Ms. Bzdek stated the Commission’s recommendation will need to speak to two areas of review: the alterations to the historic building based on the Secretary of the Interior standards, and the design compatibility requirements for the new construction on the site. She also noted the Commission will need to consider whether the movement of the historic building on the site would create a false sense of history. She stated staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Applicant Presentation Zell Cantrell, Galloway, reviewed the proposed site plan, pointing out significant features. He discussed the required deceleration and right-hand turn lane, tree lawn, and detached sidewalk. He mentioned efforts to retain the 1610 historic structure at its current location; however, those plans were not successful and moving the structure to the south became the best option. He detailed foundation issues with the 1610 building and noted moving it to a new foundation would help maintain its integrity. Kristoffer Kenton, Galloway, discussed the architectural design of the proposed new structure noting it pulls from the Craftsman structure of the historic building. Public Input None. Commission Questions Mr. Rose stated the five parking spaces that are directly to the north of the historic structure seem to encroach on the structure. He stated he would rather see the historic structure set into its own lawn type of space for residential context but acknowledged the parking spaces may be a Code requirement. Mr. Kenton replied there is a 5.5 foot walk at the back of the parking spaces as well as a landscape area. He stated the building sits four to five feet away from the paving edge. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 February 17, 2021 Mr. Cantrell stated the parking spaces will be critical to whatever use ends up in the building in the future. Additionally, he noted the primary customer access to the bank building will be from the south. Mr. Rose noted the asphalt did not exist when this structure was part of a residential row along College. He stated it is imperative there are landscape features that delineate the home without overwhelming it. Mr. Kenton noted there are 10.5 feet between the back of the curb and the face of the building. He commented on the constraint caused by the access, which is as far north as possible. Mr. Rose replied he is not concerned about the access drive, just about the parking spaces and their encroachment into a lawn barrier. Mr. Kenton commented on the parking being needed for any future tenant of the building. Ms. Nelsen asked if any thought had been put into demarcating the location of the existing building. Mr. Cantrell replied any demarcation would be in the middle of the drive aisle, which did not seem appropriate. He stated they have considered placing a plaque on the building or on a stand outside the building to indicate the former context. Chair Dunn stated she would like to see a sign indicating the locations of the houses versus the locations of the existing buildings and how this house was moved. She stated it may be worth having the sign both in the front and back of the building. Mr. Cantrell stated they may be able to find a photo of the homes for a plaque image. Mr. Knierim suggested the possibility of putting a sign in the bank for maximum exposure given the possible lack of pedestrians in the area. Chair Dunn suggested placing a sign in the bank and in front of the house. Chair Dunn asked if there are other historic homes on this block. Ms. Bzdek clarified this is the only historic home on the part of the block that is part of this redevelopment project. Chair Dunn asked if the stamped blocks on the wall of the building to the south that is going to be demolished will be repurposed. Mr. Cantrell replied the sandstone would be salvaged and available for individuals to pick up; however, there is probably not a good use for it on the site. Chair Dunn suggested materials could be donated to Habitat for Humanity as well. Mr. Murray noted Mendoza Brothers in Commerce City collects concrete block to resell as well. Mr. Cantrell stated the client may be reluctant to add the cost of pulling the building apart such that the blocks could be reused but stated they would be willing to have someone come pick them up. Commission Discussion Mr. Murray stated moving the historic home was the only way to save it and add some residential context. Commission Deliberation Mr. Knierim moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Alpine Bank project at College and Prospect, finding that the proposal to move and rehabilitate the historic building complies with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, that the relocation of the building is sufficiently supported by satisfaction of three of four criteria for modification of standards, and that the design of the new bank building complies with all six of the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (E), Table 1. Mr. Murray seconded. Chair Dunn thanked the team for designing the new building to echo the time period without mimicking the historic structure. She commended the simplified roof form and skirting. The motion passed 7-0. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 February 17, 2021 5. MAGNOLIA DWELLINGS – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 335 E. Magnolia, a single-family residence, to construct a four-unit multifamily building. Development site is in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. The existing zoning is Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM), and the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Owner: 335 Magnolia LLC (Contact: Jordan Obermann); Applicant: Russell + Mills (Shelley LaMastra); alm2s (Ian Shuff) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting this project would be an infill project in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. She stated this item has been continued from January to allow the applicants the opportunity to revise the plans based on comments provided by the Commission. She noted the intensive level survey done on the existing building showed it does not meet the requirements for Fort Collins landmark designation, nor does it contribute to the National Register District, based on lack of significance and integrity. Ms. Bzdek noted the Commission agreed the proposal was compliant with the first five standards but was split regarding the project’s compliance with the sixth standard, which requires the new construction to use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements to relate the new construction to historic resources in the area of adjacency. Chair Dunn encouraged the members to point out the differences between the design in January and the revised design. Ms. Nelsen commented on the changes she observed. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff gave a brief review of the site plan, area of adjacency and focus on the Queen Anne style. He pointed out the simplification of the porch and rooflines and discussed the building massing and site placement. He shared several perspectives of the context. Public Input None. Commission Questions Mr. Murray appreciated the changes made to the rooflines based on the Commission comments last month. He asked about the historic buildings used as a reference in the applicant presentation and Mr. Shuff identified the buildings. Commission Discussion None. Commission Deliberation Ms. Nelsen move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Magnolia Dwellings project at 335 E Magnolia, finding it complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7. Mr. Dunn seconded. Chair Dunn concurred with Mr. Murray on his assessment of the rooflines. The motion passed 7-0. 6. 421 MATHEWS STREET (TOMLIN-ROBERTS PROPERTY) – NRHP DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Full rehabilitation of property including rear addition, window/door replacement, siding repair, porch repair, and chimney repair. APPLICANT: Ryan & Bryan McCarty Mr. Murray recused himself from this item stating he had been involved in design assistance with the applicant. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 February 17, 2021 Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting this is a National Register Design Review for 420 Mathews Street, a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District. He noted the Commission is not in a decision-making role but will review the proposed alterations and report that staff has drafted on behalf of the Commission, provide any additional comments or modifications as necessary, and either approve or modify the findings in the draft report. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the property and flanking properties, both of which are landmarks. He detailed the proposed rehabilitation project which will include a rear addition and window and door replacement, siding repair, porch replacement, and chimney reconstruction. He discussed character- defining features of the property and showed several images of the site. Mr. Bertolini stated staff finds that the overall project does not meet the standards largely based on the extent of replacement rather than repair of historic materials. He stated staff also finds the property will not likely contribute to the Laurel School Historic District after the rehabilitation is complete. Applicant Presentation There was no applicant presentation. Public Input None. Commission Questions Chair Dunn asked about the planned removal of the historic surrounds. Ryan McCarty replied he will be refurbishing and reusing the surrounds as much as possible. Chair Dunn asked if the colonial style would remain. Mr. McCarty replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn asked why the chimney look is changing. Mr. McCarty replied a stone cap will be added as that would have been a viable historic option. He noted he will be using the same brick for the reconstruction but stated there is a need for a better water seal. Chair Dunn asked the Commission for recommendations on keeping the historic look of the chimney while still keeping water out. Ms. Nelsen discussed the chimney and Mr. McCarty commented. Mr. Bertolini noted the building does not have gutters and stated staff would suggest using a half-round gutter. Mr. McCarty replied that is part of his proposal. Mr. Bertolini commented on grading negatively affecting water channeling. Ms. Nelsen stated the chimney does not seem well-flashed. Mr. McCarty replied there is currently no flashing and stated he will be repairing the siding in that area. Mr. Rose asked about the condition of the bay window and what reconnaissance was done to arrive at the conclusion it is beyond repair. He noted it is a central component of this style of architecture and stated everything possible should be done to attempt to repair it. Mr. McCarty replied he pulled the paint off and the entire bay window has fallen about two inches. He stated he will be reusing some of the window’s unique features in the reconstruction. Mr. Bertolini commented on the change on the front and the glazing pattern. Mr. Rose asked if the casements are original to the structure. Mr. Bertolini replied that is the case from what staff can tell as there are few historic images of the property. Ms. Michell asked what it would take to retain the shape of the bay window when it is rebuilt. Mr. McCarty replied he would redesign it; he stated his proposal is a personal preference. Mr. Rose asked about the use of board and batten on the addition and stated it is more emblematic of early 19th-century style. He suggested using a more subtle way to distinguish the addition. Mr. McCarty commented on another refurbished home he observed with board and batten but stated he would consider a change. Ms. Nelsen agreed with Mr. Rose’s comment and agreed a horizontal siding with a different scale could be useful. Mr. Rose stated an alternative could be using a beaded 4-inch lap siding or some other material to achieve the distinction without being quite so abrupt. Ms. Nelsen encouraged Mr. McCarty to retain the size and shape of the bay window as it is a very unique feature. Mr. McCarty replied he would look into it and noted window sizing is important. Chair Dunn agreed the bay window is one of the most beautiful features of the house. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 February 17, 2021 Commission Discussion Ms. Nelsen asked if the interior drawings and floor plans are kept as historical records. Mr. Bertolini replied records related to historic properties are considered permanent as part of the state record retention policy. Mr. Rose commended Mr. McCarty for taking on this project and seeing the potential in the property despite the challenges. He noted preservation is not necessarily an inexpensive endeavor. Chair Dunn asked Mr. McCarty if he has considered using tax credits. Mr. McCarty replied in the affirmative. Mr. Rose asked if it is conceivable the proposal could be revamped to include some of the suggested modifications and then potentially be considered to be contributing. Mr. Bertolini replied the Commission is documenting whether the proposed project meets the standards. He suggested not focusing too much on whether the property is contributing as that decision will be made by the National Parks Service. He stated the Commission should evaluate the project as proposed. Commission Deliberation Mr. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission issue the report as drafted by staff, finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Tomlins- Roberts Property at 421 Mathews Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and that our findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time. Mr. Knierim seconded. Mr. Rose encouraged Mr. McCarty to not interpret this motion as a lack of support and welcomed him to return to the Commission. He thanked him for taking on the project. Chair Dunn suggested there may be a way to stage the project to maximize tax credits. The motion passed 6-0. x OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn commented on the Mayor requesting a subcommittee on historic preservation. Ms. Bzdek replied she had not seen the recent Council meeting but believed there were some questions around the impact of historic preservation on affordable housing. She stated staff will be sending a memo to Council. Chair Dunn commented on the Ward School in Loveland, one of three stone one-room schoolhouses in Larimer County, recently being demolished. She also commented on Timberline Farm, which is a locally designated Loveland Historic District that was supposed to have been on this week’s Historic Preservation agenda for delisting. She stated that item was postponed as there may be an interested buyer. x ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tripoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair  Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was conducted Michael Bello remotely via Zoom Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting March 17, 2021 Minutes x CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. x ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Gretchen Schiager, Rich Anderson Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: ³We aUe KROdLQg a UePRWe PeeWLQg WRda\ LQ OLgKW Rf WKe cRQWLQXLQg SUeYaOeQce Rf COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination WR KROd WKLV PeeWLQg UePRWeO\ ZaV Pade LQ cRPSOLaQce ZLWK CLW\ CRXQcLO OUdLQaQce 79 2020.´ x AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Bertolini stated that item #2 had been pulled from the agenda. x CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. Landmark Preservation Commission x STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17. 2021 3. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION ± 511 N GRANT 4. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION ± 420 WEST ST Mr. Rose moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the February 17, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Chair Dunn commented on the environmental and affordable housing cost of losing the two properties at 511 North Grant and 420 West Street. x DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO UeSRUW XQdeU CKaSWeU 14, AUWLcOe IV Rf WKe CLW\¶V MXQLcLSaO CRde. TKLV LWeP LV a UeSRUW Rf aOO such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. The Commission did not request a presentation or have a discussion on this item. 6. 247-249 LINDEN ± CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW (REHABILITATION AND ADDITION) DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for a mixed-use project at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District, to identify any key conflicts with the Secretary Rf Whe InWeUiRU¶V SWandaUdV fRU RehabiliWaWiRn and the Old Town District Design Standards. APPLICANT: Randy Shortridge, [au] workshop (architect); Drew Fink (owner) Ms. Nelsen and Mr. Murray recused themselves due to conflicts. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report QRWLQg WKe aSSOLcaQW LV VeeNLQg WKe CRPPLVVLRQ¶V LQSXW UegaUdLQg WKe deVLgQ¶V cRPSOLaQce ZLWK WKe adRSWed OOd Town design standards and the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. She detailed the architecture and history of the building and showed several photos of the building and surrounding properties. She noted there was a previous project presented for conceptual review that was approved by the Commission in 2019; however, that project did not proceed, and this project is entirely new. Ms. Bzdek PeQWLRQed ceUWaLQ aVSecWV Rf WKe SURSRVaO aQd QRWed VWaff¶V recommendations are included in the staff report and they have particularly highlighted the rear sunroom addition and hipped roof proposal. She discussed the proposed rehabilitation work as well. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shortridge introduced the owner of the property, Drew Fink, who addressed the Commission briefly about the project. Mr. Shortridge gave the Applicant presentation. He explained the design goals for the project, which include rehabilitation of the front and rear façades and adding a rooftop and rear addition. He commented on the importance of providing safe nearby parking in an apartment environment. Mr. Shortridge provided details on the proposed design, color palette, and materials and showed several photos of the property. He discussed the proposed roll-up door replacement and plan to VaOYage WKe JRe¶V USKROVWeU\ VLgQ. He detailed the proposed roof design and noted there are examples of other non-flat roofs in the area. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn explained how the discussion would flow with topics covered to be windows and door openings, the rooftop addition and roof line, and the rear addition. Openings Mr. Rose commented asked about the function of the garage door on the Linden Street side that is proposed to be replaced. He noted he did not see a clear photo of the door at 253 Linden looked like in the 1940s. Ms. Bzdek replied there is not a better photographic record of the configuration during that era, and she noted there were previous discussions about the possibility that the door could have been replaced several times during the JRe¶V USKROVWeU\ WeQXUe LQ WKe bXLOdLQg. Mr. Rose suggested the applicant consider giving a more authentic interpretation of the opening since the door is planned to be replaced. Chair Dunn stated there may not be enough historical evidence to ask the applicant to do that. Chair Dunn asked about the age of the transom. Mr. Shortridge replied the transom would have provided context for a double-opening door. Chair Dunn suggested leaving the transom as a four-window transom as it is likely older than the doors. Mr. Rose concurred. Mr. Shortridge commented on the roll-up doors aW IOOegaO PeWe¶V aQd VWaWed WKRVe dRRUV KaYe aQ overwhelming number of mullions. He suggested the possibility of using a two light door which would recall the earlier swinging doors and afford more transparency. Ms. Michell stated things do not always need to be symmetrical and stated she likes the 3x5 arrangement. Mr. Dunn concurred. Chair Dunn asked if the applicant would be willing to keep the three panels. Mr. Shortridge replied in the affirmative. Mr. Knierim stated he likes the double doors. Chair Dunn asked when the door had been changed. Ms. Bzdek replied it was after 1983 and it is not historic. Mr. Shortridge commented on the man door into the commercial space and noted the head height was adjusted to make it compatible with the roll-up doors. Chair Dunn supported that change and stated it meets the Secretary of Interior standards. Mr. Fink asked about the CRPPLVVLRQ¶V SRVLWLRQ RQ WKe YeUWLcaO cRPSRVLWion of the roll-up garage door. Ms. Michell and Mr. Bello supported the idea of all glass. Chair Dunn noted the door is not historic; therefore, nothing about it needs to be emulated specifically as long as the four transom windows remain. Regarding the second story windows, Mr. Rose supported the proposal. Regarding the proposed changes on the back side, Chair Dunn asked if the header above the current garage door will be replaced. Mr. Shortridge replied the opening was likely modified at some point and the header was perhaps added to strengthen the wider opening. Chair Dunn requested the applicants take photos during deconstruction if there is any evidence of the previous status. Chair Dunn asked if there is no door going into this once the addition is completed. Mr. Shortridge replied the door is six feet closer to the alley and cars will need to extend the majority of their mass into the existing building. Chair Dunn asked how the brick will be protected from drivers nicking the edge of the building. Mr. Shortridge replied an edge protection could be provided. Chair Dunn noted the attachment to the brick of a protective device would be of importance. Chair Dunn asked if there are reuse plans for the brick that will be removed. Mr. Shortridge replied in the negative but noted there is a plan to use the existing floor structure inside, particularly the roof sheathing perhaps as interior wall paneling. He stated the brick could be used for any repair and will certainly not be sent to the landfill. Chair Dunn supported reusing any of the materials in the new building. Chair Dunn asked if there is currently a transom on the man door on the left. Mr. Shortridge replied in the affirmative and stated it is similar to the transoms above the other doors. No members expressed concerns with removing the man door. Regarding the rear windows, Chair Dunn requested input regarding extending one window into a doorway. No members expressed concern. Mr. Shortridge noted the windows that are being replaced could be single-pane wood windows as they are only separating two interior spaces. Rooftop Addition and Roof Line Chair Dunn commented on the two center windows and corner windows distinguishing themselves from the rest of the building which helps identify the addition as not being original. Mr. Rose commended the choice of weathering steel noting it provides a distinct material departure from brick. Chair Dunn asked if there are chimneys in the design. Mr. Shortridge replied in the affirmative noting there will be ceiling-hung fireplaces in each unit. Chair Dunn asked if there will be planters around the terrace. Mr. Shortridge replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn asked if the entire roof is going to be supported by the new structural system. Mr. Shortridge replied in the affirmative. Regarding the hipped roof, Mr. Bello stated the design works. Chair Dunn agreed and stated it is nominal and inconsequential compared to a flat roof. Chair Dunn noted the addition is on its own structural support and could therefore be removed without damaging the historic structure. Rear Addition Chair Dunn supported the sunroom idea. Ms. Michell agreed and complimented the planter boxes. She asked if the sunroom terrace is a shared amenity or just for one apartment. Mr. Shortridge replied it is just for one apartment and noted each apartment has its own unique features. Chair Dunn commended the setback from the edge wall and top. Chair Dunn asked how the rear addition is going to be attached. Mr. Shortridge replied that has yet to be determined but there should be fairly light attachment points and no brick should need to be removed. Mr. Shortridge thanked the Commission members for their input. Mr. Bello asked about the back garage door being five windows high. Chair Dunn noted it is not historic therefore there is no historic precedent that must be followed. Mr. Fink thanked the Commission members for their input. Chair Dunn thanked the applicants for seeing the value in historic buildings and she commended the use of retail on the first floor. Ms. Nelsen and Mr. Murray returned to the meeting. [SecUeWaU\¶V NRWe: The Commission took a short break at this time.] 7. 220 EAST LAUREL STREET, LONG APARTMENTS ± AFTER-THE-FACT DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This is a request for final design review of work to the Landmark-designated Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, that was undertaken without approval and has already occurred. APPLICANT: Jordan Obermann, Forge and Bow Dwellings, on behalf of Kent Obermann, Rarem LLC. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. She reviewed the history of designation, ownership and previously approved work. She noted staff recently noticed the revisions to the applicant plans showed work that had not been reviewed, and when contacted the applicants, discovered the work had already occurred. She stated the applicant has requested final design review aQd WKe CRPPLVVLRQ¶V UROe LV WR apply the Secretary of the Interior rehabilitation standards to the work to determine compliance and any work that is found to not comply will need to be reversed. MV. McWLOOLaPV cRPPeQWed RQ WKe bXLOdLQg¶V fRUP aQd Ne\ feaWXUeV and outlined the alterations. She summarized the staff findings and specified which parts of the work staff has found do not comply with the standards. She stated staff is recommending denial of a certificate of appropriateness for the work that does not meet standards. Applicant Presentation Jordan Obermann introduced his father, the owner, Kent Obermann, who briefly addressed the Commission about his history owning the property. He stated he was unaware the building was historic until 2019. Jordan Obermann stated many of these changes were done prior to his father taking ownership of the building and discussed the reasons for the changes stating things have to be updated to maintain the building. He noted he received his permit without question and assumed Historic Preservation had reviewed and approved the permit and changes. He stated there was no ill intent on his part. Ms. McWilliams discussed the previous meeting during which this project was reviewed and noted the applicant was told multiple times at that meeting that all work would need to be reviewed by the Commission. Regarding the rear door that was filled in, she stated Historic Preservation cleared the permit because staff was told there would be no exterior work by the applicant. She noted the requirement for any reversals will be dealt with through staff. Jordan Obermann replied he was not planning on doing any exterior work initially; however, those items were discussed at the Historic Preservation meeting. He disagreed with Ms. McWilliamV¶ WLPeOLQe. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn stated she would like this meeting to focus only on the issues with which the Committee can deal. SKe acNQRZOedged WKLV bXLOdLQg ZaV SXUcKaVed b\ WKe ObeUPaQQ¶V SULRU WR staff taking more effective steps to ensure owners are aware of the historic status of buildings. CKaLU DXQQ aVNed Lf aQ\ CRPPLVVLRQ PePbeUV dLVagUee ZLWK VWaff¶V fLQdLQg WKaW WKe aOWeUaWLRQV WR paint color, driveway elevation, rear entry step, and hardware on the entry door are not significant character- defining features. No Commission members disagreed. Mr. Rose commented that changing the trim color from white to black made a significant difference; however, he agreed it is a reversable change. Chair Dunn agreed. Chair Dunn requested input on the three lower-level wood windows that were replaced. Mr. Bello stated there is justification to replace them if they were in poor condition. Mr. Murray stated it is somewhat of a moot point; however, he would like to ensure there is some investigation into whether windows could be repaired for any future replacements. Chair Dunn stated the windows have already been changed and it not likely possible to restore them. She stated the replacement is acceptable if the windows were truly irreparable. Remaining work Regarding the gutters, Ms. Nelsen commented on the changing downspout configuration and end SURfLOe. MV. McWLOOLaPV UeLWeUaWed WKe CRPPLVVLRQ¶V UROe LV WR cRPPeQW RQ ZKeWKeU UeSOacLQg WKe gutters would meet the standards aQd LW ZRXOd be VWaff¶V UROe WR deWeUPLQe ZKeQ WKe ZRUN RccXUUed aQd the details relating to replacement. Chair Dunn asked if the Commission would have approved the change. Ms. Nelsen replied water is one of the biggest enemies to the building and the gutter replacement appears to be more or less in- kind and does not have a detrimental effect on the building. Chair Dunn agreed the type of gutter does not seem like a character-defining feature. Ms. Nelsen commented on whether some type of water diversion feature was present at the time the building was constructed. Mr. Murray stated there was likely some type of water diversion that was integral with the original design. Chair Dunn stated it seems the Commission would have agreed to a replacement in-kind if this work had not yet been completed. Ms. Nelsen stated her only comment would be related to the termination of the new downspout. Jordan Obermann replied the property manager took care of the gutter replacement and there was an issue with water coming back into garages; therefore, he believed the solution was to terminate the gutter into the grass yard. Ms. Nelsen stated she would have recommended a civil engineer or structural engineer review of water diversion if this work had not already been completed. She asked if there are resources available for the property owner for a drainage management plan to help preserve the structure. Ms. McWilliams replied the City has different programs that could be utilized and the owners were made aware of those during the 2019 review. She noted staff will work with contractors and engineers to ensure the property remedy for any of the work not approved by the Commission. She stated staff will work with the owners to ensure proper drainage. Jordan Obermann stated part of the 2019 landscape plan did address grading and drainage; however, the landscaping was not all approved and they are somewhat uncertain about how to move forward at this point. Chair Dunn stated she believes the Commission wanted the landscaping to be simple. Ms. McWilliams stated the resources of the design assistance program were offered to the owners to allow them to hire a specialist in historic landscaping; however, they have not utilized that service. She provided additional details on the program and noted funds have currently been reduced due to the pandemic. Chair Dunn noted what was discussed in the 2019 meeting regarding the landscaping and design assistance program. She commented on the discussion around the pavers which the Commission did not believe fit with the character of the building. Jordan Obermann requested additional detail on whether the Commission wants to see a landscape that matches the historic nature of the building or one that reflects a different era. Ms. McWilliams replied that when staff reviews a project with that type of issue, typically the existing landscape has relevancy in its own right; therefore, it is better to leave the existing landscape than to create something that is false for this property. Chair Dunn recommended the applicants utilize the design assistance program for the landscaping. Mr. Murry asked if the two storm doors were stored so they could be replaced. Jordan Obermann replied the storm door from the 1951 addition may have been removed when the building was painted prior to his ownership. He stated it may be in storage. Regarding the other storm door, he stated he had no recollection of it being there. Kent Obermann stated he did not recall a storm door being on the north door and he does not believe it is in storage. Mr. Murray asked about the infilled courtyard door and stated it should be replaced. He commented on the 2019 minutes indicating the applicants stated it would remain. He stated the basement egress is quite close to where the door was and is close to the traffic pattern. Chair Dunn stated the Commission has previously suggested leaving a presence of a door, but it does not have to be operable. Jordan Obermann replied that could have been done; however, there was a concern about security. He stated he did not recall if this door infill was part of the LPC 2019 review. Chair Dunn stated a door replacement was discussed, but not an infill. She noted a solid wall could still be placed behind the door as long as the sense of an opening remained to retain the historic sense of the building while still allowing for a change of use. Jordan Obermann reiterated his belief that this was not discussed in 2019 and noted it was on the 2020 permit and he was under the assumption the infill was therefore acceptable. Ms. McWilliams stated she can get that type of door and asked if the Commission would like it to be restored. Jordan Obermann noted that type of door is too short and would not likely be allowed from a permit. Ms. McWilliams stated the door would be inoperable; therefore, building code should not be an issue. Ms. McWilliams noted the Commission will need to decide if the door infill meets the Secretary of Interior standards and if not, it will be up to staff to determine the solution. Ms. Nelsen stated she would not have voted to infill the door. Mr. Murray agreed but stated it would be up to staff to determine whether the door should remain operable, and the Commission must only determine if the work that was done meets the standards. Mr. Yatabe confirmed that interpretation is correct. Chair Dunn asked if the Commission would have approved the tile in the front entryway. Ms. Nelsen replied in the negative. Mr. Rose asked if it is known what the tile replaced. Chair Dunn replied there is a photo in the packet that shows it was in poor repair; however, it was not replaced in-kind per the Secretary of the Interior standards. Mr. Rose commented on the damage already having been done with the door infill and paver removal and stated neither of those conform to the standards. Mr. Murray commented on the hardware boxes and noted there is one that is required to be by the front door per the fire department. Jordan Obermann noted that was installed when the fire department installed smoke detectors prior to their ownership. Regarding the tile, Jordan Obermann stated another material would have been used if he had known the building was historic. Chair Dunn replied this project has been a lesson for staff regarding informing property managers of historic status and opportunities. Regarding the mechanical equipment and conduit, Jordan Obermann commented on the contractor pulling their own permit. He noted a substantial amount of the equipment is on the roof. Ms. Michell asked why two of the units had to be placed on the wall thereby disrupting masonry. Jordan Obermann replied he was unsure, but it may have had to do with the commercial nature of the units. Chair Dunn stated the Commission would have likely asked for the units to be placed on the floor. Ms. McWilliams reiterated the Commission is only to decide whether the work meets standards and it will be up to staff to determine whether it will cause more damage to the building to remove and replace conduit or if it should be left as is. Ms. Nelsen stated this change would not meet standard 9. Ms. Nelsen asked if there is a Code reason the condensers would need to be mounted above the ground. Mr. Anderson, Chief Building Official, replied there must be at least 3.5 inches of ground clearance, but there is no requirement for a wall mounting; however, more distance may be required per manufacturer instructions. Ms. Nelsen asked if there was some City Utility requirement to move from a single electric meter to individual meters for each unit. Mr. Anderson replied the permit for the new electric meters was issued in 2010 and was part of the Fort Collins Light and Power Project. He assumed the conduit was run outside due to cost. Jordan Obermann asked if the Code requires electric meters to be a certain distance from doors and access points. Mr. Anderson replied they need to be a certain distance from vents or any source of combustion. Chair Dunn asked the Commission for input on what it would approve in this instance. Ms. Michell replied she would expect the Commission to discuss minimizing the damage to masonry and visual impacts. Chair Dunn noted part of the Secretary of the Interior standards is that buildings should still be usable without damage to materials being caused. She noted these changes are on the rear of the building, which is recommended by the standards. She stated she was unsure what should have been done that would have met the standards. Ms. McWilliams replied the Commission should examine whether it would approve these changes if they were to come before the Commission right now. Chair Dunn stated she would have a difficult time voting as she does not know if there are alternative ways to accomplish this. Ms. McWilliams noted Mr. Anderson told her the conduit could be interior to the building; however, the meters and disconnect need to be on the exterior. Ms. Nelsen stated it is clear that there is not enough information for this part of the project to issue a certificate of appropriateness. Chair Dunn suggested discussing the removal of the sconce light on the addition. Mr. Murray stated the sconce appears to have been the same in 2019. Ms. McWilliams replied staff would need to do some more research; however, her speculation based on the date of the addition is that the sconces were similar to the front building sconces. Jordan Obermann commented on his belief the sconce is original but the globe was likely broken. MV. NeOVeQ WKaQNed WKe ObeUPaQQ¶V fRU WKeLU SaWLeQce aQd VWaWed she does not see a lot of good evidence for what was there originally in terms of the sconce. Chair Dunn noted it appears to have been there in 1997 and the issue would only come before the Commission if there was going to be a change. Chair Dunn asked about the removal and replacement of wood screens with aluminum on the front of the building. Ms. McWilliams stated the original screens in the photos appear to be wood due to their thickness. Mr. Murray stated the photos are not detailed enough to decipher the material and he commented on what materials have been used over time. Commission members discussed which items they believe meet the Secretary of the Interior standards. [SecUeWaU\¶V NRWe: The Commission took a short break at this time to allow Mr. Bello to craft a motion. A roll call was conducted upon reconvening to confirm all members were present.] Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint color, driveway elevation, rear entry step, hardware removed from the apartment building’s front entry, gutter on the garage structure, and removal of three lower-level historic windows and replacement with fiberglass windows to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as required under Article IV, Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. This decision is based upon the materials and information provided to the Commission for this item and the Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report provided for this hearing. Mr. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the items listed below to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, finding that the proposal does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as required under Article IV, Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, specifically: x The entry tile does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2, 5 and 6. x The mechanical and electrical equipment placement does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2 and 9. x The courtyard door and infill openings do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2, 4, 5 and 6. x The Commission does not have enough information to ascertain whether the Scotch sconce meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. x The Commission does not have enough information to ascertain whether the aluminum screening meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. This decision is based upon the materials and information provided to the Commission for this item and the Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report provided for this hearing. Mr. Rose seconded. The motion passed 8-0. 8. 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, REHABILITATION, ADDITION, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DESCRIPTION: TKLV LWeP LV WR cRPSOeWe a cRQceSWXaO UeYLeZ Rf WKe aSSOLcaQWV¶ SURMecW, LdeQWLf\ Ne\ cRQfOLcWV ZLWK WKe SecUeWaU\ Rf WKe IQWeULRU¶V SWaQdaUdV fRU ReKabLOLWaWLRQ, and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of all accessory structures, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Rick Zier (legal counsel) Chair Dunn disclosed knowing Bob Bailey but stated it would not bias her decision in any way. Mr. Murray also disclosed having known Bob Bailey, but since it is no longer his house, he stated there was no conflict. Mr. Bertolini stated that due to the lateness of the hour, the Applicant requested that this item be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Berkhausen confirmed this was his request. Mr. Yatabe explained the noticing requirements. Mr. Knierim moved for a continuance of agenda item 8, 1306 W. Mountain Ave, Conceptual Review, Rehabilitation, Addition, And Accessory Structures, to the next regular meeting of the LPC on April 21, 2021. Mr. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Chair Dunn agreed that the applicant should be first on the next agenda. x OTHER BUSINESS o Election of Officers (Chair and Vice Chair) ƒ Ms. Michell nominated Ms. Dunn to serve as Chair. Mr. Bello seconded. The motion passed 8-0. ƒ Mr. Murray nominated Mr. Knierim to serve as Vice Chair. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 8-0. o Chair Dunn reported the Loveland delisting meeting on Timberlane Farm has been postponed. o Ms. McWiliams commented on the recently adopted changes to Boards and Commissions adopted by Council. She noted the name of the Landmark Preservation Commission has been changed to the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Bertolini commented on the benefits of that name change. Chair Dunn also noted not all landmarks are historic. x ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair April 21, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 April 21, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was conducted Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair remotely via Zoom Michael Bello Walter Dunn Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting April 21, 2021 Minutes x CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. x ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Aubrie Brennan, Gretchen Schiager Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: “We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.” x AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Bertolini reviewed the Agenda, noting Item 2, 528 W. Mountain Ave, would be moved from the Consent Agenda to Discussion Agenda after the last listed item, Item 6, 336 E Magnolia St. x CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent by the Commission. Mr. Murray requested Mr. Bertolini explain the Commission’s role regarding 501 Edwards St in the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bertolini explained the Landmark Preservation Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 April 21, 2021 Commission did not need to take action, but could elect to do so, that Single Family Demolition properties were on the Consent Agenda as notification to the public and the Commission. x STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. x CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 17, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 528 W. MOUNTAIN AVE 3. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 501 EDWARDS ST Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the April 21, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 5:41 p.m.] x DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. 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. Commission Questions None. 5. 1306 W MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, REHABILITATION, ADDITION, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES This item was not discussed, because it was continued to May 19, 2021 at the owner’s request in advance of the April 21, 2021 Regular Hearing. 6. 336 E. MAGNOLIA ST, NATIONAL REGISTER DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a National Register Design Review of the applicant’s project, identify key conflicts with the Secretary of Interior’s Design Standards for Rehabilitation, and make recommendations as to whether the property would remain historic at the conclusion of the project. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the building’s North/rear elevation, including necessary demolition, as well as a full-width, partially covered replacement porch, including necessary demolition. APPLICANT: Ian Danielson Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 April 21, 2021 Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the Staff Report. He discussed the role of the Commission on a National Register Review is to review proposed alterations and issue a report to the owner for properties designated as national, not local, landmarks. The report deals with whether the proposed changes meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Design Standards for Historical Preservation. Mr. Bertolini discussed the location of the property and the significance of its build date for the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Proposed alterations included a two-story addition onto the rear of the home, including a deck and spiral staircase, a new front porch, expansion of the patio deck, and modification of the gable on the front of the residence. The Standards relevant to this project were Standard Two – Preservation of Overall Historic Character, Standard Three – Avoids a False Sense of History, Standard Five – Preserving Historic Features and Materials, and Standards Nine and Ten which deal with design, construction, and location of any additions, requiring them to be compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and reversible. He clarified for the Chair the pictures of each elevation in the presentation were not to scale. Staff found the property was contributing to the Laurel School Historic District, and the proposed rehabilitation did not meet the Standards, rendering the property non-contributing due to the loss of historic integrity. Applicant Presentation Mr. Ian Danielson, homeowner, and Mr. Bud Danielson, project lead, gave the Applicant presentation. Mr. Ian Danielson read a letter written by project architect Mr. Stewart King. Mr. King stated he took the age of the house into account when designing the alterations, matching many design elements of the original home as closely as possible and matching original houses in the neighborhood. A second story working toward the front of the house was the only solution for an addition due to the 50% footprint rule. All elements were chosen to protect the original feel of the house and match the age of the house, making the addition indistinguishable from the original house. Mr. Bud Danielson thanked the Commission for their work and stated the alterations were to make Mr. Ian Danielson’s home livable. He offered to answer questions and looked forward to the Commission’s comments. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Bello asked to clarify the roles of the Danielsons in relation to the project. Mr. Bud Danielson stated Mr. Ian Danielson was the property owner, and Mr. Bud Danielson was supporting him as his father. The Chair suggested the Commission focus on the Draft report. Mr. Bud Danielson asked the purpose of the draft report. The Chair explained the report’s purpose is to comment on the alterations so the State can later decide if the property is still contributing to the National Register Landmark District for tax incentive purposes. The Commission’s role is to lend their thoughts on the alterations to the property owner, not approve or deny them. Mr. Murray commented he appreciated the architect’s desire to match the existing home, but size and volume of the alterations do not lend themselves to fitting the Standards. He understood the applicant’s need for more space, and the architect did a good job, but the Staff Report looks good. The Chair agreed the Staff Report is accurate, as to the alterations not meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards and noted the report called out the faux sense of history on the alterations. The alterations change a minimal traditional home to a Victorian style home, which is important to note as a significant change to the structure because it changes the history and the time period of the home. She suggested adding language to the report that property owner was knowingly choosing to significantly alter the home, understanding he was removing himself from consideration for tax benefits and zero interest loans. The Chair did not see how the State could find property contributing to the historic district after the proposed alterations. It would be useful to explain to property owners in the future why they did not have access to financial assets that others within the district could access. Mr. Murray was concerned about singling out this one property for special language and suggested adding a standard paragraph to reports in similar situations. Mr. Rose agreed standard language should be added to all reports in this situation because the Commission has a responsibility to inform owners of the potential consequences of alterations. He asked if the Chair if he should make a motion to amend the Staff Report. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 April 21, 2021 Mr. Yatabe said the Commission can adopt the report with explicit language or pass the report now, but request Staff draft general language and bring it to the Commission for approval. Mr. Murray did not want to delay the owners waiting on Commission approval of Staff’s new language to move forward with their project. The Chair wrote and read proposed language she had drafted, “The loss of contributing status will directly result in the loss of state and national tax credits, as well as interest free loans from the City of Fort Collins.” Mr. Bertolini made the correction owners would not be losing financial benefits from the City because the property is not a City landmark, benefits would only be lost in the form of national and state tax credits. The Chair read the corrected language, “The loss of contributing status will directly result in the loss of state and national tax credits.” Commission Deliberation Mr. Knierim moved the Commission approve the report as drafted by Staff, with the following modification: that there be a sentence added to the report that says, “The loss of contributing status will directly result in the loss of state and national tax credits,” with the finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Christ Horst Property at 336 E Magnolia Ave as presented do not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time. Mr. Rose seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Mr. Murray asked if the Commission needed to list the Standards not met. The Chair stated the Commission was adopting the draft Staff Report which addressed the Standards, and Mr. Yatabe clarified this was the case. Mr. Bud Danielson requested the report not be delayed based on additional language. Mr. Bertolini clarified the report will be issued as soon as modifications are made and it is signed by the Chair, which will release the City’s hold on permits for the property. Mr. Murray requested applicants review the report with their architect to consider making changes to the proposed alterations in order to retain tax credits. The Chair suggested the Commission could provide a letter in favor of a footprint variance to the 50 percent rule so the property could retain its historic character. Mr. Bud Danielson thanked the Chair and stated he and the property owner had already talked through the loss of incentives with their architect and could not afford a second cycle with the architect. The Danielsons had pursued a different variance and it was a lengthy process, and they could not afford another long delay. He appreciates Mr. Bertolini explaining the report to them and walking them through the process. [Timestamp: 6:18 p.m.] x CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW 2. CITY LANDMARK NOMINATION PROCESS – 528 W. MOUNTAIN AVE Mr. Bertolini presented staff report outlining the City of Fort Collins Single Family Demolition and Landmark Nomination process. The City had received a Landmark Nomination from three residents but the owner had not consented. There would be no discussion at the hearing and the nomination process would begin. There was no action for the Commission at present, Staff was merely providing an informational presentation about the process for next month’s hearing and the future. The main intent for the Single Family Demolition Process is to provide public notice to the neighborhood about the demolition of houses over 50 years old to be replaced by another single family home. If the property proposed for demolition is significant, the individuals outlined in the Code may nominate it for City landmark status. In this case, three citizens nominated the property and the owner did not consent to the designation, which means the designation will be considered at two LPC hearings tentatively scheduled for May and June. Mr. Yatabe stated because the Commission was taking no action at the current hearing and because landmark nomination was a quasi-judicial item, his recommendation was public comment would not be appropriate. The first step is for Staff to determine if the property meets landmark status. The public should not comment on the merits of landmark status until after Staff makes a recommendation at a hearing held to evaluate the merits of landmark status. Mr. Bertolini clarified the nomination would be considered at two regularly scheduled meetings, tentatively the May and June regular hearings. The Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 April 21, 2021 Chair stated members of the public may comment at the May meeting. Mr. Yatabe noted permits for alterations to the property or demolition will be stayed until a determination on landmark status is made. The Chair asked if repairs to maintain the integrity of the house are excepted to the stay, and Mr. Yatabe stated exceptions are for health, welfare, and safety and should be run by Staff prior to any action. Mr. Murray noted members of the public that did not get to speak at the current hearing may submit written comments to Staff in advance of the hearing, and the Chair noted they could also wait for the posted packet on the Friday before the hearing in order to have more information. Ms. Nelsen found Mr. Bertolini’s presentation useful, but requested more guidance on the process in the future. x OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Murray requested emails in the packet be rearranged so replies can come after original emails. Mr. Bertolini agreed to rearrange. The Chair had an informational update Timberlane Farm in Loveland. The applicants requested the Loveland Historic Preservation Commission overturn the landmark designation on April 19. This is an issue the Commission should be watching regionally. The Loveland Commission continued the item to next month, because the applicants did not bring the Code-required data on why the property is no longer eligible. The Chair discussed an article she had written regarding a former resident of a home the Commission had looked at recently regarding a change to a rear garage, possibly 714 W Mountain. The article is in The Senior Voice and will be coming out in May. It is about the first female pilot in Fort Collins. In the early 1930s, Mary Ault, granddaughter of the man after which the town of Ault is named, lived in house and she was the first female pilot in Fort Collins The 1930s were around the time the City got a runway. She joined with a female pilot from Greeley and a female pilot from Denver to join the Betsy Ross flying Corps. The women had grown up during World War I and their goal was to deliver medical supplies during the next war. Unfortunately, the military did not officially recognize the organization and it ended in 1932, before World War II. Mary Ault later moved to Denver and sold aviation equipment. x ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 0D\ Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 June 16, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair This meeting was held Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair remotely Michael Bello Walter Dunn Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting June 16, 2021 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Mike Bello, Kurt Knierim STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: “We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.” AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 June 16, 2021  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:37 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 19, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Nelsen moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the May 19, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Murray seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic 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. 308 CHERRY ST (LANDMARK DESIGNATION) DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street. APPLICANT: Kim Baker Medina, 308 Cherry Street, LLC Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. The nomination of the Thomas Property was a voluntary landmark nomination. The property was associated with the Thomas family, notably Virgil Thomas. It was nominated due to its association with African American history and its exterior integrity. This was Fort Collins’s first landmark nomination specifically recognizing African American history in the City. The Commission’s role was to determine if the property had significance and integrity and was therefore eligible for nomination. Applicant Presentation Kim Medina, property owner, gave the Applicant presentation. It was important to recognize the history of those who were not rich and famous, and she was thrilled to put forward this nomination to recognize the Thomas family’s contribution to Fort Collins history. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked how long Ms. Medina had owned the house. She purchased it in 2013 for her law office and would like to put a plaque up so others can visit and learn the history. Member Murray appreciated that no vinyl siding had been put on the house. Member Rose asked about why Staff had not included Standard 2 as it respects persons. Mr. Bertolini responded Staff had considered it based on Virgil Thomas’s many accomplishments but he did not exert long term influence. Staff had not verified if he truly was the first African American graduate of Fort Collins High. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 June 16, 2021 Chair Dunn asked Staff if it was possible to make this a discussion item when it goes before Council, instead of on the Consent Agenda, as is standard procedure with owner nominations. City Council and the general public would then have the opportunity to hear this story, part of the whole story of Fort Collins. Mr. Bertolini responded he could request it. Member Murray commented the home style was typical for the neighborhood and at the relevant time period the neighborhood was a hidden pocket of Fort Collins due to what were dead end streets. Commission Deliberation Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Thomas Property at 308 Cherry Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 1, events/trends, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report and Landmark nomination dated June 16, 2021, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through five aspects of integrity to a sufficient degree; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Member Nelsen seconded. Mr. Yatabe suggested adding language directing Chair Dunn to sign the written resolution from the Hearing Packet pages 46-47. Member Murray made a friendly amendment to Member Rose’s motion to direct the Chair of the HPC to forward the written resolution to City Council as found on page 46. Member Rose seconded the amendment. Member Nelsen seconded the motion as amended. Member Nelsen commented this was long overdue. Chair Dunn commented this item was monumental. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 6:07 p.m.] 4. 710 MATHEWS ST (FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to be approved or denied based on the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the missing historic front porch. The plan will generally follow historic photographs of the porch, but will not reconstruct the historic top brick wall and is proposing use of fiberglass columns in place of wood. APPLICANT: Anna Bernhard and Peter Workman (owners) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. Staff believed the proposed reconstruction of the porch was faithful to the Standards. However, the Applicant could not reconstruct the historic top brick wall due to lack of materials. Staff recommended approval of the plan because it was close to the original design of the house, with a condition for Staff approval of the joint sealer or expansion joint treatment to be used on the columns. Applicant Presentation Peter Workman, owner, was trying to be faithful to the historic photographs and reconstruct the porch as closely as possible. He was available for questions. Public Input None Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 June 16, 2021 Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked the owner if he had been able to locate brick to match the existing brick in order to build the half wall. Mr. Workman responded he had not had time to locate it. He would be doing the restoration himself and it would be too much to remove the caps and do masonry. Member Nelsen asked if a plan of protection was in place because she was worried about connections. Mr. Workman was working with a design engineer regarding the proper way to connect to the existing house and carry load correctly. Member Nelsen asked about flashing and protecting the house from water penetration. Mr. Workman responded the professional engineer also discussed flashing with him and acknowledged water could damage the foundation. Chair Dunn asked if there was evidence on the façade for the how the historical attachment had been done. Mr. Workman responded he had found none. He suggested bricks had been taken out of the half wall and put into the house and the caps had been flipped when the porch was removed. At the edges of the home there were traces of paint where the porch roof had been. Member Murray and Mr. Workman had noticed some bricks in the façade were a close match but not the originals, but perhaps the porch had been constructed of slightly different bricks. Chair Dunn asked if fiberglass was lighter than wood. Mr. Bertolini responded being lighter is one of the advantages over wood, but it is usually not loadbearing. Fiberglass usually requires a structural column inside of it, so they are consulting with a structural engineer. Member Murray commented the plan was fantastic. He hoped someday they would be able to rebuild the half wall. Based on the original design, the foundation should be able to support this plan with minimal engineering. Chair Dunn agreed and was glad they were sticking to the historical design as much as possible instead of adding more details. Member Murray commented wood columns are structural and do not need anything inside to bear weight. Member Nelsen agreed Staff conditional approval was warranted. Commission Deliberation Member Murray moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as written by the Staff issued June 16, 2021, including the one condition to Standard Number 7 that is included. Member Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 6:38 p.m.] 5. 821 WHEDBEE ST (NATIONAL REGISTER REVIEW) DESCRIPTION: Demolition of roof structure and removal of most Craftsman-style features to remodel building into a two-story dwelling of a neo-Victorian style. APPLICANT: Allison and Alexander Klug Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. The property was contributing to the Laurel School Historic District, not a City landmark. He gave a history and layout of the existing home, as well as an overview of the planned project. He also described the relevant Standards identified by Staff: Standard 2 – Historic Character, Standard 3 – Avoiding a False Sense of History, and Standard 5 – Preserving Historic Features. Due to the extensive changes proposed, Staff’s recommendation was the proposed work would render the property non-conforming to the Laurel School Historic District. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked if the owner believed the home would retain its historic character under the Standards after the changes. Mr. Bertolini had covered the implications of losing historic status with the Applicant, including the loss of tax credits. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 June 16, 2021 Chair Dunn commented on the wording of the letter to the Applicant, taking issue with the world “likely” because the Applicant would almost certainly lose historic status due to the extensive changes of the planned project. Member Nelsen commented it was not certain but Member Michell disagreed. Member Rose was in favor of eliminating the word “likely.” Mr. Bertolini would make that change. The reason for that wording was the National Park Service would make the ultimate determination on the historic status. Member Murray directed a comment to the Applicant that the issue was the Standards, not that the Commission did not like the proposed changes to the house or had a negative view of the Applicant. Commission Deliberation Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission issue the report as drafted by staff to be signed by the Chair, finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the F.D. Zabel Property at 821 Whedbee Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that the property will likely, permanently, lose access to financial incentives available to historic properties in Colorado, and that our findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time. Chair Dunn made a friendly amendment to strike the word likely and Member Rose agreed. Member Dunn seconded. Member Murray pointed out they could not say with certainty what the decisionmaker would do, but he was amenable to striking the word “likely.” He questioned why the word “likely” was used in the motion template, but Chair Dunn pointed out some properties have less modifications and could retain historic character. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 7:01 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bertolini presented an update on the Small Cell Facilities installation. He gave an overview of the new proposed language and how it would affect historic properties. He wanted to collect the Commission’s comments. Member Murray asked what the language that proposed towers could not be denied for proximity to historic properties meant. Mr. Bertolini explained that co-located towers could not be denied, and Staff was requesting this change to focus on towers that would be freestanding to preserve Staff time. Chair Dunn asked if Staff would still receive notification of co-located towers, and Mr. Bertolini affirmed. Chair Dunn asked if cell towers could be co-located on the same pole as other utilities or street lights. Mr. Bertolini said yes, but the tower had to be constructed for that purpose. The City was compressing the size of the towers, but that meant less carriers could use a single pole. Chair Dunn asked who owned the pole. Mr. Bertolini was not sure, it was a question for the City Attorney. Chair Dunn asked how it would change the look of Old Town at night because people like how dark it is. Mr. Bertolini responded that is why the City is encouraging co-location instead of new light poles. Member Murray asked if there would be poles with no lights. Mr. Bertolini said yes, there will be slightly larger poles with the light arm attached. Commission already knew what a superstar Maren was, but it was great the City had officially recognized it. She congratulated Ms . Bzdek. Chair Dunn recognized Historic Preservation Manager Karen McWilliams on her last Commission Hearing due to retirement after 26 years of service with the City . The CDNS department and Historic Preservation department would not be the same without her. Chair Dunn invited members of the public to speak. Mr. Ron Sladek spoke about his friend Karen McWilliams, whom he had known for a long time. He met her at the local library 30 years ago, when she worked at the local library in the history archive and helped him with his research . She located all kinds of records for him . He was a preservation consultant, historian, and president of Historic Larimer County and knew what a remarkable asset to the City Ms . McWilliams had been . He thanked her for everything she had done for him and the City . Ms . Gina Janett read a prepared speech to thank Ms. McWilliams for the wonderful work she had accomplished during her many years at the City , listing out many properties she had helped preserve . Ms . McWilliams had been a very productive City employee . Ms. Janett thanked Ms . McWilliams for all she had done for our community and expressed best wishes on a well-deserved retirement. Chair Dunn asked for comment from the Commission. Mr. Murray had known Ms . McWilliams since 1987 and they enjoyed parallel careers in their love of Historic Fort Collins and saving buildings. He thought the largest award that could be given to Karen would be in the form of the fantastic staff she had located to replace herself. He was sure they would see lots of her in the future . He was sorry the City could not do a big soiree because of Covid , but she should know the Commission thought well of her. Chair Dunn read an email from Ms . Lesley Struck: "History is one of the key aspects of Fort Collins that makes it special. Karen's tireless efforts over the years to preserve our community's unique resources can be seen all over the City and will be enjoyed for generations. Thank you, Karen for all of your incredible work." She also read an email from Per Hogestead : "Karen, I appreciate your friendship over the years. I think back on the LPC in the early 90's, and I am amazed at how you were able to keep the LPC circus productive, in spite of Bud's and my antics . Those were great times, and I appreciate your patience, professionalism, and friendship . I wish you and Carl the very best in your retirement. Per." Chair Dunn stated the work Karen had gone a long way in protecting and improving upon the character and authenticity of Fort Collins. She had been a steward and a champion for the City's historic buildings . She had influenced or touched so much of the Fort Collins of today . Chair Dunn thanked her for all she had done and when she started to get bored with retirement, Chair Dunn hoped Karen might fill the open spot on the Commission due to her unique qualifications. Ms. McWilliams thanked everyone for the comments and well wishes . She does not like to say goodbye , so the Commission would see her around a lot. Now she was able to advocate for historic properties instead of remaining impartial. She was grateful to have found Ms . Bzdek and Mr. Bertolini , who are phenomenal people, and the preservation program was being left in phenomenal hands . Ms. McWilliams said she would miss everyone so she hoped to serve on the Commission soon . • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 May 19, 2021 • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Bertolini noted the City Council had passed a blanket resolution regarding Boards and Commissions. The Commission 's name would change to the Historic Preservation Commission in advance of the June regular hearing . • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:56 p .m.J 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 21, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission . Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7-0. [Timestamp: 5:57 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2 . STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and , in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission , with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14 , Article IV of the City's Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission . Chair Dunn asked about the nature of the damage to the Linden Street project and if this was a learning opportunity for a better plan of protection . Ms. Bzdek stated the damage occurred during preparatory sitework for the City project involving improvements at Linden Street. The excavation subcontractor had damaged the Southwest, non-historic base stone on the Linden Hotel. Historic Preservation had a follow-up meeting with City Engineering staff to discuss protocol for working with contractors under the plan of protection, which was in place. They were able to identify a few minor improvements for managing the projects day-of and making sure the information was conveyed down to the subcontractor. Chair Dunn remarked Staff had done everything she was hoping the Commission could do. Chair Dunn asked who the decision maker was for projects such as the one-room schoolhouse at Trilby and College and the teacherage . Mr. Bertolini said it was a COOT-funded project headed by the Engineering Department. The decisionmaker there would be the engineering crew and the project manager. Historic Preservation had a call with project management to discuss the comment submitted to COOT, because they are federal obligated to speak with the Historic Preservation office. Staff had reinforced their suggestion for a different location, but it would be difficult considering the requirements for the project. A different location seemed unlikely . Chair Dunn asked if Engineering could discuss mitigation strategies with the Commission . Mr. Bertolini said they could invite them to come before the Commission for a short presentation . Chair Dunn remarked it would be worth getting together to meet common goals. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 May 19, 2021 3. 140 N. MCKINLEY -FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Staff Report This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed rear addition to the City Landmark at 140 N. McKinley Avenue , the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. Casey (Keith) Churchill (Property Owner) Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. This was a Final Design Review for a rear addition, an item that came before the Commission in December for the Conceptual Review. The question was if the plans met the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation . The action would be to issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness. As noted by Staff previously during the Conceptual Review, it was slightly large for what Staff would usually recommend for City landmarks but it was mitigated by the historical layout of the property . Staff found the project to be generally consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation ; it was compatible, distinguishable, generally reversible, and subordinate to the historic building . Mr. Bertolini addressed Commission questions from the Work Session : 1) the joining method between the historic building and the addition was corner cladding, and 2) the windows on the addition would be wood . Staff recommended the Commission approve the project and issue a certificate of appropriateness. Applicant Presentation Mr. Churchill had not prepared a presentation but was available for Commission questions and thanked the Commission . It was self-explanatory they had a tiny house and wanted it bigger. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn directed the Commission to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation on packet pages 16 through 18 and invited discussion germane to them. Mr. Murray commented the Applicants had listened to feedback from the Conceptual Review and the design fit the SOI Standards. Mr. Knierim agreed and said it was a good example of what can be done thoughtfully . Chair Dunn added the addition's low visibility from the right-of-way mitigated the larger footprint and the inset of the addition helped it be subordinate. Ms. Nelsen agreed it met all the Standards but especially Standard 9 in a way that preserved the scale and massing of the original building . The addition was differentiated enough and the details helped meet the Standards. Chair Dunn pointed out adding basement space was a good way to add space. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the Robert & Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage at 140 North McKinley Avenue, because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. Ms. Nelsen seconded. Chair Dunn added this was a great example of managing change so a unique representation of past Fort Collins was retained , but useful for a family today. The motion passed 7-0. Chair Dunn wished the Applicants luck on their project. There were always surprises with older houses but she hoped their surprises were minimal. [Timestamp: 6:17 p .m.J Landmark Preservation Commission Page4 May 19, 2021 4 . 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE-APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the Samuel & Jessie Moore Property at 528 W . Mountain Avenue. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jason and Misha Green . Mark Greenwald, Resident; Gina Janett, Resident; Robin Stitzel, Resident; William Whitley, Resident Chair Dunn asked for disclosures and recusals . She knew three of the applicants, two neighbors and fellow history buffs, and a third who was also a history buff. However, it would not affect her impartiality. Mr. Murray knew a couple of the applicants and lived half a block from the property, but it would not affect his impartiality. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. This was a Landmark Designation Hearing for an involuntary nomination request. This was the first of two potential hearings before the Commission required under Code when the owner(s) did not support the nomination . The role of the Commission was to determine if the criteria of Code Section 14-22 were satisfied . Article II laid out the standards by which eligibility should be determined . The two general groupings of Standards were significance to Fort Collins history and historic integrity. Applicant Presentation Mr. Greenwald gave the Applicant presentation. He had lived in Fort Collins on Mountain Avenue for about two years . What he would say would duplicate what others had said, but he was new to the City and Historic Preservation and wanted to share his thoughts. He gave a brief overview of the history of landmark preservation nationally and in the City . West Mountain Avenue was a highly sought-after address, the site of 26 designated addresses, more than any other local street. The homes on West Mountain Avenue were built in mostly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and were diverse in size and style. Mountain Avenue contained mostly homes built by and for working class people, a reflection of Westward expansion with egalitarian ideals. Many smaller homes were being replaced by the modern demand for larger, less affordable homes as property values rose . 528 West Mountain Avenue was one of those modest homes, constructed in 1885, just six years after the Avery House. An 1894 map showed it was only one of a few on the street at the time. To his knowledge, it was the oldest home on Mountain Avenue, and in the City, that did not have landmark status. Jessie Moore lived most of her life at this address , a teacher in Fort Collins for more than half a century . He showed a photograph of what he believed to be a gathering of local teachers in front of her home. She taught mainly at the LaPorte Avenue School, a building now lost. She was held in such high esteem that a new elementary school constructed in Fort Collins in the 1950's was named in her honor. The neighborhood surrounding the school was still identified as Moore. Despite its small size, 528 West Mountain was a prime example of folk-Victorian architecture. The prominent bay window, door, and unusual pediment above it were features of this style . This property could contribute significantly to the historic and architectural legacy of the neighborhood and Fort Collins . Its loss would severely diminish the block and it should be preserved via landmark status for present and future residents of Fort Collins. Chair Dunn invited the other applicants to add to the presentation . Ms. Janett stated that the building was eligible due to architectural integrity and the significance of Jessie Moore who lived in the house. These are the two criteria of eligibility. Jessie Moore was an important female teacher in this community . Mr. Whitley stated he believed the demolition of 528 West Mountain would be detrimental to Fort Collins. As one of a handful of late 19th Century homes remaining in the City, the modest charm of the house was key to one of Fort Collins's most scenic avenues. The direct association to working class people on Mountain Avenue was irreplaceable. Demolishing the house for a large , newly- constructed Victorian would not improve the City . Owner Presentation Mr. Obermann spoke on behalf of the owners as the designer and builder of the proposed new home at the property. He called into question whether the photograph of the women displayed by the Landmark Preservation Commission Page5 May 19, 2021 Applicant was in front of 528 West Mountain because there was a window above the bay window and the detailing above the porch looked different. He believed the photograph was of 317 Mountain . The description of the photograph said something like "Grandma's birthday ." He was not sure how important that was but wanted to correct the record . Mr. Obermann also had a procedural objection . He was not sure when conflicts of interest would arise and asked Mr. Yatabe to opine. The Applicant (Mr. Greenwald) had offered to purchase the home from the owners for his daughter, as well as asked Mr. Bertolini and the owners to let him inside the house. He asked the owners to see the inside when they were at the property without identifying himself, and they obliged not knowing who he was . He believed it unfair that someone with potential financial gain could be an applicant. Chair Dunn said Mr. Yatabe could comment later during Public Comment. Two other members . Three applicants were part of groups trying to protect historic properties which may receive government funding . No one in the community who was not involved had come forward . He shared his screen to show the Seller's Disclosure from the most recent sale . The disclosure stated it was uninhabitable , due to unsafe conditions and environmental , structural , and electrical issues. He also shared an environmental report from an industrial hygienist, which indicated a high concentration of methamphetamine contamination , outside the regulatory cleanup threshold of the State of Colorado by about 170 times and outside the toxicology significant concentration by about 60 times . This indicated an illegal drug laboratory. Access to the home had been severely restricted under Colorado law, which only occurred when contamination was extremely bad , in his opinion . Nothing could be removed from the home. The report mentioned cleaning was possible, but it may not be the most financially prudent and could degrade structural members in the house and the garage. Mr. Obermann believed the home to have major structural concerns and believed a cleaning would further damage the home. He had not been able to make a thorough assessment due to the contamination, but he did not believe it would be structurally sound after a cleaning . The property was so bad the experts recommended it was better to demolish than to clean it. He believed health and safety trumped what little gain preserving the home would provide . The home was not safe for children , and Jessie Moore was an advocate for them . He could understand and appreciate the desire to protect the home and the significance of it, but in the interest of health and safety , he would trust the person with 20 years' experience that said it needed to come down . It was upsetting the home had to be demolished for this reason, but whomever created this situation is to blame. Registering this house and forcing the designation would not be the greatest benefit of the community . Chair Dunn asked if the owners wanted to speak, but Mr. Obermann said he believed they did not. Public Input Ms. Kimberly Medina stated as a member of the community , she would happily have put her name on the application and she believed a lot of people would have. She grew up in this town , and it broke her heart to walk through her neighborhood and see homes scraped away and nasty modern homes put up . Those who did grow up here cannot hardly afford to live here anymore. She attended Moore Elementary in 1968 and walked past the house her entire childhood . She owns an older home, and all the concerns that came up are fixable and can be overcome when restoring a historic property . The architectural significance was something she had noticed walking by every day, but the historical significance fit so nicely with the statement Chair Dunn read in the beginning related to the proclamation about preserving history. This was a good foil in size and scale to the big, elegant Avery house, just down the street. The story of the teacher was a good contrast to the that of the wealthy banker -the banker had the big Victorian and the teacher the miniature, working-class Victorian . It was important to recognize the historical significance of working-class , women , and not so fortunate people . She thought it was disingenuous of the owners to say they could not live there because of meth because they bought it with the intention of knocking it down. If the future came down to who had the most money to knock down buildings and dictate what Fort Collins would look like, that would not be fair to those who grew up here . As people moved to the City to telecommute , and property values went even higher, we would see people who had phenomenal amounts of money that wanted to erase history and build something big . People who grew up in Fort Collins were counting on Commissions like this to recognize the historical significance of properties like these , be their voice, and preserve their history. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 May 19, 2021 Mr. Chet Wisner, 508 West Mountain , spoke on behalf of himself and his wife Delores. They lived three doors down on the same block and believed the proposed build would significantly improve the neighborhood . He would be happy to see the meth lab disposed of. Applicant Response Mr. Bill Whitley , 600 block of West Mountain, was a neighbor with no financial interest in this property . His interest was solely historical and neighborly . The forensic report clearly stated the home could be cleaned and did not have to be demolished because of the meth lab . Owner Response Mr. Jason Green and his wife moved to Fort Collins from a historic property in Chicago. They were not against old buildings or history . When they bought the house, he took an interest in the history of Jessie Moore. Before they bought the property, they knew it was not in habitable condition . A neighbor mentioned the home's connection with a drug dealer, which is why they pursued the forensic investigation without ulterior motive. It was hard to realize the building was not what everyone wanted , a beautiful piece of Victorian architecture that had been loved and maintained, but instead was in a complete state of disrepair and a methamphetamine laboratory with levels 60 times the toxic level. He could not live in the house , their planned retirement home, nor have future grandchildren there. He understood the public's desire to save old buildings , and he had some of the same desires. He had friends that lived in older homes on Mountain Avenue that he would never demolish because they had been maintained and were beautiful pieces of our community history. That was not the case with his property . He was unsure how to save the property or what would be left if they attempted to save it. They were not trying to put up mansion and demonstrate wealth, but to build a home they could live in that would mesh with the other properties on Mountain Avenue. They were shocked by the degree of contamination in the house. The next-door neighbors had written to support them and the sellers asked to be present when it was demolished . Their desire was not to come in and destroy the history of Fort Collins . Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn did not want to ignore or downplay the health issues here . This likely blindsided the Commission, especially on prestigious Mountain Avenue. It was not under the Commission's purview to look at health issues because they were not a health Board . All they could really look at was what was before them today, which was if the house was eligible . The health issue would be addressed at some point by the appropriate City department. She wanted to be clear to everyone participating and watching : the question before the Commission was if the house was eligible for integrity and significance. She also shared a rumor from Facebook regarding bones and medical instruments in the yard in the ?O 's. Sometimes these rumors had something to them, and sometimes they did not. There could be archeological significance there. Mr. Bello remarked the methamphetamine contamination should be considered at some point, although he respected Chair Dunn's position . He asked where Mr. Obermann got his reference to the photo being a birthday party . Mr. Obermann answered it was written on the bottom of the picture in light cursive . Chair Dunn asked Mr. Bertolini to pull it from the archive site and see what the house number is in the picture . Ms. Michell asked Mr. Obermann about if anyone with training had gone through the house to see what could be fixed . Mr. Obermann said he had done a preliminary walkthrough and spent some time investigating what could be done to add on for a larger house. He stopped when the issue of methamphetamine came into play . Structurally, anything could be saved with enough money but did not know if that level of meth could be 100% cleaned . The significant level of contamination was what caused the demolition to come into play . Ms . Michell remarked the structural viability was important to determining the integrity of the building . Mr. Obermann said from a structural standpoint, things could be saved with modern technology . He did not have cleaning experience, but what he understood from his contractors this level of contamination had likely permeated the structure, the floor joists, and windows. They were likely to have further structural issues after attempting the level of cleaning required . He knew the home could be saved but did not believe the home could ever be 100% safe . Mr. Bello asked Mr. Bertolini if the integrity of the photo could be determined that evening before a vote . Mr. Bertolini stated the museum description said "Grandma Ayers birthday party " and on the back identified the property behind the women as 528 W Mountain . Mr. Obermann said a lot of details must Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 May 19, 2021 have changed over the years if it was the same property, including the beams on the posts, the detailing around the bay window, and the window above the bay window and suggested the loss of those details might decrease the historic significance. Mr. Bello said the address in the photo was the subject property, but they were unsure of changes to the property from then to today . The top portion of the porch was different from the property today . Mr. Murray said he did not think it was the same house because the paneling and bay windows were different. It was the same style, but not the same house. Mr. Obermann said he believed it to be 317 Mountain . He was not saying the subject property did not belong to Ms . Moore. Mr. Knierim asked if Mr. Bertolini could zoom in on the house number, but Chair Dunn said it was likely too poor a scan . Ms. Nelsen did not believe the picture was critical to the potential landmark status of the property because it did not change who lived there or what they did . They had other documentation that showed the house's architectural evolution over time or lack thereof. Mr. Bertolini pointed the Commission to the survey form that included a detailed history of construction and alteration, Item 12 on the form, packet page 97 . Chair Dunn stated photos in the archive are often mislabeled and requested a better scan for the next hearing but it was not required to move forward today . The 1968 photo of the house looked very much like it does now. Ms . Nelsen thought the photo did not affect the nomination so they could move on . Mr. Yatabe commented that for any issue that comes before the Commission in a quasi-judicial matter, the Commission members were the finders of fact. Each of them could decide whether evidence was relevant or credible . What was before them was all the information the Applicant for landmark status submitted in support of the application . They were able to decide what mattered . He did not want them to get stuck on any one point. Chair Dunn pointed out Mr. Obermann mentioned the preservation groups mentioned had no relationship with the subject property and do no advocacy. The Loomis Addition is not an organization, but a neighborhood name for the neighborhood is just across the street from the property . Mr. Yatabe addressed the possible bias of Applicants as requested by Mr. Obermann . The City did not screen for bias as to members of the public , only City staff and Commission members. Chair Dunn added the motivations of the Applicants or the Owner were not things the Commission should consider, only the significance and integrity of the property . Mr. Yatabe agreed . Commission Deliberation Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider significance first. It was nominated under two criteria : Architecture and People. Mr. Knierim pointed out the City has been focusing on Women's History. As an educator he believed the role and history of public education was important, and this house told the story of the socioeconomic level of teachers . In terms of significance, this home offered a lot as to the types of stories that should be told in Fort Collins . Ms . Michell agreed . It was irrelevant what the photograph was because the house where Ms . Moore lived and her life history were an important part of the history of Fort Collins. Mr. Bello asked if it was known for sure whether Jessie Moore actually lived in the home. Mr. Murray stated there were lots of records to show she did . One of the comment letters brought up the property was significant for women in Fort Collins, as well as the architecture. Mr. Knierim stated on packet page 99 there was a history of ownership and Jessie Moore was the owner. Ms . Nelsen said after reviewing the evidence, there was a preponderance of evidence suggesting she lived at 528 West Mountain . The Commission did not need to depend on the photograph for a link. Ms. Nelsen went back to significance. The overall impact Jessie Moore had on the fabric Fort Collins was large as a teacher with a long career impacting numerous individuals. The place where she spent the majority of her life should be closely examined as a potential landmark. Ms. Nelsen believed a nomination could be supported on who Jessie Moore was as a person without the consideration of the architectural character of the home. Chair Dunn commented the photo was a red herring and that they had plenty of other evidence as Ms . Nelsen had said . Chair Dunn commented Jessie worked at two schools that had been torn down . This was the only property related to her name as far as Chair Dunn knew at this point. Chair Dunn stated they had covered Standard 2 and asked for thoughts on Standard 3, design and construction . Mr. Murray it was a classic L, a style that was around Fort Collins . Most in Fort Collins had been torn down or changed . The style really speaks to the history of Mountain Avenue. Chair Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 May 19, 2021 Dunn noted a commenter had contrasted this home to the Avery House as two distinct representations of the community . She commented the City had a few other Ls but they were quickly losing them . Ms. Nelsen believed the Commission saw properties with two doors due to a rented-out room , and it could be significant in telling the story of an underrepresented class . Chair Dunn asked if there was another teacher who lived with her for a while. Ms . Nelsen agreed and said it could be there were two separate entries for two households. She thought it was a neat architectural feature that contributed to the uniqueness and significance of the house. Mr. Rose concurred with Ms . Nelsen they could not disregard the archival research that had been done to connect the house to Jessie Moore via clear evidence . The photo was of little consequence. To address the comments the back porch was not compatible with the overall architecture, it was not a significant enough intrusion to affect the overall architecture. It could be remediated and removed because the original fabric was likely back there. The home qualified in a number of respects to all the elements of significance and integrity. If the Commission focused on their job, it would be difficult to deny it was landmark eligible . Chair Dunn commented in addition to the L being increasingly rare in our community, bay windows like the ones on the home were also scarce. The bay window was one of several architectural details on the home that spoke to the time it was built and were growing increasingly rare . Mr. Bello agreed everyone was correct about the historic significance and the architectural significance . He could not wrap his mind around the fact that the home was so bad that an investigative company with 20 years ' experience had only said three should be demolished and this was one of them . Before he could move forward , he needed to know if someone else would look at the health aspects . Chair Dunn asked Mr. Yatabe or Mr. Bertolini to opine, because she believed even if the property were landmarked Chapter 14 had a provision for habitability and safety . Mr. Yatabe had not dealt with meth contamination in a long time and did not know if the City had a role . The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was likely the one to regulate it. They had not yet touched base with Chief Building Official Rich Anderson, but there is a mechanism for an order of demolition under Chapter 14, Section 14-8, Remedying of Dangerous Conditions, to remedy anything that constitutes an imminent danger as determined under the International Property and Maintenance Code. Mr. Anderson, the Chief Building Official, would be at the next meeting to answer those questions. Mr. Yatabe's understanding was the standards for eligibility did not address these issues, only significance and integrity. In the future, they could follow up on what meth contamination means for the City, but Mr. Yatabe could not say more at present. Mr. Murray asked if Section 14-8 Applied involved the Commission . Mr. Yatabe said as he read it, 14-8 applied to a Building Official call. Mr. Murray believed they were deciding whether a nomination could move forward as a landmark and the official part would be next month . Mr. Bertolini clarified the only question before the Commission was if it was eligible for Fort Collins designation . If so, at next month's hearing, they would decide whether nominating the property without the owner's consent still meets the declaration of policy and purpose in 14-1 and 14-2. At that point, they could consider more information than the history of the property . Chair Dunn asked if the National Trust Forum might be able to provide advisory help or guidance on how other jurisdictions had handled historic buildings with methamphetamine issues. Another option would be posting online to put the questions out to preservationists across the country . Mr. Bertolini agreed if the process moved forward he would find information he could on the listservs to which he had access on that topic. Chair Dunn asked if they were ready for a motion . Mr. Murray started to make a motion for approval , then verified with Chair Dunn the garage would be included ; it would be. Mr. Murray moved that the Commission find the whole property at 528 West Mountain be seen as eligible and move forward to an eligibility hearing next month in front of the Historic Preservation Commission. Chair Dunn asked Mr. Yatabe if that was sufficient. Mr. Yatabe said the motion needed to be adopted as a written resolution , as specified in Code . Mr. Bertolini 's draft motions included a draft resolution to be signed by Chair Dunn . It was important to set the basis for significance and the findings as to integrity , which had been discussed but were important to include in case this passes the second hearing with a recommendation to Council. Mr. Yatabe offered assistance to write a motion if the Commission wanted to take a break. Mr. Murray removed his earlier motion . Landmark Preservation Commission Page 9 May 19, 2021 Ms. Michell moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that: • The Samuel & Jessie Moore Property, 528 West Mountain Avenue, is eligible to be designated a Fort Collins Landmark; and • The property possesses significance to Fort Collins under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, and 3 Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the nomination document and attachments submitted by the applicant group on April 20, 2021; and, • The property clearly conveys this significance through integrity under all seven aspects of integrity in Municipal Code Section 14-22(b); and • A second hearing before this Commission should be scheduled consistent with Municipal Code Section 14-33(c). Mr. Knierim seconded. Chair Dunn asked if there was any discussion on the motion . Mr. Murray clarified if a resolution needed to be drafted to be signed . Mr. Yatabe clarified he would draft a resolution for Chair Dunn setting forth the findings of the Commission made in the motion . Mr. Bello wanted to be sure the decision was not binding and the Commission would have to reaffirm next month before making a recommendation to City Council. Chair Dunn said only City Council can make a landmark. Mr. Bello asked if their recommendation to City Council would not be forwarded unless and until they reaffirmed their decision next month . Mr. Yatabe clarified at the next meeting they would be examining whether a designation was justified by the manner and extent to which the requested designation would advance the policies stated in Section 14-1 and the purposes stated in Section 14-2 . Their review would be asking whether a recommendation of designation of the property would advance the reasons why we had historic preservation code. Mr. Bello commented at that point the meth might come into play . Mr. Yatabe said the Commission needed to take a look at the purpose and the policy , but the consideration at the second hearing was a wider consideration . Chair Dunn commented the City Council has a little more leeway in their Code , so there were several more steps for a designation . Ms . Nelsen commented this was difficult for everyone , but from a Code perspective their scope was narrow. They were looking at if it was significant enough and whether it possessed integrity , not health issues tonight, although those were significant. If they put their blinders on , and looked at the home and who lived there , it was an individual that made contributions to the City and deserved to be recogn ized . Architecturally, the home had a preponderance of architectural integrity, since it did not look that different from when it was built in 1885. The changes that had been made were slight and did not affect the integrity of the building or its ability to be a local landmark. If they narrowed their scope to their purview under Code, it was clear they would support a landmark designation for the property . Chair Dunn agreed, if it was a consensual designation , they would be protect the architecture and recognize Jessie Moore. She echoed this was exactly the kind of stories that are somewhat underrepresented and should be told about our community . Ms. Nelsen said the egalitarianism of Mountain Ave was striking and unique. It was a beloved , diverse street of people , architecture , and scales in the City . It fostered civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, but also fostered urban design . Mr. Bello heard Ms . Nelsen and agreed but sometimes you should not ignore something glaring like the methamphetamine. Ms . Nelsen agreed, because several on the Commission had lived close to meth and knew the health impact was serious . She could not go outside of the Commission 's purview on this . They had to trust another governmental body was charged with protection through demolition or mitigation . City government was set up in a way where there were different tasks for different bodies. Their job was to look at the specific areas outlined in Code . Mr. Bello would be supporting the motion tonight but only because there was an opportunity to address it later. Chair Dunn recognized Josh's hand was raised but the time for public comment was over. She suggested he come back next month because the time for public comment was over or submit a public comment to Staff. Chair Dunn re-capped the four points of the motion : it was eligible to be designated, it was significant under Standards 2 and 3, it could convey that significance through integrity under all seven aspects of integrity, and there would be a second hearing on it the following month . Landmark Preservation Commission Page 10 May 19, 2021 The motion passed 7-0. Chair Dunn mentioned that hopefully between now and the next hearing they could get more information to aid in their decision . She thanked the applicants, owners, and members of the public for participating. [Timestamp : 8:07 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn reminded everyone the Historic Larimer County members meeting was Saturday at 10 am on Zoom . It was an overview of what the organization had done for the past two years, which included a restoration of a school bus that was a school wagon . • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on June 16, 2021 M~~ Landmark Preservation Commission Page 11 May 19, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 August 18, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Walter Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Kevin Murray and via Zoom Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting August 18, 2021 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Mike Bello STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Marcus Coldiron, Aubrie Brennan Chair Dunn commented on the meeting being conducted in a hybrid fashion. AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW Jim Bertolini reviewed the agenda. STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 August 18, 2021  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 16, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 320 WOOD ST Member Knierim moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the August 18, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic 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. 4. 201 S LOOMIS AVE – LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Portner Property at 201 South Loomis Avenue. APPLICANT: Kathryn Wernsman Belden (daughter), on behalf of owners Charles & M. Gayle Wernsman (**Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn recused herself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Staff Report Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner, presented the staff report. He noted this is a landmark designation request from the property owners at 201 South Loomis Avenue. He discussed the location of the property and noted it was recommended for designation as part of the recent historic property survey for the Loomis Addition. He stated the property is being nominated under standard 3 for design and construction as a significant example of classic Queen Anne architecture and he noted the property has good integrity under all seven aspects. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the ownership of the house by the Portners and Wernsmans and commented on the Loomis Addition survey report which makes some fairly heavy recommendations for individual landmark eligibility. He outlined the role of the Historic Preservation Commission to make a recommendation to Council after determining whether the criteria established in the Municipal Code are being met. Applicant Presentation Kathryn Wernsman Belden gave the Applicant presentation and noted her parents have owned the property since 1981, though her mother recently passed away. Mom was caretaker and passed away. They hope to restore the house. Public Input Gina Janett stated she was part of the group that worked on the Loomis Addition survey and thanked the Wernsmans for requesting landmark designation and the City for providing support for the survey. Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 August 18, 2021 Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked if anything besides the house would be designated. Ms. Belden replied in the negative. Commission Deliberation Member Murray commented the home stands out and is historically well documented. Member Knierim said the house had a great story and the original owners are buried in Grandview Cemetery. Member Rose agreed with the significance of the property and commended the designation petition. He also noted the integrity of the home is remarkable. Member Nelsen concurred with Members Murray and Rose that the property is well-preserved and has a beautiful story. Member Dunn agreed and supported landmarking the property. Member Rose made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Portner Property at 201 South Loomis Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3, Design/Construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report and Landmark nomination dated August 18, 2021, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through seven aspects of integrity to a sufficient degree; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Member Murray seconded. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 5:55 p.m.] (**Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn rejoined the meeting at this point.) 5. 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE – LANDMARK DESIGNATION HEARING 2 DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council on Landmark designation of the Samuel & Jessie Moore Property at 528 W. Mountain Avenue. The nomination is not supported by the owners, Jason and Misha Green. APPLICANT: Mark Greenwald, Resident; Gina Janett, Resident; Robin Stitzel, Resident; William Whitley, Resident Claire Havelda, City Attorney’s Office, noted Member Murray disclosed he did some independent research regarding 528 West Mountain Avenue prior to the hearing. Member Murray stated he reviewed the First Methamphetamine Report (“First Report”) the City received from the Homeowner on the property in May. Having concerns regarding the qualifications of the drafter of the First Report, Member Murray sent the First Report to a professional he knew with significant experience in the field (Kyle Baber) for Mr. Baber’s assessment of the First Report. As the First Report raised concerns for Commission Member Murray and Staff, Havelda noted the City requested that the Homeowner provide a second methamphetamine mitigation report drafted by an entity recognized by the State to provide qualified methamphetamine mitigation reports. The Homeowners’ second submitted methamphetamine mitigation report (“Second Report”) met these requirements. Havelda then asked Member Murray, if, after reviewing the Second Report, he had similar concerns regarding the Second Report. Member Murray replied in the negative and stated he has not prejudged this matter based on his involvement. Chair Dunn outlined the process for the consideration of this item. She noted all six members would need to be in support of recommending this designation to Council in order to move it forward. Chair Dunn disclosed her involvement with historic preservation and stated she knows at least three of the applicants through that involvement; however, she stated that will not affect her judgement of this matter. Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 August 18, 2021 Member Murray noted he can see this property from his house and he knows two of the applicants; however, he did not believe that would affect his judgement of this matter. He stated he would not have any personal financial interest regardless of whether this property ends up being designated. Mr. Bertolini requested a representative from each group would come forth indicating approval of the hybrid meeting format. Gina Janett, applicant, expressed approval. Jason Green, property owner, expressed approval. Mr. Bertolini asked if all six members received today’s confidential memo from the City Attorney’s Office. All members replied in the affirmative. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report and noted this is an involuntary landmark designation request for the property at 528 West Mountain Avenue. He stated the role of the Historic Preservation Commission in this item is to determine whether a recommendation should be made to Council to place a landmark designation on the property. Because the property owner is not in support of the designation, two separate hearing are required. The first hearing, which occurred on May 19th, involved the determination the property met the eligibility requirements; therefore, this second hearing is occurring and the primary task of the Commission is to determine whether the criteria in Section 14- 33(C) are satisfied. Mr. Bertolini discussed the next steps should the Commission recommend for or against designation. He discussed the historic elements of the property and provided further detail on the eligibility as found by the Commission at the first hearing. He discussed the nomination petition submitted by four citizens and provided additional geographic information related to the property. He outlined recommended questions for the Commission to consider, primarily what specific policies and purposes in the applicable City Code sections are being met by requiring preservation of this property, and are they being met to a sufficient degree to justify a designation against the owners’ wishes. Additionally, the Commission should consider to what degree should the environmental health concerns that have been documented and confirmed affect whether designating the property meets the applicable provisions, and whether required mitigation, if designation moves forward, may result in a loss of historic integrity to the property. Mr. Bertolini discussed the staff analysis of materials provided by both the applicants and property owners over the course of this process. He also discussed the questions brought forth at the work session noting there is likely a cost difference between simple demolition of the property and methamphetamine mitigation and preservation of the property. He provided a summary of public comments noting 24 of the 36 individuals providing comment expressed favor for designation. Applicant Presentation Gina Janett introduced herself and Mark Greenwald gave the applicant presentation. He discussed the application for designation stating it was based on the historical significance of the property’s long-time early occupants, two of whom were highly regarded schoolteachers, and the quality of its well- preserved 19th century architecture. He discussed the history of the property and its occupants, primarily school teacher Jessie Moore, and stated replacement of this home with a larger and less affordable one would significantly disturb the balance of the neighborhood resulting in a loss of equity, enhancement of which is increasingly sought by preservationists and others whose concern focuses on our collective past. He also noted restoration efforts, in contrast to demolition and rebuilding, have a relatively positive impact on the environment. Owner Presentation Jordan Obermann gave the owner presentation. He discussed the meaning of ‘general welfare’ noting health and safety are widely considered as being part of that definition. He discussed the methamphetamine (meth) contamination of the property and noted decontamination will not rid the property of meth. He also commented on the poor condition of the property. Dr. Jason Green, owner, discussed the health implications of prolonged exposure to meth and noted there is little research regarding health side effects of living in methamphetamine-remediated homes. He questioned whether it seems rational or reasonable to expect people to live in a building where the long-term side effects and potential health risks are unknown. Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 August 18, 2021 Mr. Obermann discussed the options for decontamination, specifically addressing times when an occupant may come in contact with the interior of a wall. He reiterated decontamination does not equate to removal. He outlined cost estimates of decontamination and questioned whether any monetary value can be put on the health and safety of occupants. He stated the only way to ensure the safety of this property is to demolish it and he outlined the state allowances for demolition in these instances. Mr. Obermann provided additional details regarding what aspects of the building will need to be removed based on their levels of contamination. Ultimately, he stated this structure cannot remain if the goal is to have zero meth levels. He stated most nearby neighbors are in support of demolition of the home and he showed slides of the current condition of the property. Applicant Presentation Additional Time (**Secretary’s Note: the applicants were granted additional time due to the overrun of the owner presentation.) Ms. Janett stated there are two individuals present who are certified by the state, one to do meth testing and one to do meth remediation. She reiterated Section 14-1 and noted the Commission is tasked with upholding the Code. She commented on zero interest loans and tax credits that could be applied to some of the cost of the interior remodeling work that would not be available to the owner if the property is not landmarked. (**Secretary’s Note: Havelda requested a brief recess be taken to confer with staff and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Havelda noted Kyle Baber was the consultant Member Murray had review the first meth report; however, she stated she did not believe Member Murray was aware Mr. Baber was present to give comment. She stated the applicant team requested his testimony. Kyle Baber, owner of an environmental remediation and demolition firm, discussed his experience in remediation and historic preservation. He discussed the reports produced regarding this property and suggested it is unfair for individuals who do not carry accreditation are allowed to make recommendations to the general public. He discussed his experience in remediating meth-affected properties and stated the second report on the property showed no signs of meth manufacturing in this home. He stated the levels of meth in the home would be a hundred times what is seen in this home if it were actually manufactured there and stated the only solution based on those levels is not demolition. He acknowledged the objective in cleaning these properties is not zero levels of meth, nor is that the goal of the environmental community or the scientists behind the recommendations. He stated he is completely confident this property is a candidate for extraction and remediation. He stated his price to clean the house would likely be around $10,000 assuming no asbestos was present. Member Murray acknowledged he has a working relationship with the following speaker. Jim Dennison stated his firm does environmental testing for things such as meth. He discussed his experience and stated he has done meth testing since 2005. He stated he first submitted public comment on this issue prior to being contacted by the applicants and stated the cost for his testing service and remediation on a home such as this would not exceed $15,000. He also stated he has never heard of the state giving a variance to allow for higher levels of meth to be allowed after remediation. Public Input Shelly Terry spoke in favor of designation in honor of Jessie Moore due to the value of education in Fort Collins and the value of women’s history. Kimberly Medina spoke in favor of designation of this property and in favor of historic preservation in general in Fort Collins. She stated this home can be remediated and its historical significance cannot be understated. Alan Braslau spoke in favor of designation due to the sense of responsibility purchasing a historic home implies. He compared radon mitigation to meth mitigation and stated both are possible. Mark Greenwald, applicant, commented on an historic property in Chicago that was once in poor condition but is now a major tourist attraction. Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 August 18, 2021 Myrne Watrous spoke in favor of designation due to the home’s proximity to the Downtown Historic District and the Loomis Addition. She opposed the style of recent redeveloped homes. Beth Fisher spoke against designation due to the property rights of the homeowners and the current condition of the house. She noted the home was vacant for years and questioned why the applicants didn’t purchase it when it was vacant if they wanted the property to be designated. Carol Goettl stated she lives in a landmarked home across the street from this house and spoke against designation because of its level of disrepair. Jim Dennison spoke in favor of designation because he believes the house could be safely remediated under the Colorado guidelines. Commission Questions and Discussion Member Murray asked Mr. Obermann if he has received a mitigation cost estimate from a registered subcontractor. Mr. Obermann replied he has received one estimate from NovaTech Environmental, which recommended demolition of the property, of about $49,000. Chair Dunn asked which of Mr. Obermann’s contractors were licensed. Mr. Obermann replied one of the original testers was not licensed; therefore, they sought testing from Quest. He stated NovaTech is certified and the other contractor, Resolution Contractors, do not need to have any meth related certification for demolition. Member Murray asked Dr. Green if the article he cited in his presentation are part of the packet. Dr. Green replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn requested a list of what would be removed from the property during remediation. Mr. Obermann replied all plaster would be removed and the entire house would be gutted. Additionally, all wood would be sanded. He stated the demolition list was created with the idea of bringing meth levels down to zero, not just to acceptable standards. Member Rose asked if there was a requirement to treat the exterior in normal protocol for this remediation. Dr. Dennison replied, in his experience, he has not seen anything removed from an exterior in a meth remediation. Member Nelsen asked if the contamination of the porch is safe within the State’s acceptable cleanup levels. Dr. Dennison replied no remediation of the porch would be necessary because it was within acceptable levels; however, structurally the porch may need to be rebuilt. Member Nelsen asked if the meth could seep into the house from exterior materials. Dr. Dennison replied he had tested meth migration several times and it does not occur to any significant level. He explained most meth transfer occurs through skin and stated many houses have meth contamination that is unknown. Member Nelsen asked if there was anything else Dr. Dennison wanted to add to address the homeowners’ safety concerns. Dr. Dennison replied Colorado law includes a section that if a certified contractor is hired to mitigate the property to standards, a certified tester is hired who certifies it meets the standards, and reports are filed with the health department, then nothing has to be disclosed on further sales of the house and any tenants could not sue for health effects. Member Murray asked if meth permeation would come to the surface later. Dr. Dennison replied some will be absorbed into the paint layer and contractors would extract it from the paint layer during cleaning. He stated regulations require porous materials to be discarded; however, painted drywall is not considered porous. Member Murray asked how a traditional plaster wall would be remediated. Dr. Dennison replied they are not hard to clean. He commented on the meth levels in the house being about five times the legal limit, which is lower that was is usually seen. He stated he cannot think of a single instance wherein the exterior of the house has been cleaned. Member Nelsen asked how wood windows and entry doors are remediated. Dr. Dennison replied contractors would clean interiors with the windows down and nothing on the exterior would be cleaned. Member Nelsen asked if painted wood is considered porous. Dr. Dennison replied there are not many true porous materials in a house without personal belongings. He stated carpet is typically the main porous item found in a home. Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 August 18, 2021 Member Knierim asked Mr. Obermann to comment on what it would take to rehabilitate the damage to the exterior of the home as that speaks to the integrity of the building. Mr. Obermann replied there are foundation failures that will need to be addressed in some fashion based on the ultimate goal and on meeting building standards. He noted state law gives property owners the right to remove items that are contaminated, and in this case, that will lead to historic losses. He stated the health risks are not worth preserving the historic nature of the building. Member Nelsen asked if there is any situation wherein remediation would be worth it. Mr. Obermann replied it would be up to the level of acceptable risk and noted the homeowners are granted the right to protect themselves from risk based on future scientific evidence that may show greater risk. He stated he believes zero meth contamination should be the standard. Member Nelsen asked if there is any value to the house if it could be assumed meth contamination was not an issue. Mr. Obermann replied he has not fully been able to assess the structural integrity of the house as no one is allowed inside the house. He also noted his experts are the only testers who have provided testimony that have actually been inside the home. He stated the owners are willing to donate the house if someone wants to move it. Member Nelsen asked if there is any merit to the house’s context and location from Mr. Obermann’s perspective. Mr. Obermann replied there are large homes on the street and the lot has inherent value because it is on Mountain Avenue. Member Nelsen asked if Mr. Obermann believes there is value to the community of the location of the home. Mr. Obermann replied it is a prominent location in town for many reasons; therefore, it is even more important to remove a meth-contaminated home. He stated he did not believe this hearing would be occurring if the house was not on Mountain Avenue. Chair Dunn requested staff input on why this section is part of the Code and homeowners are not allowed to do what they wish with these homes. Mr. Bertolini replied the involuntary landmark designation option has been in the Code since about 1990 and it has only had one successful use on an individual property, which is the former Old Town post office. He stated the intent behind having this option is, in part, because the process of designating a property as historic falls under the land use regulations of a local government; therefore, a city has the option of designating resources and protecting them if they feel that would provide a public benefit. He noted the core question for the Commission is whether it finds the public benefit of designation to be so great that it overwhelms the very important consideration of private property rights. He stated the intent in allowing someone other than the owner to nominate the property for designation is to acknowledge there is some community stake in the preservation of historic properties and to acknowledge that the knowledge about what constitutes a property worthy of preservation does not necessarily rest in one place. Ms. Bzdek noted involuntary designation is not unusual across the Unites States. Chair Dunn requested staff input regarding City priorities related to preservation. Ms. Bzdek replied there are some directives in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or City Plan, as well as in the adopted Our Climate Future plan. She stated the current Council is in the process of finalizing its list of priorities. Chair Dunn asked if Moore School is still named Moore School. Member Knierim replied Moore school closed in 2011 and the building is now Polaris Expeditionary School. Member Murray disclosed the next speaker is his wife. Suzanne Murray asked when a house is considered historic based on its structure and development and questioned why buildings are attached to individuals who may or may not have been integral to the development of the community. She questioned when the importance of a former resident trumps someone’s right to decide what to do with their property. She stated she feels this discussion has lacked details about the physical historic significance of the house. Member Murray noted those questions were answered at the first hearing regarding whether the property had significance, which it was found to have. Chair Dunn stated the house was found to qualify for designation and was found to be significant for architecture and its association with a person. She noted this second hearing is required because the designation is involuntary. She reviewed what the Commission would be deciding this evening. Historic Preservation Commission Page 8 August 18, 2021 Member Nelsen asked Marcus Coldiron to weigh in on demolition by neglect, structural integrity and whether it is uninhabitable. Mr. Bertolini noted the demolition by neglect ordinance relates to designated historic properties. Mr. Coldiron replied the home is not inhabitable as it stands now due to the meth contamination. He stated the Larimer County Health Department would have to clear the property for habitation following remediation. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Applicant Rebuttal Gina Janett stated both a certified meth tester and remediation contractor have testified the meth levels in this house can be cleaned for an affordable price. She commented on Council’s equity and inclusion priorities and stated this house tells an important story for the community’s history. She discussed the role of Jessie Moore and the history of Germans from Russia in the sugar beet industry in Fort Collins. Mark Greenwald stated any structural issues with the house have yet to be discussed by an impartial party and should therefore not be part of the consideration. He stated there is no way to get rid of trace amounts of chemicals to which people are exposed every day and stated he would not personally hesitate to live in the home after remediation. Owner Rebuttal Dr. Green stated he has lived in Fort Collins for sixteen years, has started his family here, and serves the community as an emergency room physician. He stated the meth contamination is a very real problem and commented on an article which stated elimination of risk through demolition may be a safer option. He stated there is no way to possibly predict the possible future effects of meth contamination in a home and there is evidence it does penetrate through walls. He also stated the home is dilapidated and is not an example of community pride. He discussed the Colorado regulations which allow a homeowner, in consultation with a contractor, to remove and properly dispose of materials at a solid state waste landfill in lieu of remediating them and questioned why individuals would be able to force someone to live in a property that is contaminated with methamphetamine when there are no guarantees about the long-term effects of such exposure. He also stated there was no interest in this property as being the Moore house prior to this proceeding and stated there is a great deal of overreach in telling individuals they should live in a property contaminated at a level with which they are not comfortable. Staff Comment Havelda noted the City disagrees with the homeowners’ analysis of the state law regarding meth- affected properties. She also cautioned the Commission on the level of weight it gives statements that may be considered heresay in a court of law and reminded the Commission it needs to consider the policies in Sections 14-1 and 14-2 against the articulated opposition of the homeowners. Commission Deliberation Chair Dunn requested the Commission first consider Section 14-1, which is a declaration of policy. Member Knierim stated this section addresses civic pride and stated it is clear the definition is met by this property. Chair Dunn explained what Code sections should be considered at this hearing. Member Rose commented on a general understanding of history and background being consistent with the general welfare and stated this property meets that definition. Member Nelsen noted the home has been a part of Fort Collins history which contributes to civic pride and general welfare. Chair Dunn commented women’s history being a subset of history that is lacking in Fort Collins in terms of landmarking specific properties. Member Nelsen agreed and stated it is important to consider the entire cross-section of the community, which this designation would help preserve. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to subsection B. Historic Preservation Commission Page 9 August 18, 2021 Member Murray commented on this home being built on the far edge of town at the time. Member Rose stated the home could be characterized as a cultural asset and is part of the built cultural heritage. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider 14-2. Member Murray stated the property could be a local landmark based on the survey. Chair Dunn commented on the property reflecting important city heritage elements of cultural, social, architectural, and artistic. Member Nelsen commented the economic category playing a role as well as Fort Collins is a city for everyone. Chair Dunn agreed that places of lower socioeconomic classes should be protected. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider whether the property ‘fosters civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past.’ She stated she believes it does. Member Knierim stated there is beauty in the 50 years of schoolchildren that have a history with the property and the building reflects that heritage. Chair Dunn stated that would fall within the accomplishments of the four women who lived in the home serving those most in need. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection C and stated, if this home were preserved and rehabilitated, it would significantly help to stabilize and improve the continuing economic vitality of the structure. Member Nelsen agreed it could be stabilized and used as originally intended. She stated there are details on the home that exist solely for aesthetic reasons. Chair Dunn stated the state tax credits and zero interest loans would not be able to occur unless the property is available for their use. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection D. Member Murray stated it should be ensured Mountain Avenue homes are connected to its history. Chair Dunn commented on the location of the property being on the trolley route and stated this house is one of the key homes people notice. Member Nelsen stated the scale and architectural charm of the home are appealing and its story enhances that. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection E. Member Knierim commented on stories provided by trolley drivers related to important sites and structures. Member Murray discussed the time period during which this home was built. Member Nelsen stated this home also has a link to some more unpleasant parts of the history of Fort Collins in terms of Jessie Moore helping to end child labor on sugar beet farms. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection F. Member Nelsen stated the home promoted good urban design in terms of scale, green space, walkability, and footprint. Member Rose commented on the wide front porch that is now being adopted in New Urbanism. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection G. Member Knierim stated this situation is difficult as requiring the owners to live in the house will not encourage private ownership and utilization of historic properties. Member Murray noted the buyers never intended to live in the home. Chair Dunn directed the Commission to consider Subsection H. She stated this designation would fit with the financial incentives offered and feedback the Commission can given in terms of rehabilitation; however, it does not seem to fit in terms of a nonconsensual designation. Historic Preservation Commission Page 10 August 18, 2021 Member Nelsen commented on the designation promoting environmental sustainability through the potential rehabilitation of an existing building. Chair Dunn commented on the home addressing some aspects of history that have traditionally been skipped over and stated its designation seems to fit all terms of the policy. She stated most members seem to agree the purposes are met with Subsections A-F with some questions on G and H. Member Murray commented on looking at the highest use of the property. Member Knierim questioned whether the home, despite its historical significance, has been broken beyond the point of people wanting to live there. Member Nelsen stated she did not believe the home is damaged beyond repair but questioned whether the value of the home is irreplaceable. Chair Dunn stated a question to consider is whether Fort Collins will be a substantially different community if the house is demolished and stated she believes it will. Member Nelsen agreed. Member Murray noted nonconsensual applications are rarely submitted. Chair Dunn discussed how many people had commented on this item which she stated speaks to the community’s value of the building. Member Rose stated it is his job to make a recommendation to City Council and acknowledged he has a bias as he has been involved in historic preservation for some time. He stated losing contributing resources diminishes the community. He stated there is no question this is a contributing structure. Member Murray asked if the garage on the property is part of this designation. Mr. Bertolini replied the application considers the full parcel and both structures. Member Murray questioned whether the property could be divided based on the zoning and stated the designation does not need to include the garage. Member Nelsen stated the Commission considers demolition requests for potentially eligible properties frequently and disagreed with the notion the Commission landmarks properties simply because they are old. She stated the community participation around this property was significant and the designation seems to meet the applicable Code requirements. Member Dunn stated he is struggling with the rights of the property owners as they did not voluntarily submit for the designation. He stated this action would not ‘promote and encourage continued private ownership.’ Chair Dunn commented on homes being owned temporarily whereas the homes themselves remain. She stated there was reference to the fact this house has historic relevance and there may be neighbors that would try to landmark it prior to the purchase of the property. She stated the historic value of the property outweighs the property owners rights to demolish the home. Member Rose commented the Commission is not exercising eminent domain and seizing the property. He stated the Commission is charged with doing everything it can to preserve the cultural heritage of Fort Collins. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and a roll call was taken upon returning to ensure all six members were present.) Member Murray made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a resolution to be signed by the Chair, finding that the designation of the main house on the Samuel & Jessie Moore Property, 528 W. Mountain Avenue, will promote the following policies and purposes of the City as specified in Sections 14-1 and 14-2 of the Municipal Code to a sufficient degree to justify designation of the property without the owner’s consent:  Section 14-1 A and B; and  Section 14-2 A through F and directing that the nomination be forwarded to City Council for a final decision pursuant to Municipal Code 14-33(c). Member Knierim second the motion. Page 1 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Kurt Knierim, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Michael Bello remotely via Zoom. Walter Dunn Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Interim Historic Preservation Manager Work Session August 11, 2021 5:30 PM Historic 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 Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:15 p.m. Participants should try to join prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. JOIN ONLINE: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/97886780019. (Using earphones will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. JOIN BY PHONE: Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 978 8678 0019. Keep yourself on muted status. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: No public comment is allowed during work sessions. Members of the public may join the meeting but will remain muted throughout the duration of the meeting. The public may comment in the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission which will be held in person and remotely on August 18, 2021. Information on how to participate is contained in the agenda for that meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php. Documents to share: Members of the public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or written comments for the Commission to consider regarding any item on the agenda must email them at least 24 hours prior to the August 18, 2021 meeting to abrennan@fcgov.com.  Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.  CALL TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  REVIEW OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 5:30 P.M. VIA ZOOM (Please see the agenda for the August 18, 2021 meeting for information on how to join that meeting.) CONSENT 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2021 2. 320 WOOD ST - SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION DISCUSSION 3. REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES 4. 201 S LOOMIS AVE – LANDMARK DESIGNATION 5. 528 W MOUNTAIN AVE – LANDMARK DESIGNATION HEARING 2  BOARD TOPICS 1. Informational Presentation – College and Trilby Intersection Expansion – POSTPONED TO HPC SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 WORK SESSION 2. Informational Presentation – Mountain Avenue Reshaping Project 3. Training/Workshop – Friends of Preservation Award Overview and Input 4. HPC Work Plan – Action Items  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT City Clerk , City of Fort Collins City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521 PO Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Phone: 970-221-6515 Fax: 970-221-6295 http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk Boards and Commission Recruitment After August 13, 2021, the boards and commission application process will close in preparation for a full transition to Engage, the City's volunteer platform. Information regarding this transition will be published in early September in preparation for Annual Recruitment. If you are interested in applying for a board and commission in the annual recruitment process applications will open on September 13th, 2021.  If you applied between January 1 and August 13th of this year, your applications will be held on file for the Annual Recruitment process.  APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION MUST BE LIMITED TO TWO PAGES INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT If you have questions or need more information, contact: City Clerk's Office (300 LaPorte Avenue) at 970.416.2525 Eligibility Requirements - 1 year residency within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Board or Commission:Landmark Preservation Commission Name: Walter Dunn Mailing Address: 1617 Azalea Drive Zip: 80526 Residence: 1617 Azalea Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado Zip: 80526 Home Phone: 804-317-6126 Work Phone: Cell Phone: 804-317-6126 E-Mail Address: ethandunn25@gmail.com Have you resided in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year? Yes No Which Council District do you live in?District 5 Current Occupation: Land Survey Technician Employer: Majestic Surveying Recent and/or relevant work experience (please include dates) Land Survey Technician - November 2019 - Present (in Northeast Colorado)Experience working with construction crews on both new projects and existing building projectsExperience conducting surveys on existing houses and buildings in Fort Collins, including the UniversityArchaeological Technician - June 2019 - November 2019 (in Colorado and Northeast Colorado)Experience conducting surveys of areas Recent and/or relevant volunteer experience (please include dates) Are you currently serving on a City board or commission? Yes No If so, which one? Why do you want to become a member of this particular board or commission? My background in history and my experience as an archaeologist and currently as a land surveyor in the construction field gives me unique perspective in landmark preservation. Have you attended a meeting of the board or commission you are applying to or talked to anyone currently on the board? Yes No If yes, please share your experience: List any abilities, skills, certificates, specialized training, or interests you have which are applicable to this board or commission: Abilities, Skills, and Interests:History MajorCompleted Archaeological Field School in CyprusWork experience as archaeologist for 1 and a half yearsWork experience in construction field for 1 yearInterests:HistoryArchaeologyPreservation of history Briefly explain what you believe are the three most important issues facing this board or commission, and how do you believe this board or commission should address each issue? 1) Land use is a major issue especially in areas experiencing rapid growth. Being a city with such a rich history, there are landmarks and historically significant areas scattered throughout the area. However there is also a need to use this land for development. So to resolve this issue I think it is important to minimize the impact on the historically or culturally significant buildings or areas. Bottom line, i have a fairly strict view on preservation, i believe that, for the most part, structures should be maintained and green spaces should be untouched. Of course it is a case by case basis. 2) Like the issue above, an inevitable issue of encountering landmarks while undergoing construction projects will occur. I think it is important to require construction companies to have a very detailed plan of action involving the preservation of such landmarks. Included in those plans would be some form of monitoring. 3) Another issue that this commission probably faces is what defines preservation. Obviously it is case by case, but in general it should follow a set guideline. I think most landmarks should be maintained, but mostly untouched. However, i recognize that older building and landmarks will need to have maintance performed regularly to ensure its integrity. I believe that buildings should have its outer facade unchanged, even if other newer buildings are constructed near it, and the inside should have dedicated protected areas for the preservation of its history and culture. Please specify any activities which might create a serious conflict of interest if you should be appointed to this board or commission: Upon application for and acceptance of appointment, board and commission members demonstrate their intention and ability to attend meetings. If appointed, frequent nonattendance may result in termination of the appointment. By typing your name in the space provided, I submit my electronic signature and application to the City of Fort Collins and swear or affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado: -that I meet the eligibility requirements of the position sought and -that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Date: Optional: How did you learn of a vacancy on this board or commission: Newspaper Cable 14 City News (Utility Bill Insert)Website Other (please specify)Reddit.com/r/fortcollins 1 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 FORT COLLINS HISTORIC LANDMARKS NATIONAL REGISTER NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES--Fort Collins Listings Historic Property Name Property Address Date Designated National Register Number Owner/Contact Lindenmeier Site Fort Collins Vicinity October 15, 1966 (Also National Historic Landmark, 1/20/61) 5LR13 Avery House 328 W. Mountain June 24, 1972 5LR464 City of Fort Collins Spruce Hall/Dormitory/Boarding Hall CSU Campus January 9, 1977 5LR470 CSU Fort Collins Post Office 201 S. College January 30, 1978 5LR466 Ammons Hall CSU Campus June 15, 1978 5LR472 CSU Baker House 304 E. Mulberry July 20, 1978 5LR469 Norman Ginther Old Town Fort Collins Historic District Downtown Fort Collins; Roughly Bounded by: Mountain Avenue, Pine, Willow, & Walnut Streets August 2, 1978 5LR462 Various Botanical & Horticultural Laboratory (Routt Hall) CSU Campus September 18, 1978 5LR471 CSU Mosman House (formerly known as the Andrews House) 324 E. Oak Street December 15, 1978 5LR473 CSU History Department 2 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES--Fort Collins Listings Historic Property Name Property Address Date Designated National Register Number Owner/Contact Montezuma Fuller House 226 W. Magnolia Street December 15, 1978 5LR468 Gary E. Hixon Bouton (Boughton) House 113 N. Sherwood Street December 18, 1978 5LR465 Armstrong Hotel (Mountain Empire Hotel) 249 - 261 South College Avenue August 31, 2000 5LR1997 The Levinger Family McHugh-Andrews House / Mayors= House 202 Remington Street December 27, 1978 5LR467 St. Peter’s Fly Shop, Melinda Kerst, Fred & Ardith Kerst (282-8670) Peter Anderson House 300 S. Howes Street October 25, 1979 5LR474 Robert L. Hiller, Caroline Urvater, Karen & William Warren R. G. Maxwell House 2340 W. Mulberry Street September 29, 1980 5LR482 Laurel School Historic District Off US 287 October 3, 1980 5LR463 Various Fort Collins Municipal Railway Birney Safety Streetcar #21 1801 W. Mountain Avenue January 5, 1984 5LR495 City of Fort Collins Opera House Block / Central Block Building 117-131 N. College Avenue February 8, 1985 5LR742 Kissock Block Building 115-121 E. Mountain Avenue May 16, 1985 5LR505 T. H. Robertson House 420 W. Mountain Avenue July 2, 1992 5LR998 Ernest Waycott House 1501 W. Mountain Avenue December 2, 1993 5LR1579 3 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES--Fort Collins Listings Historic Property Name Property Address Date Designated National Register Number Owner/Contact Plummer School 2524 East Vine Drive April 29, 1999 (also on State Reg. 9/11/96) 5LR778 Harmony Mill 131 Lincoln Avenue November 22, 1995 5LR1544 Woldezion Mesghinna Preston Farm (12 Buildings and Structures) 4605 Ziegler Road May 16, 2001 5LR779 David Lawser Fort Collins Armory 314 East Mountain Avenue October 15, 2002 5LR1546 Paul Jensen Great Western Sugar Company Effluent Bridge and Flume Cache la Poudre River ½ mile west of Timberline Road November 19, 2014 5LR.1828.1 City of Fort Collins Natural Areas The E. A. Schlichter Residence 1312 South College Avenue November 22, 2016 5LR.1591 MaOlPh, LLC 4 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 FORT COLLINS HISTORIC LANDMARKS STATE REGISTER STATE REGISTER--Fort Collins Listings (includes all National Register designations) Historic Property Name Property Address Date Designated State Register Number Owner/Contact Coy Barn, Silos, and Milkhouse (Coy Hoffman Barn) 1103 E. Lincoln Avenue June 14, 1995 5LR1568 Building--Link-N- Greens, Inc. Charles Musgrave, G.M.; Property--James P. & Ruth Hoffman COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE: Civil and Irrigation Engineering Building (Statistics Building) 5LR1960 Mechanical Engineering Building (Industrial Sciences Building) 5LR1965 Entomology Building (L.L. Gibbons Building) 5LR1961 Potting Shed (Forensics Laboratory) 5LR1966 Guggenheim Hall 5LR1962 Soils Building (Vocational Education / Soils Laboratory) 5LR1967 Lavatory / Entomology Laboratory (Nutrition Research Laboratory) 5LR1963 COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE CSU Campus December 13, 1995 5LR1960 through 5LR1967 CSU 5 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 STATE REGISTER--Fort Collins Listings (includes all National Register designations) Historic Property Name Property Address Date Designated State Register Number Owner/Contact (Continued): Library (Laurel Hall) 5LR1964 Aggie AA@ Vicinity of CR 42C, near Horsetooth Reservoir September 13, 1995 5LR1878 CSU Veterinary Medicine Building (J.V.K. Wagar Building), Colorado State College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts (Building #84) 1101 West Drive, CSU Campus August 11, 1999 5LR2092 CSU Forestry Building, Colorado State College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts (Building #81) 1191 West Drive, CSU Campus August 11, 1999 5LR2090 CSU Fort Collins Waterworks 2005 N. Overland Trail March 10, 1999 5LR749 City of Fort Collins Plummer School 2524 East Vine Drive September 11, 1996 (also Nat. Reg. on April 29, 1999) 5LR778 Deines Barn and Twin Silos 7225 and 7309 S. College Avenue March 13, 2002 5LR10296 Shenandoah Homeowners Association %Doan Winkel, Treasurer 6 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 LOCAL LOCALLY DESIGNATED LANDMARKS--Fort Collins Historic Property Name Property Address Date Designated by Council Ordinance Owner/Contact Old Waterworks Overland Trail 1971 Resolution No. 71- 100 Nelson Milk house Lemay and Swallow Rd. 1973 Ordinance No. 19 Linden Hotel 201 Linden St. 1974 Ordinance No. 44 Avery House 328 W. Mountain Ave. August 15, 1974 Ordinance No. 46 Andrews House 324 E. Oak St. July 6, 1976 Ordinance No. 43 Montezuma Fuller House 226 W. Magnolia St. 1977 Ordinance No. 124 Old Town Fort Collins Historic District (51 contributing properties, 9 non- contributing) Bounded by N. College Ave., Pine St., Jefferson St. between Pine and the alley east of Linden St., and a portion of the 200 Block of East Mountain 1979 Ordinance No. 170 7 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 LOCALLY DESIGNATED LANDMARKS--Fort Collins Historic Property Name Property Address Date Designated by Council Ordinance Owner/Contact Sarchet House 930 W. Mountain Ave. June 17, 1980 Ordinance No. 76 C. M. Smith House 622 Remington St. February 1982 Ordinance No. 4 R. G. Maxwell House 2340 W. Mulberry St. December 1982 Ordinance No. 144 McHugh-Andrews House 202 Remington St. August 16, 1983 Ordinance No. 105 Laurel Street School 330 E. Laurel St. May 15, 1984 Ordinance No. 56 Museum, Janis Cabin, Auntie Stone Cabin, & Upper Boxelder School Historic District 200 Mathews St. August 30, 1985 Ordinance No. 82 Resolution No. 78-1 City of Fort Collins Fort Collins Birney Safety Streetcar No.21 1801 W. Mountain Ave. August 30, 1985 Ordinance No. 83 Old Post Office 201 S. College Ave. October 25, 1985 Ordinance No. 117 Power Plant & Art Deco Fountain 401 N. College Ave. September 1987 Ordinance No. 121 City of Fort Collins 8 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Avery House Historic District / Res. #: no number 328 W. Mountain Ave. & 108 N. Meldrum St. June 1990 Ordinance No. 54 City of Fort Collins Shenk House / Res. # 1 629 W. Mountain Ave. November 19, 1991 Ordinance No. 125 Street Railway Car Barn, "Trolley Barn" / Res. # 2 330 N. Howes St. September 15, 1992 Ordinance No. 95 City of Fort Collins Brinker Grocery / Res. # 3 112 S. College Ave. September 15, 1992 Ordinance No. 94 Baker/Harris House / Res.# 1 103 N. Sherwood St. May 4, 1993 Ordinance No. 33 Brown Farmhouse / Res. # 2 2513 W. Prospect Rd. May 18, 1993 Ordinance No. 47 Woolworth Building/Welch Block / Res. # 107 N. College Ave. July 20, 1993 Ordinance No. 71 Isaac W. Bennett House / Res. # 816 W. Mountain Ave. December 7, 1993 Ordinance No. 148 Cunningham Corner Barn / Res. # 6 2513 W. Prospect Rd. December 7, 1993 Ordinance No. 150 9 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Hunter House / Res. # 1 1315 Remington St. February 1, 1994 Ordinance No. 6 Replogle/Bennett House / Res. # 2 314 E. Mulberry St. February 1, 1994 Ordinance No. 5 Frank Miller Stagecoach / Res. # 3 200 Mathews St. March 15, 1994 Ordinance No. 35 Jasper Loomis House / Res. # 4 1316 W. Oak St. July 5, 1994 Ordinance No. 99 Fort Collins High School / Res. # 5 1400 Remington St. September 6, 1994 Ordinance No. 126 City of Fort Collins Harmony Mill / Res. # 6 131 Lincoln Ave. November 15, 1994 Ordinance No. 161 Woldezion Mesghinna Lindell Mill / Res. # 7 546 Willow St. November 15, 1994 Ordinance No. 162 Ranch-Way Feeds, Kim Sziden Windsor Hotel / Res. # 8 111 N. College Ave. November 15, 1994 Ordinance No. 163 Children’s Mercantile Co, Judith Bedford 10 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 C & S Depot / Res. # 136 Laporte Ave. August 1, 1995 Ordinance No. 93 City of Fort Collins Frank Corbin House / Res. # 2 613 S. College Ave. August 1, 1995 Ordinance No. 94 Karen & Clyde Canino Spencer House / Res. # 3 425 E. Elizabeth St. August 1, 1995 Ordinance No. 95 Karla & Scott Oceanak Littler-Baker House / Res. # 4 725 Mathews St. August 1, 1995 Ordinance No. 96 Jeff & Victoria Bridges B. F. Ayers House / Res. # 5 518 Peterson St. August 1, 1995 Ordinance No. 97 Kate & Steven Malers Sadler House / Res. # 6 628 W. Mountain Ave. August 1, 1995 Ordinance No. 98 Randy & Barb Rahne Howard House / Res. # 145 N. Loomis St. October 17, 1995 Ordinance No. 123 John & Betty Morley Annie’s Grave / Res. # 8 136 Laporte Ave. November 7, 1995 Ordinance No. 140 City of Fort Collins Morgan-Kickland House / Res. # 9 408 W. Mountain Ave. November 21, 1995 Ordinance No. 141 Mary Stilson Schalk-Stallings House / Res. # 10 319 E. Plum St. December 19, 1995 Ordinance No. 156 Wayne & Jeanne Snyder 11 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 George W. Coffin House / Res. # 1 525 Smith St. April 2, 1996 Ordinance No. 34 Mark R. & Jane E. Bowen Charles A. Lory House & Outbuildings / Res. # 2 903 Stover St. April 2, 1996 Ordinance No. 39 Thomas J. Brewer William E. Greffenius House & Garage / Res. # 3 824 Remington St. April 2, 1996 Ordinance No. 38 Jeff Benjamin M.G. Nelson House & Carriage House / Res. # 4 700 Remington St. April 2, 1996 Ordinance No. 40 Colleen & Carie Conway E.M. Dodd/Frank Ghent House / Res. # 5 638 Whedbee St. April 2, 1996 Ordinance No. 35 Jan Kopald J.F. Farrar House & Garage / Res. # 6 304 E. Myrtle St. April 2, 1996 Ordinance No. 37 Arvin & Judy Lovaas H.F. Elliott/Carl Anderson House & Barn / Res. # 7 308 E. Myrtle St. April 2, 1996 Ordinance No. 36 Helen Woodard St. Joe=s Catholic School, Original 1925 Section / Res. # 8 127 N. Howes St. June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 76 Karen Canino, Father Philip S. Meredith Ernest Waycott House / Res. # 9 1501 W. Mountain Ave. June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 78 Fernando Gomez & Susan Irwin Gomez Rosenoff/Smith House / Res. # 10 (Designation Rescinded - see Res. # 25, 1996) 508 W. Olive June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 72 (Rescinded by Ord. No. 138, 1996) Mark Johnson Marion Alice Parker/Frank P. Stover House / Res. # 11 1320 W. Oak St. June 4, 1996 Ordinance # 77 Jennifer Kathol & Bruce Biggi McGannon/Middleswart House & Garage / Res. # 12 300 E. Elizabeth St. June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 74 Jane Welzel 12 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Hiram Pierce House / Res. # 13 510 S. Howes St. June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 73 Douglas & Winifred Wood John M. Riddle House / Res. # 14 530 Smith St. June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 75 Robert & Maureen Hoffert A.A. Edwards House / Res. # 15 402 W. Mountain (Withdrawn) Greg Belcher William Welscher Residence / Res. # 16 1304 S. College Ave. June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 79 Robert Siblerud William C. Stover House / Res. # 17 503 Remington June 4, 1996 Ordinance No. 80 Norman & Linda Burnette, Donald & Sharon Johnson Aggie Theatre Building / Res. # 18 204 S. College (Withdrawn) David and Philip Himot Dura & Neil Graham House / Res. # 19 811 Peterson St. June 18, 1996 Ordinance No. 83 Katherine & James Elias Losey-Walker House / Res. # 20 423 Whedbee St. June 18, 1996 Ordinance No. 82 Virginia Beatty Anna B. Miller House / Res. # 21 514 E. Elizabeth St. June 18, 1996 Ordinance No. 81 Margaret Marshall Phi Delta Theta Fraternity House / Res. # 22 200 E. Plum July 16, 1996 Ordinance No. 94 Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Diamond T Fire Truck / Res. # 23 200 Mathews September 17, 1996 Ordinance No. 116 Fort Collins Museum Dealy/Good House / Res. # 24 223 S. Howes St. October 1, 1996 Ordinance No. 121 Andy Miscio & Ray Gile Rosenoff/Smith House - Rescind Designation / Res. # 25 508 W. Olive November 19, 1996 Ordinance No. 138 Mark Johnson 13 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Poudre Garage / Res. # 1 (See also LPC Res. # 15, 1997, amending Res. # 1) 148 Remington St. Feb. 18, 1997 Ordinance No. 25 Brad Lenz, Lenz Construction Co., Inc. D. Watrous House & Garage / Res. # 2 301 S. Loomis St. Feb. 18, 1997 Ordinance No. 28 Ken Smith & Suzanne Coughlin Smith Emerson H. Kirkpatrick House / Res. # 3 321 Garfield St. Feb. 18, 1997 Ordinance No. 26 Donald & Vicki Mykles Long Apartment Complex / Res. # 4 220 E. Laurel St. Feb. 18, 1997 Ordinance No. 27 Sonia & Howard Nornes/Eleanor & Richard Anderson Clippinger House / Res. # 5 808 W. Mountain Ave. Feb. 18, 1997 Ordinance No. 24 Neva Lawton W. E. Mahood House / Res. # 6 832 W. Oak St. Mar. 4, 1997 Ordinance No. 38 Steve Davidson & Jill Parmer B.H. McCarty House / Res. # 7 218 Peterson St. Mar. 4, 1997 Ordinance No. 40 Wayne & Ila AJean@ Carpenter A. W. Scott House / Res. # 8 1611 Mathews Mar. 4, 1997 Ordinance No. 41 David & Rebecca Sheill Thomas Nicholas House / Res. # 9 922 W. Oak (Withdrawn) Richard and Sally Kennett Elizabeth Collins House & Associated Structures / Res. # 10 924 W. Magnolia St. Mar. 4, 1997 Ordinance No. 35 Eleanor Parson Liggett House / Res. #11 722 Mathews Street (Withdrawn) Jan Rodriquez Harmony School / Res. # 12 2112 E. Harmony Rd. April 1, 1997 Ordinance No. 56 Eric & Cathy Hutchison Jonas Finger House and Barn / Res. # 13 211 W. Mulberry (Withdrawn) B. K. Maxwell Co. City Park Cannon / Res. # 14 City Park June 17, 1997 Ordinance No. 85 Fort Collins Museum 14 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Amend Ord. No. 25, 1997 re: Poudre Garage/ US Forest Service Building / Res. # 15 (See also LPC Res. #1, 1997) 148 Remington Sept. 2, 1997 Ordinance No. 134 Brad Lenz Construction Company, Inc. J. C. Beers Barn /Res. #16 311 Whedbee Oct. 21, 1997 Ordinance No. 148 John Gless / Tamela Wahl Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn / Res. # 17 509 Remington Oct. 21, 1997 Ordinance No. 149 Gladys Eddy Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn / Res. #18 515 Remington Oct. 21, 1997 Ordinance No. 151 Carl E. Patton III G. R. McDaniel House I / Res. #19 632 Peterson Street Oct. 21, 1997 Ordinance No. 150 James R. (Bob) Allen/Julie Morton Armstrong Hotel / Res. #20 249-261 S. College and 102- 106 W. Olive Dec. 16, 1997 Ordinance No. 192 Steve, Missy and Bernard Levinger 15 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Hill / Hunter House / Res. #1 122 Jackson Ave. Feb. 17, 1998 Ordinance No. 16 Norman and Joan Miller Old Town Fort Collins Historic District Public Rights of Way and Other Land Owned by the City and by the DDA / Res. #2 Area bounded by North College Avenue, Pine Street, Jefferson Street between Pine and the alley east of Linden Street, and a portion of the 200 Block of East Mountain Avenue June 16, 1998 Ordinance No. 102, Amending Ordinance No. 170, 1979 City / DDA Kickland House and Garage / Res. # 2 (Issued two Res. #2s in error) 430 W. Mountain Ave. July 21, 1998 Ordinance No. 126 Jim Kelly and Betsy Markey Vandewark House and Garage / Res. # 3 1109 W. Oak Sept. 15, 1998 Ordinance No. 152 Sally Thoms Mittry/Young House / Res. # 4 1601 Sheely Drive July 21, 1998 Ordinance No. 125 Per and Veda Hogestad Initiation of Process for Non-consensual Designation - All Real Property Owned by Progressive Old Town Square, LLC and by 238 East Mountain, LLC, in the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District / Res. # 5 Area bounded by North College Avenue, Pine Street, Jefferson Street between Pine and the alley east of Linden Street, and a portion of the 200 Block of East Mountain Avenue Ed Stoner and Brain Soukup Designation of All Real Property Owned by Progressive Old Town Square, LLC and by 238 East Mountain, LLC, in the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District / Res. # 6 Area bounded by North College Avenue, Pine Street, Jefferson Street between Pine and the alley east of Linden Street, and a portion of the 200 Block of East Mountain Avenue July 21, 1998 Ordinance No. 124, Amending Ordinance No. 170, 1979 Ed Stoner and Brain Soukup (Resolution #7 not issued - correct errors in issuing two Res. # 2) J. M. Glick House / Res. # 8 425 East Laurel Sept. 15, 1998 Ordinance No. 151 Steve and Pam Inberg 16 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 George Wolfer House and Garages / Res. #9 1400 W. Oak Nov. 3, 1998 Ordinance No. 190 Thomas Burkot and Patricia Graves Humphrey/Davis House / Res. #10 231 S. Howes Nov. 3, 1998 Ordinance No. 191 Steve Slezak Ralph House / Res. # 11 641 Remington Nov. 3, 1998 Ordinance No. 192 Joseph and Carolyn Knape Rush and Jean C. Locke House / Res. # 12 719 E. Prospect Nov. 3, 1998 Ordinance No. 194 Carl J. Kneese Preston Farm Historic District - Buildings, Structures and Land / Res. # 13 4605 S. County Road 9 Nov. 3, 1998 Ordinance No.193 Dave and Patty Lawser Addie R. Debolt House / Res. # 14 630 Peterson Street Nov. 17, 1998 Ordinance No. 200 Randy and Retha (Jo) Luttrell Robert & Orpha Buxton House and Attached Garage / Res. #15 140 N. McKinley Avenue Dec. 15, 1998 Ordinance No. 226 Jordan K. Radin 17 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Street Railway Car Barn - Amend Ord. 95, 1992, to include N & S Additions / Res # 1 330 N. Howes May 18, 1999 Ordinance No. 79 City of Fort Collins - Jared Interholzinger, Facilities Harden House / Res. #2 227 Wood Street Sept. 7, 1999 Ordinance No. 135 Dr. David Rowan Burnett/Killgore house and AOuthouse@ / Res. # 3 128 N. Sherwood Nov. 2, 1999 Ordinance No. 158 Mr. Jan Krucky Clammer/Juel House, Garage, Iron Fence and Stone Walk / Res. # 4 729 Remington Street Nov. 2, 1999 Ordinance No. 159 Joel D. Painter Rock Garden, Waterway, Pool, and Historic Plantings known as the Grotto / Res. # 5 Old Power Plant Property 430 - 500 N. College Avenue Nov. 2, 1999 Ordinance No. 157 City of Fort Collins - Mike Smith, Utilities Director Arthur and Lillian Andrew House, Barn and Garage / Res. # 6 515-5152 S. Meldrum Street Nov. 16, 1999 Ordinance No. 163 Tom and Diane Tucker South unit of the Price Paired Home / Res. # 7 626 S. Meldrum Street Nov. 16, 1999 Ordinance No. 162 David Alciatore 18 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Winslow/Guard Home/ Res. # 8 730 W. Olive Street Jan. 4, 2000 Ordinance No. 196, 1999 Sheely Drive Neighborhood Local Landmark District / Res. # 9, 1999 - Resolution of Eligibility Res. # 1, 2000 - Designation 1600, 1601, 1604, 1605, 1608, 1609, 1612, 1613, 1617, 1645, and 1700 Sheely Drive Feb. 15, 2000 Ordinance No. 12, 2000 Debra Applin and Polly Puleston, Neighborhood Reps. E.P. Montgomery Duplex House, Garage and Shed / Resolution #2, 2000 321 - 323 East Laurel Street Feb. 15, 2000 Ordinance No. 11, 2000 Delores Lunberry and the Paige A. Lunberry Family Trust Sondburg House, Garage, and Chicken Coop / Resolution #3, 2000 237 West Street March 21, 2000 Ordinance No. 25, 2000 John Litschert Fort Collins National Guard Armory / Resolution #4, 2000 314 East Mountain April 18, 2000 Ordinance No. 31, 2000 Terry Hamilton Marsh/Geist House and Garage / Resolution #5, 2000 1006 Laporte Avenue August 25, 2000 Ordinance No. 85, 2000 Tim Hackett Franz-Smith Cabin / Resolution #6 200 Mathews Street August 25, 2000 Ordinance No. 86, 2000 City of Fort Collins, Museum S. A. Johnson House/ Resolution #7 623 Mathews Street September 15, 2000 Ordinance No. 111, 2000 Lori Thompson Gill/Nelson Farm / Resolution #8 5529 S. Timberline Road October 3, 2000 Ordinance No. 130, 2000 Ray and Patty Seaser; Jeff Nowak C & S Freight Depot Dock / Resolution #9 136 Laporte Avenue October 17, 2000 Ordinance No. 139, 2000 City of Fort Collins, Facilities Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Bldgs / Resolution #10 2902 Rigden Parkway November 7, 2000 Ordinance No. 141, 2000 Wheeler Construction Services, LLC, c/o Felix Rojas, Project 19 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Manager Howard Carriage House / Resolution #11 131 North Loomis November 7, 2000 Ordinance No. 140, 2000 John Loudon, c/o DeAnna Loudon Edwin and Ella Wolf House and Garage / Resolution #12 120 Pearl Street November 7, 2000 Ordinance No. 142, 2000 Joe and Ginny McConathy Hottel/Hoffman House/ Resolution #13 and Hottel/Hoffman Ash Pit /Res. #14 426 East Oak Street January 2, 2001 Ordinance No. 187, 2000 Phillip and Katherine Acott Deines Barn and Twin Silos / Resolution #15 7225 and 7309 S. College Avenue January 16, 2001 Ordinance No. 2, 2001 Shenandoah HOA, c/o Jim Drop, President Rescission of Landmark Designation of Gill/Nelson Garage / Resolution # 1 5529 S. Timberline Road May 1, 2001 Ordinance No. 59, 2001 Rayno and Patty Seaser, and Jeff Nowak Nix Farm / Resolution # 2 1745 Hoffman Mill Road June 5, 2001 Ordinance No. 94, 2001 City of Fort Collins, c/o Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager Beach Residence / Resolution # 3 1500 Laporte Avenue July 17, 2001 Ordinance No. 111, 2001 Karen Murray John and Inez Romero House / Resolution # 4 425 Tenth Street August 21, 2001 Ordinance No. 114, 2001 Mark Goldberg, Fort Collins Partners I, LLC Joseph Baines House/ Resolution # 5 520 S. Howes August 21, 2001 Ordinance No. 115, 2001 Christian Ray, Manager, Vantage Properties, LLC Deines Barn and Twin Silos/ Resolution # 6 7225 and 7309 S. College Avenue November 6, 2001 Repeal Ord. No. 2, 2001, and adopt Ordinance No. 161, 2001 Shenandoah HOA, c/o Doan Winkel, Treasurer 20 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Scott Apartment Building and Associated Garage / Resolution #1, 2002 900 South College Avenue February 19, 2002 Ordinance No. 117, 2002 Stephen and Mary (Missy) Levinger First Baptist Church/North Pointe Community Church / Resolution #2, 2002 328 Remington Street May 7, 2002 Ordinance No. 64, 2002 Brian Sky, Pastor, North Pointe Community Church Rev. Joseph P. Trudel House / Resolution #3, 2002 610 Cherry Street June 4, 2002 Ordinance No. 79, 2002 Deborah Secor 1924 American-LaFrance Pumping Fire Engine / Resolution #4, 2002 Poudre Fire Authority Station #6, 2511 Donnella Court August 20, 2002 Ordinance No. 102, 2002 c/o John Mulligan, Chief, PFA and Ed Yonker, Former Fire Chief, 2509 Mathews Street Emily E. and J. M. Calvert House and Garage / Resolution #5, 2002 321 E. Mulberry Street December 17, 2002 Ordinance No. 180, 2002 Bessie and Richard Braesch and Laura Thompson 21 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Giddings Machine Shop / Resolution #6, 2002 401 Pine Street January 21, 2003 Ordinance No. 008, 2003 Daemian Enterprises, Jon Prouty, President William and Clara Blair House and Garage / Resolution #1, 2003 716 W. Oak Street February 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 022, 2003 John and Barbara Lueck William and Eva Stroud House and Garage / Resolution #2, 2003 717 W. Olive Street February 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 023, 2003 Fred Snyder and Cindy Jarvie J. W. Spencer House and Garage / Resolution #3, 2003 1007 W. Mountain Avenue February 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 017, 2003 Linda Dunford Wiggins House and Garage / Resolution #4, 2003 1009 W. Mountain Avenue February 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 018, 2003 Patricia Taylor Montgomery House and Garage / Resolution #5, 2003 505 Smith Street February 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 021, 2003 Hilary, Barbara, and Calvin Douglass Ruth A. Jones House / Resolution #6, 2003 120 North Whitcomb February 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 020, 2003 James Jordan and Emily Taylor Temple House / Resolution #7, 2003 817 Peterson Street February 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 019, 2003 Robert Liebler and Linda Hamilton Gamble House / Resolution #8, 2003 407 Wood Street April 1, 2003 Ordinance No. 047, 2003 Darcy and Gregory Gamble Darrah House / Resolution #9, 2003 612 S. College Avenue April 1, 2003 Ordinance No. 046, 2003 Judith Reid 22 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 John and Edna Squires House / Resolution #10, 2003 810 W. Mountain Avenue May 20, 2003 Ordinance No.068, 2003 David Thompson and Stephanie Malsack Giddings House / Resolution #11, 2003 704 W. Mountain Avenue August 19, 2003 Ordinance No. 100 , 2003 Kevin Mabry and Kathlene Waller Empire Grange Hall / Resolution # 12, 2003 2306 West Mulberry Street September 16, 2003 Ordinance No. 125 , 2003 Erich Stroheim, Grange Master; Keney, Sec/ Treas. E. Kimple House/ Resolution #13, 2003 415 E. Elizabeth Street December 16, 2003 Ordinance No. 171, 2003 Jennifer Anderson and Susan Hogg Historic Seventh Day Adventist Church/ Resolution #14, 2003 400 Whedbee December 16, 2003 Ordinance No. 172. 2003 Whole Life Church of Religious Science 23 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Garnick House/ Resolution #1, 2004 516 S. Meldrum February 3, 2004 Ordinance No. 014, 2004 Rena and Rudy Hansch Aaron Kitchel House/ Resolution #2, 2004 601 W. Mountain March 16, 2004 Ordinance No. 044, 2004 Susan Walker Judge Claude C. Coffin House/ Resolution #3, 2004 1006 W. Mountain April 20, 2004 Ordinance No. 058, 2004 Anne Stewart Dr. C.E. Honstein House/Diane Louise Johnson Cultural Center, and the Honstein/Johnson Carriage House, Pool, and Pump House/ Resolution #4, 2004 1024 W. Mulberry/ 520 Wayne Street April 20, 2004 Ordinance No. 059, 2004 Don L. and Margaret Webber Sheldon House/ Resolution #5, 2004 616/618 W. Mulberry April 20, 2004 Ordinance No. 060, 2004 Jack and Maryann Blackerby Alpert Building / Resolution # 6, 2004 140-142 South College Ave Sept. 7, 2004 Ordinance No. 133, 2004 Walter J. Frick Trust 24 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Dukes/Dunlap House / Resolution #7, 2004 501 Stover Street January 18, 2005 Ordinance No. 003, 2005 Mona Frayer First Public School / First Catholic Church Resolution #1, 2005 115 Riverside Ave February 1, 2005 Ordinance No. 016, 2005 Michael Braskich and Bianca Katz Cook/Reese House and Attached Garage Resolution #2, 2005 532 S. Taft Hill Road (Withdrawn) (Withdrawn) Arthur A. Gonzales Dukes/Dunlap Garage / Resolution #3, 2005 501 Stover Street February 15, 2005 Ordinance No. 017, 2005 Mona Frayer Snook/Hale House and Two Garages / Resolution #4, 2005 220 South Sherwood Street February 15, 2005 Ordinance No. 018, 2005 Leroy and Marie Twarogowski Remington House / Resolution #5, 2005 124 N. Sherwood Street May 3, 2005 Ordinance No. 045, 2005 Mark Knapp and Elizabeth Howard Knapp Blanchard/Bates House and Garage / Resolution #6, 2005 1201 Laporte Avenue October 18, 2005 Ordinance No. 115, 2005 Marian and Kurt Schwabauer Beebe Clinic / Resolution #7, 2005 605 South College Avenue November 15, 2005 Ordinance No. 122, 2005 Jay Stoner A.M. Wood House / Resolution #8, 2005 315 East Olive Street December 20, 2005 Ordinance No. 148, 2005 Gwyneth Robe 25 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 James House / Resolution #9, 2005 210 North Loomis Avenue February 21, 2006 Ordinance No. 022, 2006 John Leach Lee House Property / Resolution #1, 2006 1530 Remington Street February 21, 2006 Ordinance No. 020, 2006 1530 Remington Street, a Colorado Limited Partnership, David and Rita Merck, General Partners Kirby/Wade House and Historic Garage / Resolution #2, 2006 816 Laporte Avenue February 21, 2006 Ordinance No. 021, 2006 Thomas Trumbower J.M. Morrison House and Carriage House / Resolution #3, 2006 718 West Mountain Avenue February 21, 2006 Ordinance No. 019, 2006 John Gascoyne 1953 GMC 500 GPM Front Mount Pumper / Resolution #4, 2006 Street Car Barn, 330 N. Howes February 21, 2006 Ordinance No. 023, 2006 Poudre Fire Authority Ernest and Anna Meyer House / Resolution #5, 2006 309 E. Mulberry St. June 6, 2006 Ordinance No. 083, 2006 Linda Bova Reinholt/Mitchell House / Resolution #6, 2006 509 E. Myrtle Street August 15, 2006 Ordinance No. 114, 2006 Robert Mitchell North Half of the Colorado Building / Resolution #7, 2006 133 – 137 S. College Ave. December 5, 2006 Ordinance No. 187, 2006 Ida Siegel and Edward Siegel Jefferson Lindenmeier House and Garage / Resolution #8, 2006 511 S. Whitcomb Street December 19, 2006 Ordinance No. 197, 2006 Sondra Carson 26 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 David B. Lesher House / Resolution #9, 2006 1204 W. Oak Street February 6, 2007 Ordinance No. 014, 2007 Don Bath and Maureen Somervell- Bath Emma Brown/Susan Winter House / Resolution # 1, 2007 720 West Prospect Road February 20, 2007 Ordinance No. 027, 2007 Jeffrey Evans Bradley Residence and Rock Walls / Resolution #2, 2007 1510 South College Avenue September 4, 2007 Ordinance No. 092, 2007 Michael and Susan Curiel J. E. Foreman House / Resolution #3, 2007 239 North Grant Avenue September 4, 2007 Ordinance No. 093, 2007 Erin Morgan and Erin Muths A. C. Kluver House (No. 2) / Resolution # 4, 2007 323 East Magnolia Street October 2, 2007 Ordinance No. 105, 2007 Charles F. Ferrie Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage / Resolution # 5, 2007 723 West Olive Street October 16, 2007 Ordinance No. 110, 2007 Myrne Watrous 27 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Hoel House / Resolution # 6, 2007 616 Locust January 15, 2008 Ordinance No. 153, 2007 Ellen Richey and Douglas Simons Grandview Cemetery / Resolution #8, 2007 1900 West Mountain Avenue February 19, 2008 Ordinance No. 006, 2008 City of Fort Collins St. Joseph Catholic Church and Church Parish Center / Resolution #1, 2008 300 West Mountain Avenue February 19, 2008 Ordinance No. 014, 2008 St. Joseph Parish, Archdiocese of Denver Bradley House / Resolution #2, 2008 1609 Remington Street April 1, 2008 Ordinance No. 039, 2008 Timothy Sharkey E. J. Gregory Property (House, Garage and Outbuilding) / Resolution # 3, 2008 215 Whedbee Street April 1, 2008 Ordinance No. 038, 2008 Christopher J. Reid and Rosemary Davenport Myers House and Garage / Resolution #4, 2008 902 Mathews Street July 1, 2008 Ordinance No. 068, 2008 902 Mathews LLC, by Dale Eggleston W. A. Hall House and Garage / Resolution # 5, 2008 910 Mathews Street July 1, 2008 Ordinance No. 069, 2008 910 Mathews LLC, by Dale Eggleston Poole House / Resolution #6, 2008 309 East Locust Street July 1, 2008 Ordinance No. 070, 2008 309 East Locust LLC, by Dale Eggleston H. H. Hale House and Detached Garage 529 South Whitcomb Street July 1, 2008 Ordinance No. 071, 2008 529 S. Whitcomb LLC, by Dale Eggleston George W. and Estella Bell House and Garage / Resolution #8, 2008 1108 West Mountain Avenue June 3, 2008 Ordinance No. 038, 2008 Gillian Bowser 28 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Ricketts Farm / Resolution #9, 2008 2300 West Mulberry Street December 2, 2008 Ordinance No. 137, 2008 Rich Ricketts Loomis-Jones House / Resolution #10, 2008 401 Smith Street December 2, 2008 Ordinance No. 136, 2008 Ralph and Patricia Tvede Paramount Cottage Camp/Resolution #1, 2009 1544 West Oak Street September 15, 2009 Ordinance No. 089, 2009 Maureen Plotnicki and Stephen Weber Wisely/Willard Residence/Resolution #1, 2011 1114 West Mountain Avenue March 1, 2011 Ordinance No. 015, 2011 Stephen and Kathleen Willard Durward/Hartshorn/Day Residence and Garage/Resolution #2 1022 South College Avenue March 1, 2011 Ordinance No. 014, 2011 Kelly Day Whistleman Mansion Property 1502 South College Avenue May 17, 2011 Ordinance No. 057, 2011 Laura Green MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage 424 West Olive Street December 6, 2011 Ordinance No. 165, 2011 Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani Chestnut/Wombacher Residence, Attached 3-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace 331 South Shields Street/ 1200 West Magnolia Ave. December 20, 2011 Ordinance No. 176, 2011 Margaret Wombacher Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage 2500 South College Avenue December 20, 2011 Ordinance No., 177, 2011 Joanne F. Gallagher 29 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage 160 Yale Avenue December 20, 2011 Ordinance No. 175, 2011 Judith Goeke Lory/Coffin Klender Residence and Garage 621 East Locust Street July 17, 2012 Ordinance No. 054, 2012 Thomas Klender Schroeder House/Laurel Apartments 121 East Laurel Street/701 Remington Street September 18, 2012 Ordinance No. 094, 2012 Brian Beeghly, Beeghly Historic Properties, LLC Whitcomb Street Historic District (14 Properties) 100 Block South Whitcomb Street, 601 West Mountain Avenue, and 612 West Oak Street January 15, 2013 Ordinance No. 153, 2012 Various The Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage 618 West Mountain Avenue February 19, 2013 Ordinance No. 018, 2013 William & Kathleen Whitley Olyn & Ann Price Property 1509 Westview Avenue February 19, 2013 Ordinance No. 019, 2013 Anne C. Colwell Robert & Margaret Zimmerman Property 712 Dartmouth Trail February 19, 2013 Ordinance No. 017, 2013 Jason and Jennifer Franikowski Oliver and Leota Chandler Property 710 Mathews Street April 16, 2013 Ordinance No. 053, 2013 Barbara Liebler 30 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 The Jessup Farm 1908 South Timberline Road May 7, 2013 Ordinance No. 065, 2013 Jessup Farm LLC/Gino Campana The Johnson Farm 2608 East Drake Road June 18, 2013 Ordinance No. 083, 2013 Johnson Farm LLC/ Gino Campana The Crane Property / LPC Resolution August 14, 2013 1501 Peterson Street October 15, 2013 Ordinance No. 137, 2013 Robert and Sally Linton The Mark and Effie Miller Property /LPC Resol. October 9, 2013 315 Whedbee Street November 19, 2013 Ordinance No. 157, 2013 Maggie and Brian Dennis The Landblom Property / LPC Resolution #2, April 9, 2014 116 North Pearl Street June 3, 2014 Ordinance No. 078, 2014 Kenneth and Michele Christensen The Juan and Mary Barraza Property / LPC Resolution # 3, 2014 412 Wood Street October 7, 2014 Ordinance No. 127, 2014 Mary Barraza The Bode Property / LPC Resolution #4, 2014 220 Remington Street October 7, 2014 Ordinance No. 126, 2014 Colleen Scholz The 508 Remington Street Property / LPC Resolution #5, 2014 508 Remington Street November 18, 2014 Ordinance No. 162, 2014 James MacDowell III The William & Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property / LPC Resolution #6, 2014 1306 West Mountain Avenue December 2, 2014 Ordinance No. 168, 2014 Robert Bailey The Avery Duplex Cottage / LPC Resolution #8, 2014 134 – 136 North Sherwood Street November 18, 2014 Ordinance No. 160, 2014 Avery Duplex, LLC 31 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 The Garcia Property / LPC Resolution #9, 2014 321 North Whitcomb Street November 18, 2014 Ordinance No. 161, 2014 Kate Polk The Longyear Property / LPC Resolution #1, 2015 719 Remington Street May 5, 2015 Ordinance No. 050, 2015 James Danella The Holmes/Manges Property / LPC Resolution #2, 2015 1202 Laporte Avenue May 5, 2015 Ordinance No. 049, 2015 Sharon Manges The Thode Property/ LPC Resolution #3, 2015 714 West Mountain Avenue August 18, 2015 Ordinance No. 088, 2015 Henry “Hank” Thode The Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property / LPC Resolution #4, 2015 1312 South College Avenue September 1, 2015 Ordinance No. 102, 2015 MaOlPh, LLC The Leo and Hilda Ritter Property / LPC Resolution #1, 2016 720 West Oak Street July 19, 2016 Ordinance No. 087, 2016 Robert and Margaret Dunn Coy Farmstead Barn and Milkhouse LPC Resolution #2, 2016 1041 Woodward Way July 19, 2016 Ordinance No. 088, 2016 Woodward, Inc. H. W. Schroeder Property LPC Resolution #3, 2016 419 Mathews Street October 18, 2016 Ordinance No. 114, 2016, Carol Johnson and John McGowan 32 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Howell Property 519 East Mulberry Street January 3, 2017 Ordinance No. 138, 2016 Fort Collins Housing Authority Kimball Property 608 & 608 ½ South Grant Street January 3, 2017 Ordinance No. 139, 2016 Fort Collins Housing Authority Schroeder/McMurray Property 701 Mathews Street, January 3, 2017 Ordinance No. 140, 2016 Fort Collins Housing Authority Wilhelm Property 717 & 717½ West Mulberry Street January 3, 2017 Ordinance No. 141, 2016 Fort Collins Housing Authority James Ross Proving-Up House The Farm at Lee Martinez Park July 5, 2017 Ordinance No. 080, 2017 City of Fort Collins Continental Oil Company Property 225 Maple Street July 5, 2017 Ordinance No. 079, 2017 City of Fort Collins Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory 212 Laporte Avenue July 5, 2017 Ordinance No. 078, 2017 City of Fort Collins The McCarty/Sheely/Dreher Property 1300 West Mountain Avenue September 9, 2017 Ordinance No. 125, 2017 Anthony and Heather McNeill 33 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 The McMillen-Patterson Property 121 North Grant Avenue June 5, 2018 Ordinance No. 068, 2018 Susan Hoskinson Trimble/Taylor/Dixon Property 817 West Mountain Avenue October 2, 2018 Ordinance No. 119, 2018 Shelly Terry Evans/Reidhead Property 707 West Mountain Avenue October 2, 2018 Ordinance No. 120, 2018 Donna Reidhead Farrington Property 322 Edwards Street March 5, 2019 Ordinance No. 027, 2019 Adrian, Alan, and Elizabeth MacDonald Newman Property 1019 West Mountain Avenue April 16, 2019 Ordinance No. 056, 2019 Susan Teruel Kamal/Livingston Property 608 West Laurel Street June 4, 2019 Ordinance No. 072, 2019 Richard Livingston Alfred Parker Duplexes I & II 221-223 and 227-229 West Mulberry Street June 4, 2019 Ordinance No. 073, 2019 223 W Mulberry LLC; 227 W Mulberry LLC; 229 W Mulberry LLC Maneval/Mason/Sauer Property 100 1st Street July 16, 2019 Ordinance No. 088, 2019 Lori Juszak 34 S:\CDNS\Historic-Preservation\Admin\Annual Reports & Work Plans\CLG Annual Reports\CLG Annual Report 2021\Designated Properties thru September 30, 2021.doc 10/31/2021 Frank J. Ulrich Property 516 Laporte Ave January 7, 2020 Ordinance No. 149, 2019 Dale Eggleston Fort Collins Express/McCormick Building and the McCormick Apartments 155-163 W. Mountain Ave./130 S. Mason St February 4, 2020 Ordinance No. 019, 2020 Josh Harrison (Mountain 155, LLC and Hello Investments, LLC) Horsley/Delta Zeta Property 201 E Elizabeth Street May 19, 2020 Ordinance No. 069, 2020 201 East Elizabeth Street, LLC, c/o Stephanie Walter Brown-Gooding Property 425 Mathews Street May 19, 2020 Ordinance No. 068, 2020 Sarah Breseke and Wouter Montfrooij Lois Struble Property 129 N. McKinley Ave Aug. 4, 2020 Ordinance No. 089, 2020 Kimberly Baker Medina; Ramon Medina Aguilera Woods-Gilkison-Dunn Property 331 S. Loomis Ave August 4, 2020 Ordinance No. 090, 2020 Housing Catalyst, Julie Brewen CEO Benton-Schultz Duplex Property 1016-1018 Morgan Street August 4, 2020 Ordinance No. 091, 2020 Housing Catalyst, Julie Brewen CEO Brawner-McArthur Property 228 Whedbee Street Aug. 4, 2020 Ordinance No. 092, 2020 Housing Catalyst, Julie Brewen CEO Thomas House 308 Cherry Street September 21, 2021 Ordinance No 109, 2021 Kim Medina