Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/01/2010 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 072, 2010, RESCINDI DATE: June 1, 2010 ' STAFF: Karen McWilliams • • • .First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2010, Rescinding the Designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its May 12, 2010 Regular Hearing, the Landmark Preservation Commission considered a request for removal of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm, a Fort Collins landmark property, from the Fort Collins landmark list. The Landmark Preservation Commission considered testimony from the applicants,the public and staff,and unanimously recommends that Council deny the application for removal of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION 1. Previous Decisions/Actions On May 12, 1999, the Landmark Preservation Commission determined that the farm structures associated with Jessup/Johnson farm property would be eligible, as per Chapter 14 of the City Code, as local landmarks, even when relocated to the middle of the new subdivision at the Rigden Farm community center. A notarized application requesting landmark designation, dated September 6, 2000, and signed by Felix Rojas as owners' representative, was filed with the City. On September 13, 2000, upon finding compliance with Chapter 14 of the City Code, the Landmark Preservation Commission passed Resolution 10, 2000, recommending to City Council local landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings at their new location -2902 Rigden Parkway. On October 17, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000 designating the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. On November 7,2000, City Council unanimously adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 141,2000,designating the Jessup/Johnson Farm Buildings as a landmark, in recognition of the buildings' architectural importance to our community. The ordinance was recorded with the County on November 30, 2000. 2. Background Established in 1919, Henry and Edna Jessup's historic farm consists of a distinctive Craftsman-style masonry farmhouse, a large gambrel roof barn, a historic garage, a wood chicken coop, and a bunk house. The property was owned and occupied by the Jessups through 1961. Calvin and Lois Johnson purchased the farm in that year. Calvin, and his brother Glen Johnson, operated the farm under the name Spring Creek Farms, LLC. Their local business consisted of alfalfa and feed corn crops along with a cattle operation. In 1999, Calvin sold the farm to Rigden Farm LLC. The farm and the outbuildings were moved to 2902 Rigden Parkway in the spring of 2000, to make way for the widening of Timberline Road, Drake Road, and their intersection. Timberline Road is designated on the City's Master Street Plan as a major arterial (six lanes) and Drake Road is designated as a standard arterial (four lanes). Since the Rigden Farm subdivision adjoined these two section line roads, and since new development would add a significant number of traffic to the roads, it was the obligation of the Rigden Farm LLC to improve these roadways to their full designation and pay for their local street portion. Without these improvements, the Rigden Farm development would have failed to comply with the City's Land Use Code June 1; 2010 -2 ITEM 24 requiring that adequate public facilities be constructed to mitigate the impact of new growth on the edge of the urban area where existing infrastructure is not fully improved. On May 12, 1999, the Landmark Preservation Commission determined that the farm structures associated with the Jessup/Johnson farm property would be eligible, as per Chapter 14 of the City Code,as a local landmark, even when relocated to the middle of the new subdivision at the Rigden Farm community center. The Commission agreed that the original setting of the farm at the Timberline and Drake intersection would be gone, regardless of whether the farm buildings were relocated or not, due to the road and intersection widening. After May 12, 1999,the farmhouse and surrounding outbuildings were moved and placed in their same orientation and relative configuration at the center of the Rigden Farm development. A notarized application requesting landmark designation, dated September 6, 2000, and signed by Felix Rojas as owners' representative, was filed with the City. On September 13, 2000, upon finding compliance with Chapter 14 of the City Code, the Landmark Preservation Commission passed Resolution 10, 2000, recommending to City Council local landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings at the new location -2902 Rigden Parkway. On October 17, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000 designating the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. On November 7, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted, on Second Reading, Ordinance No. 141, 2000, and the ordinance was recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorded on November 30, 2000. 3. Applicant's Request for Delisting and Staff Response The applicant has provided three reasons for the de-listing of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the landmark list (see attached). The applicant's points are summarized and are followed by Staffs response: A. On September6,2000,the application for Local Landmark Designation Nomination Form fordesignating 2902 Rigden Parkway was signed by Mr. Felix Rojas who was not a representative of Rigden Farm LLC. Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC, the owner of the property. In response, staff notes that Mr. Felix Rojas did indeed sign the application, dated September 6, 2000, and further, under his signature, Mr. Rojas stated that he was doing so as"Owners Representative." (See attached.) Staff can only assume that Mr. Rojas was acting properly, was duly authorized, and was not committing fraud by misrepresenting his association with the owner. Staff further notes that atthe Landmark Preservation Commission meeting of May 12, 1999,the public record indicates that the owners were represented by Mr. Scott Griffin. In addition, at the September 13, 2000 Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing, Resolution 10, 2000 of the Landmark Preservation Commission (see attached) states: "WHEREAS, the owner of the property has consented to such landmark designation." Staff also notes that at City Council First Reading of Ordinance No. 141,2000,the Agenda Item Summary-Executive Summary states: "The owner of the property, Rigden Farm, LLC, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings." At the December 9, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing, the Rigden Farm Masters Owners Association was represented by Mr. Mike Schwab. The application for removal of designated property from the landmark list, dated May 12, 2010, was signed by Mike Schwab, Manager, Rigden Farm Master Owners Association. June 1, 2010 -3- ITEM 24 Rigden Farm LLC is on record as being represented by Mr. Scott Griffin and Mr. Felix Rojas, and the Rigden Farm Master Owners Association as being represented by Mr. Mike Schwab. At no time in the ten-year period between May 12, 1999 and March 2, 2010 was the issue of an improper representation or an improper signature ever raised. B. Rigden Farm LLC was forced to accept this designation in order to move ahead with this development. The development was held up for apx. (sic) 18 months while Rigden Farm LLC and the City fought over what to do the buildings. Rigden Farm LLC risked losing the main anchor King Soopers if an agreement was not reached. In addition at this same time, something had to be done with the house as it stood in the way of the widening of Timberline. In response, staff notes that there is no evidence in the public record to indicate that the landmark designation was nonconsensual. Further, there is no evidence in the record with regard to the status of securing King Soopers as an anchor tenant. At the May 12, 2010 Landmark Preservation Commission hearing, Mr. Schwab stated that they did make an error in the Application for Removal from the Landmark List, regarding King Soopers. After Mr.Schwab met with the developer again, the developer noted that King Soopers had not signed a contract with them at the time to buy that property, but that they were in negotiations. C. In designating the structures, the City and LPC ignored national criteria on historic landmarks. The main decision to add these structures was based on a compromised(sic)reached between the developer and the city. The decision did not take into consideration the actual national historic standards that the landmark listing should be based. The only factor that the LPC could cite in their decision was the architectural significance. In doing so, they ignored a plethora of other factors that should have been considered. In response, staff notes that the public record indicates that the merits of eligibility pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code were thoroughly discussed at the May 12, 1999 Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing. At this hearing,the Commission determined that the buildings and structures associated with the Jessup/Johnson farm have sufficient architectural significance and that they would retain their eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, even if they were moved to their new location at the center of the Rigden Farm development. Further, the City's standards for landmark designation mirror the national standards,so the National Park Service Standards were indeed considered. While there are, in fact,four different standards for determining eligibility for designation, only one of the four is needed for a proper designation. At the September 13, 2000 LPC public hearing, the,Commission found that after the buildings were moved, the arrangement of the buildings, the surrounding open space, and, with minimal damage from the move, the buildings retained their eligibility for Landmark status. Consequently, at the September 13, 2000 public hearing, the LPC determined that the farm buildings have architectural importance to the City in sufficient compliance with Section 14-5 of the City Code. i 4. Staff Findings In consideration of an Application for Removal of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, at 2902 Rigden Parkway, from the Landmark List, staff makes the following findings: A. Staff finds that the public record indicates that the owners, Rigden Farm LLC, were properly represented by individuals who indicated they were acting as bona fide owner's representatives. B. There is no evidence in the record that designation as a Landmark was improper,coerced or nonconsensual. C. In designating the Jessup/Johnson farm buildings, the LPC and City Council acted properly in accordance with Section 14 of the City Code. D. Staff finds that delisting the farm buildings would violate the provisions of Section 14 of the City Code and thus jeopardize the protected status of the buildings. June 1, 2010 -4- ITEM 24 ACTION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1. Findings of Fact and Conclusions At the May 12, 2010 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Commission heard the Application for Removal of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, at 2902 Rigden Parkway, from the Landmark List. After considering testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Commission made the following findings of fact and conclusions: In regards to the applicant's first point, that on September 6, 2000, the application for Local Landmark Designation Nomination Form for designating 2902 Rigden Parkway was signed by Mr. Felix Rojas who was not a representative of Rigden Farm LLC. Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC, the owner of the property: Mr.Sladek moved that whether or not Felix Rojas had authority to act on behalf of Rigden Farm LLC, it does appear that Rigden Farm LLC knew about the designation of the property for a long enough period of time that it had an opportunity to object to that designation. Mr.Albright seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0. In regards to the applicant's second point, that Rigden Farm LLC was forced to accept this designation in order to move ahead with this development. The development was held up for apx. (sic) 18 months while Rigden Farm LLC and the City fought over what to do the buildings. Rigden Farm LLC risked losing the main anchor King Soopers if an agreement was not reached. In addition at this same time, something had to be done with the house as it stood in the way of the widening of Timberline: Mr. Albright moved that the Commission find that Rigden Farm LLC was not coerced, but discussed and compromised on this designation and that there was no coercion involved. Mr.Sladek seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0. In regards to the applicant's third point,that in designating the structures the City and LPC ignored national criteria on historic landmarks. The main decision to add these structures was based on a compromised (sic) reached between the developer and the city. The decision did not take into consideration the actual national historic standards that the landmark listing should be based. The only factor that the LPC could cite in their decision was the architectural- significance. In doing so, they ignored a plethora of other factors that should have been considered: Mr.Albright moved that the Commission find that the criteria for designation was adequately and properly addressed, and so found by the Board in 1999. Ms. Hummel seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0. 2. Recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission to City Council In regards to the Application for Removal of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, at 2902 Rigden Parkway, from the Landmark List, the landmark preservation made the following motion: Mr.Albright moved that the Commission recommend that the Council not approve the request for delisting that has been made for the Jessup/Johnson buildings at 2902 Rigden Parkway. Mr. Sladek seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0. SUSTAINABILITY: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS As a designated Fort Collins Landmark property,the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson farm buildings are eligible for an array of financial incentives,to make the preservation,stabilization and/or adaptive reuse of historic buildings and structures economically feasible. These include, but are not limited to, federal and state tax credits of 20% each; the City's Landmark Rehabilitation Zero Interest Loans,which provides matching funds of up to$7,500 each year;grants of 25% or more of project costs, up to$300,000, from the Colorado Historical Society State Historic Fund; up to$15,000 in Historic Structural Assessment funds; and below market, fixed rate bridge loans for recipients of State Historic Fund grants. June 1, 2010 -5- ITEM 24 The greenest building is the one that is already built. Designation of a building does not mean that it cannot be renovated or added onto, as long as the work is sensitive to the property's significant historic character. By supporting the continued rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Jessup/Johnson farm buildings, the City is meeting its sustainability goals. Historic preservation maximizes the use of existing materials and infrastructure, and reduces waste in landfills from demolition costs. Historic buildings were traditionally designed with many sustainable features that responded to climate and site. When effectively restored and reused, these features can.bring about substantial energy savings.Today's sustainable technology can supplement inherent sustainable features without compromising unique historic character. The Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm provides a tangible reminder to the Fort Collins community, both now and into the future, of our past agricultural heritage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend adoption of the Ordinance. BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission recommends that Council not approve the request to delist the Rigden Farm Barn from the Landmark List. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application for Removal of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings,at 2902 Rigden Parkway,from the Landmark List and Removal of Local Historic Landmark Designation 2. Signature page for application, dated May 12, 2010 and signed by Mike Schwab, Manager, Rigden Farm Master Owners Association 3. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 Staff Report 4. Notarized Local Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form, dated September 6, 2000, and signed by Felix Rojas, Owners Representative 5. Landmark Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Staff Report and Resolution 10, 2000 of the Landmark Preservation Commission, recommending local landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway 6. Recorded Ordinance No. 141,2000,Designating the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings,2902 Rigden Parkway, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code 7. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 1999 and September 13, 2000 Minutes 8. Location map showing original location of Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Complex and the current location 9. Aerial map of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm at current location, showing building relationships 10. Fort Collins Landmark Standards—Standards for Designation, Significance and Integrity 11. Letter from Rigden Farm, LLC and Rigden Development, LLC, dated May 3, 2010 12. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 minutes 13. Powerpoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 Application for Removal of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List Attached is our application for removing the Johnson/Jessup farm at 2902 Rigden Parkway from the city Landmark List. We have three primary reasons why this designation should be reversed: 1. Felix Rojas who signed the application was not a representative of Rigden Farm, LLC. He was an employee of Wheeler Construction a company owned in part by Bill Neal. Wheeler Construction was the company doing the construction work for Rigden Farm LLC. Bill Neal was also a partner in Rigden Farm LLC. Felix Rojas was acting in the best interest of his company who would profit from moving these buildings and there is not any record of any authorized member of Rigden Farm LLC, agreeing to this designation. Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC the owner of the said property. 2. Rigden Farm LLC, was forced to accept this designation in order to move ahead with this development. The development was held up for apx. 18 months while Rigden Farm LLC and the City fought over what to do with the buildings. Rigden Farm LLC risked losing the main anchor King Soopers if an agreement was not reached. In addition at this same time something had to be done with the house as it stood in the way of the widening of Timberline. 3. In designating the structures the City and LPC ignored national criteria on historic landmarks. The main decision to add these structures was based on a compromised reached between the developer and the city. The decision did not take into consideration the actual national historic standards that the landmark listing should be based. The only factor that the LPC could cite in their decision was the architectural significance. In doing so they ignored a plethora of other factors that should have been considered. We are asking that the LPC remove the landmark listing from 2902 Rigden Parkway. In doing so we are also requesting that the City Preservation Planning Department disqualifies themselves from the discussion and that the City Preservation Planners not issue an opinion to the LPC prior to the hearing to determine if the Landmark designation should be removed. The reason for this request is that the City staff particularly Karen McWilliams has long term ties to this project and was one of the principle parties involved in the original decision. It is our understanding she was against the buildings being moved and only agreed to them being moved when it became apparent that the widening of Timberline would cause the house to be torn down. She then only agreed to the buildings being moved if they would be added to the Landmark list. This should automatically preclude her department from issuing any directive to the LPC regarding this issue. Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department-Historic Preservation Office City of Fort Collins ge th 0 1--4 i Of Local Historic Landmark Designation Date: 3/`-J Z z0 /'° I D / f L �eC FI-fGt -)-C4"-Nj6 PHOTOS Please include 35mm photos of EACH ELEVATION of EACH BUILDING and STRUCTURE on the property. LOCATION Address: 2'' o Legal Description: ,� Property Name (historic and/or common): v 4., FORM PREPARED BY Name and Title: Address: 3 d 3 l,/ �g,rCS�Fp. y � <a l/�) Co �o Phone: Q]o.-2Z/�<./ Relationship to Owner: zj,,,, ca r, 91c mf7/ Ita OWNER INFORMATION / n � Name: cln, Mcs A, SC0C- L /;i/jPhone: f75 -Z26- 1�2q Address: 141, BOUNDARIES and TYPE OF DESIGNATION Landmark ❑ Landmark District xplanation of Boundary Determination: 281 North College Avenue • PO Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • 970-221-6376 FAX 970-224-6111 • TDD 970-224-6002 • EMAIL aplanning@fcgov.com CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation wilding ❑ Public ccupied ❑ Commercial ❑ National Register Structure [ Private Unoccupied ❑ Educational ❑ State Register Site ❑ Religious ❑ Object ❑ Residential ❑ District ❑ Entertainment ❑ Government 50 Other SIGNIFICANCE ❑ Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our local, state, or national history. ❑ Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. ❑ Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or is the work of a master; or possesses high artistic value; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. ❑ Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Further Comments (attach a separate sheet if needed) HISTORICAL INFORMATION Please attach a narrative of the historical significance of the property. Include a title search or city directory research if the property is important for its association with a significant person. Further Comments: O ARCHITECTURAL and PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Construction Date: Jy/y Architect/Builder: _�,„-7",2,S�p Building Materials: Architectural Style: Special Features/Surroundings: Describe any additions or alterations to the property: REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Determined "Eligible" Ordinance # Application within last 12 months? ❑ Yes ❑ No Date Recorded AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: 1. Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; 2. Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to or demolition of improvements on the property 3. 1 further understand that if I apply for a building permit for any one of the following: a. Alteration or reconstruction of or an addition to the exterior of any improvement which constitutes all or part of a landmark structure or landmark district; b. Demolition or relocation of any improvement which constitutes all or part of a landmark structure or landmark district; c. Construction or erection of or an addition to any improvement upon any land included in a landmark district; d. Or if I proceed with any work not requiring a building permit as set forth in Section 14-47; The Building Inspector and the Landmark Preservation Commission shall be under the time constraints and other requirements as outlined in Chapter 14,Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. DATED this day of 200 Owner Name (please print) Owner Signature State of ) )ss. County of ) Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 200 , by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Notary Public S ATTACHMENT 2 This application for removal of designated property from the landmark list is dated this 12- day of May, 2010. Rigden Farm Master Owners Association, Owner by: Print Name and Title State of Colorado ) )ss. County of Larimer) Subscribed and sworn before me this day of May, 2010. By: P in a e and Title Witness my hand ial seal. My commission expires on: Notary blic O,COLOP'"r0 Revised 09-2004 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 3 J Planning, Development & Transportation Services City Of Community Development a Neighborhood Services 6rt Collins281 North College BoxAvenue 580 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134-fax fcgov.com LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 12, 2010 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, Tract J Rigden Farm CONTACT: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner; Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Mike Schwab, Manager Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association 363 West Drake Road, #3 .Fort Collins, CO 80526 OWNER: Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association c/o Prohoam 363 West Drake Road, #3 Fort Collins, CO 80526 REQUEST: Application for Removal of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List BACKGROUND: 1. Previous Decisions/Actions On May 12, 1999, the L.P.C. determined that the farm structures associated with Jessup/Johnson farm property would be eligible, as per Chapter 14 of the City Code, as local landmarks, even when relocated to the middle of the new subdivision at the Rigden Farm community center. A notarized application requesting landmark designation, dated September 6, 2000, and signed by Felix Rojas as owners representative, was filed with the City. /, On September 13, 2000, upon finding compliance with Chapter 14 of the City Code, the L.P.C. passed Resolution 10, 2000 recommending to City Council local landmark designation of the Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Farm Buildings at the new location - 2902 Rigden Parkway. On October 17, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000 designating the Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. On November 7, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000. 2. Background Henry and Edna Jessup built the farmhouse and barn in 1919. The distinctive masonry house and gambrel-roofed barn were occupied by the Jessup's through 1961. Calvin and Lois Johnson purchased the farm in that year. Calvin, and his brother Glen Johnson, operated the farm under the name Spring Creek Farms, LLC. Their local business consisted of alfalfa and feed corn crops along with a cattle operation. In 1999, Calvin sold the farm to Rigden Farm LLC. The farm and the outbuildings were moved to 2902 Rigden Parkway in the spring of 2000 to make way for the widening of Timberline Road, Drake Road and their intersection. Timberline Road is designated on the City's Master Street Plan as a major arterial (six lanes) and Drake Road is designated as a standard arterial (four lanes). Since the Rigden Farm subdivision adjoined these two section line roads, and since new development would add a significant number of traffic to the roads, it was the obligation of the Rigden Farm LLC to improve these roadways to their full designation and pay for their local street portion. Without these improvements, the Rigden Farm development would have failed to comply with the City's Land Use Code requiring that adequate public facilities be constructed to mitigate the impact of new growth on the edge of the urban area where existing infrastructure is not fully improved. On May 12, 1999, the L.P.C. determined that the farm structures associated with Jessup/Johnson farm property would be eligible, as per Chapter 14 of the City Code, as local landmarks even when relocated to the middle of the new subdivision at the Rigden Farm community center. The L.P.C. agreed that the original setting of the farm at the Timberline and Drake intersection would be gone, even if the farm buildings were not relocated due to the road and intersection widening. After May 12, 1999, the farmhouse and surrounding outbuildings were moved and placed in their same orientation and relative configuration at the center of the Rigden Farm development. 2 A notarized application requesting Landmark designation, dated September 6, 2000, and signed by Felix Rojas as owners representative, was filed with the City. On September 13, 2000, upon finding compliance with Chapter 14 of the City Code, the L.P.C. passed Resolution 10, 2000 recommending to City Council local landmark designation of the Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Farm Buildings at the new location - 2902 Rigden Parkway. On October 17, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000 designating the Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. On November 7, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000. 3. Applicant's Request for Delisting and Staff Response The applicant has provided three reasons for the de-listing of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List (see attached). The applicant's points are summarized and are followed by Staff's response: A. On September 6, 2000, the application for Local Landmark Designation Nomination Form for designating 2902 Rigden Parkway was signed by Mr. Felix Rojas who was not a representative of Rigden Farm LLC. Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC, the owner of the property. In response, Staff notes that Mr. Felix Rojas did indeed sign the application, dated September 6, 2000, and further, under his signature, Mr. Rojas stated that he was doing so as "Owners Representative." (See attached.) Staff can only assume that Mr. Rojas was acting properly, duly authorized and not committing fraud by misrepresenting his association with the owner. Staff further notes that at the L.P.C. meeting of May 12, 1999, the public record indicates that the owners were represented by Mr. Scott Griffin. In addition, at the L.P.0 public hearing of September 13, 2000, Resolution 10, 2000 of the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Resolution (see attached) states: 'WHEREAS, the owner of the property has consented to such landmark designation." Staff also notes that at City Council First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2000, the Agenda Item Summary — Executive Summary states: - 3 - "The owner of the property, Rigden Farm, LLC, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Farm Buildings." At the December 9, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing, the owners were represented by Mr. Mike Schwab. The public record is clear. Rigden Farm LLC is on record as being represented by Mr. Scott Griffin, Mr. Felix Rojas and Mr. Mike Schwab. At no time between May 12, 1999 and March 2, 2010 was the issue of an improper representation or an improper signature ever raised. B. Rigden Farm LLC was forced to accept this designation in order to move ahead with this development. The development was held up for apx. (sic) 18 months while Rigden Farm LLC and the City fought over what to do the buildings. Rigden Farm LLC risked losing the main anchor King Soopers if an agreement was not reached. In addition at this same time, something had to be done with the house as it stood in the way of the widening of Timberline. In response, Staff notes that there is no evidence in the public record to indicate that the landmark designation was nonconsensual. Further, there is no evidence in the record with regard to the status of securing King Soopers as an anchor tenant. C. In designating the structures, the City and LPC ignored national criteria on historic landmarks. The main decision to add these structures was based on a compromised (sic) reached between the developer and the city. The decision did not take into consideration the actual national historic standards that the landmark listing should be based. The only factor that the LPC could cite in their decision was the architectural significance. In doing so, they ignored a plethora of other factors that should have been considered. In response, Staff notes that the public record indicates that the merits of eligibility pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code were thoroughly discussed at the May 12, 1999 Landmark Preservation.Commission public hearing. At this hearing, the L.P.C. determined that the buildings and structures associated with the Jessup/Johnson farm have sufficient architectural significance and that they would retain their eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, even if they were moved to their new location at the center of the Rigden Farm development. Further, the City's standards for Landmark designation mirror the national standards, so the National Park Service Standards were indeed considered. While the standards do, in fact, contain four different standards for determining eligibility for designation, only one is needed for a proper designation. At the September 13, 2000 LPC public hearing, the Commission found that after the buildings were moved, the arrangement of the buildings, the surrounding open space, and with minimal damage from the move, the buildings retained their eligibility for Landmark status. - 4 - Consequently, at the September 13, 2000 public hearing, the LPC determined that the farm buildings have, architectural importance to the City in sufficient compliance with Section 14-5 of the City Code. 4. Staff Findings In evaluating the request to remove 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List, Staff makes the following findings: A. Staff finds that the public record indicates that the owners, Rigden Farm LLC, were properly represented by individuals who indicated they were acting as bona fide owner's representatives. B. There is no evidence in the record that designation as'a Landmark was improper, coerced or nonconsensual. C. In designating the Jessup / Johnson farm buildings, the LPC and City Council acted properly in accordance with Section 14 of the City Code. D. Staff finds that delisting the farm buildings would violate the provisions of Section 14 of the City Code and thus jeopardize the protected status of the buildings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the Application for Removal of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List. - 5 - Application for Removal of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List Attached is our application for removing the Johnson/Jessup farm at 2902 Rigden Parkway from the city Landmark List. We have three primary reasons why this designation should be reversed: 1. Felix Rojas who signed the application was not a representative of Rigden Farm, LLC. He was an employee of Wheeler Construction a company owned in part by Bill Neal. Wheeler Construction was the company doing the construction work for Rigden Farm LLC. Bill Neal was also a partner in Rigden Farm LLC. Felix Rojas was acting in the best interest of his company who would profit from moving these buildings and there is not any record of any authorized member of Rigden Farm LLC, agreeing to this designation. Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC the owner of the said property. 2. Rigden Farm LLC, was forced to accept this designation in order to move ahead with this development. The development was held up for apx. 18 months while Rigden Farm LLC and the City fought over what to do with the buildings. Rigden Farm LLC risked losing the main anchor King Soopers if an agreement was not reached. In addition at this same time something had to be done with the house as it stood in the way of the widening of Timberline. 3. In designating the structures the City and LPC ignored national criteria on historic landmarks. The main decision to add these structures was based on a compromised reached between the developer and the city. The decision did not take into consideration the actual national historic standards that the landmark listing should be based. The only factor that the LPC could cite in their decision was the architectural significance. In doing so they ignored a plethora of other factors that should have been considered. We are asking that the LPC remove the landmark listing from 2902 Rigden Parkway. In doing so we are also requesting that the City Preservation Planning Department disqualifies themselves from the discussion and that the City Preservation Planners not issue an opinion to the LPC prior to the hearing to determine if the Landmark designation should be removed. The reason for this request is that the City staff particularly Karen McWilliams has long term ties to this project and was one of the principle parties involved in the original decision. It is our understanding she was against the buildings being moved and only agreed to them being moved when it became apparent that the widening of Timberline would cause the house to be torn down. She then only agreed to the buildings being moved if they would be added to the Landmark list. This should automatically preclude her department from issuing any directive to the LPC regarding this issue. Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department—Historic Preservation Office City of Fort Collins Local Historic Landmark Designation �/ /� f Date: C � j PHOTOS Please include 35mm photos of EACH ELEVATION of EACH BUILDING and STRUCTURE on the property. LOCATION Q / _ Address: l J Z f1,�a , 1 �,� 4 b l / ( � `� ) Z� Legal Description: ),-s c Property Name (historic and/or common): FORM PREPARED BY Name and Title: Address: ('o 1'o S Phone: / 3ZL/ Relationship to Owner: 4 OWNER INFORMATION Name: Phone: 75 -2Z6— I J2- Address: c Zre s fi Fy'f 0 9s BOUNDARIES and TYPE OF DESIGNATION Vx Landmark ❑ Landmark District planation of Boundary Determination: _ 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 970-221-6376 &7 FAX 970-224-6111 TDD 970-224-6002 . ENLkILaplanning@fcgov.com CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation 9Building ❑ Public [a-Occupied ❑ Commercial ❑ National Register Structure [ Private Unoccupied ❑ Educational ❑ State Register Site ❑ Religious ❑ Object ❑ Residential ❑ District ❑ Entertainment ❑ Government [� Other SIGNIFICANCE ❑ Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our local, state, or national history. ❑ Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. ❑ Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or is the work of a master; or possesses high artistic value; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. ❑ Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Further Comments (attach a separate sheet if needed) HISTORICAL INFORMATION Please attach a narrative of the historical significance of the property. Include a title search or city directory research if the property is important for its association with a significant person. Further Comments: l ARCHITECTURAL and PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Construction Date: /(/y _ Architect/Builder: Building Materials: Architectural Style: Special Features/Surroundings: _ Describe any additions or alterations to the property: REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Determined "Eligible" Ordinance # _ Application within last 12 months? ❑ Yes ❑ No "Date Recorded _ AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: 1. Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; 2. Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to or demolition of improvements on the property 3. 1 further understand that if I apply for a building permit for any one of the following: a. Alteration or reconstruction of or an addition to the exterior of any improvement which constitutes all or part of a landmark structure or landmark district; b. Demolition or relocation of any improvement which constitutes all or part of a landmark structure or landmark district; c. Construction or erection of or an addition to any improvement upon any land included in a landmark district; d. Or if I proceed with any work not requiring a building permit as set forth in Section 14-47; The Building Inspector and the Landmark Preservation Commission shall be under the time constraints and other requirements as outlined in Chapter 14,Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. DATED this day of 200 Owner Name (please print) Owner-Signature. State of ) )ss. County of ) Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 200 , by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Notary Public /a This application for removal of designated property from the landmark list is dated this 11. day of May, 2010. Rigden Farm Master Owners Association, Owner Print Name and Title State of Colorado ) )ss. County of Larimer) Subscribed and sworn before me this /, + day of May, 2010. ay: Pbn a e and Title Witness my hand �,tial seal. My commission expires on: 10 Notary blic Revised 09-2004 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 il'mfic prwmw i=orm FOR OFFXCE USE 01VLY P.O.BOX 580 Date DOmminod-M&le Fort Callim,CO W522 ordinance ii ^' (303)221-6597 Application within last 12 mooths? Yes No Date Reomded ` LOCAL IILMIUC LANDMARK DUIGNAITON NOMINAY'ION FOB Date: _ Please typefpsint all entries; w Address: 29os'�f-'do��- �— Legal Description: Property Name alsto w=&oreommoa): ✓0�+1Sss.- �jisSav &Czen_ xamdfitla r--�l�—.l�ts}'�' �•�vi•Gr �ws�w�seV Address: /O,2 7 AZ . ,emu 6veA- LD_ Se,� moo Relaticnship.toOwaer. Br.srves PhonfjEf Vf �e�[r Name. fRjt96IOk Phi 1,70 —2-"- *O Adder Sum 11 IS Landm ark(improvement Daly) Landmsrk District stta/atatOuad ng Further oTlaaation of boundary&Wmi mdoa: s/$mpvled.N I cvnstz nFs.FttnA � I tad tfi om Lw An at Da wadm Fom Page 1 :. is u!v ffp aat copy,wes downloaded on t4ov-04-2(N)9 from':the C,ry ol'Fort Co11w:Pu3hc Records Websrte httpJ%c�tydoc ,fcgov com" a Category Ownership: Statux Present U= Building _. ..Public Occupied. _Commercial ��•�++•�,• _Stracttee Xmvate _;C—Uncoc upied _._Educalianal ____(lovaament —Site � _Odier __._District EaastingDesignatioo: uadonar Register _StateRagister Atobitectural: Aaprescots vmgk of a"iftmor 5►aldtteet —Passewes bigh artistic vsbw X Rgneseo s a type,period,or method of construction lfistorical: _Associated with sigaificem persons _Associated with sigoificent eved or historic trend —Contributes to.dw significance of an historic district Geographical: _Related to or part of distmcave arcs _Unique location Futher : —JYA (Add continuation shed if needed) Please attach a narrative of the historical significance of the property. Include a We search if the property is important for its association with a significant person, Further Comments: G�tDS[PRF51ffiST DESFAM I.oal ESenielmdmuk 17a6amem Fam Page 2 is unofficial copy wasdownloadedov Nov-04-71f09 five the Gtiry ofFoit Colons PabLe Records`Webs�te:`MpJ/citydocsfcgov coin. }.: i CcestracticnData ° ArchitectlBm7dx.BuildigMatcr ;, Archhecturd Style: Specaal FesnaeslSurrwmdmgs ' ' +`i ylTflri�lsy' ,wev,C _�t rJ�vs.�� wave ,�+d..:•.e. `r. (Add a coataquction sheet if aeeded Please include black and white pbotca ofeach elevation of the property.) A..: Desm'be any additions to the property: s1 116a�c�P IF A ' t �/s�'aFwut qga age (Add a continuation sheet,ifneem The undersigned owners)hereby agrees that the propaaty deacdbed herein be considered for local historic hnc�marlt desgaadM pursuant to the Fat Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinaum Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fat Collin I understand that upon designation,I or my sueoessom will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fat Collins Hawk Preservation Ofte prior to the occurrence of any of the following. 1. Preparation ofpleas for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the imgcovements an the pmopaty,W. Z. Preparation ofplm for eauCnrctiea e&addition to or demolition of improvements on the property. 3. I further understood that if I apply for a building permit for mW one of the following. a. Alteration or re=wjuction of or addition to the exterior of any Improvement which constitutes all or_ 3 lot HIaark IaoQmrk Fay Page 3 �s-w%ific�al capp>yas dovm]oaded 6n N-M-0642f109 from the City of Fgrt CofflnqubhC Rocords Webstte httplkatydocs:fcgov con ;" ,-. pert of a Isndmufk skmet re or landmark district; b. Demolition or relocation of say firpmematt v4ikh eonstitrnes all or part of a landmark atructu a or hmdma k district; ZI a Construction or erection of or addition to any improvement upon any land included in a landmuk ' d. Or if I proceed with any work not requiring a building permit as art firth in Section 14-47; the Building;Inspector and the Landmark Preservation Commission shall be ceder the time constraints and otter r eq s as outlined in Chapter 14.Article III ofthe Code of the City of Fort Collins. DATED Ws day of :it-,& OwnIr Name(pleaw prioQ signature l&WAOAPy •4 —Property owner wishes to withhold consent to local historic designation. State of 6/OR.417 A ) Cc mtyof JA A t /Y6/P Subscribed and sworn to before me this IIA day of 49 . by fF�C/ r �ovr.�k5 wituess my head and official scsl. My wmmission expires � ,•� � Notary Public �.i°UBLIC. �nariaaoaur`m Lwd Koo&taodmvk Detyudm Form Page 4 s uooti"xtial wpy was downloadcl on Nov-04-2009 from;lhe Cary of FoA Collins Pu6Ue Recoils Wife littp llatydocs fcgbv com Historical Information: Henry and Edna Jessup built the farmhouse and barn in 1919, according to real estate records. The distinctive masonry house and gambrel-roofed barn were occupied by the Jessup's through 1961. Calvin and Lois Johnson purchased the farm in that year. Calvin and his brother Glen Johnson operated the farm under the name of Spring Creek Farms, LLC. Their local business consisted of alfalfa and feed corn crops along with a cattle operation. In 1999, Calvin sold the farm to Rigden Farm, LLC. The farm and the outbuildings were moved to 2902 Rigden Parkway in the spring of 2000. The farm house and the surrounding outbuildings were placed in their original - configuration at the center of the Rigden Farm Development. The expansion of Timberline Road made the relocation and preservation of the Johnson Farm necessary. This farm is historically and architecturally significant because it is an intact farm complex. Comprised of a house, barn, garage, bunk house, and chicken coop, the farm was also a distinctive landmark at its location on the comer of Timberline and Drake. The Johnson Farm is a good architectural representation of the rare brick bungalow style farmhouse and a gambrel-roofed style barn. ATTACHMENT 5 Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 13, 2000 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Landmark Designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams,Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Rigden Farm,LLC,by Felix Rojas, Owner's Agent. BACKGROUND: Staff presents, for your consideration, the Landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings. The farm is comprised of a Craftsman style residence, a barn, a garage, a chicken coop, and a bunk house. The Landmark Preservation Commission, at its May 12, 1999 meeting, determined that these buildings and structures had sufficient architectural significance that they would retain their eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark after being moved to their new location at the center of the Rigden Farm development. As per the Commission's endorsed conceptual site plan, the buildings and structures were relocated in their same orientation and relative configuration, although somewhat closer together. The move was accomplished successfully, with minimal damage, which has since been repaired. This damage includes the loss of some bricks along the lower edges of the foundation of the house, and the disintegration of one of the large barn doors. The applicants have replaced both barn doors with replicas, as well as replaced the non-historic fiberglass garage door with a new door. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving this request for Landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Faun Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway. The buildings and structures are architecturally significant as examples of a c.1920s Craftsman style agricultural farmhouse, with associated farm structures. 281 North College avenue • P.O. Box=80 • Fort Collins,CO 80322-0580 • (970)221-637ti F.-1X (9-0) 224-6111 • TDD(QM, _224-b002 • E-mail: aplanninglrci.fort-collins.co.us ATTACHMENT 5 Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins RESOLUTION 10,2000 OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM BUILDINGS 2902 RIGDEN PARKWAY, FORT COLLINS,COLORADO WHEREAS, it is a matter of public policy that the protection,enhancement and perpetuation of sites,structures, and districts of historical,architectural or geographic significance, located within the city, are a public necessity and.are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this city cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural and geographical heritage of the city and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets; and WHEREAS, the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm buildings and structures have architectural importance to Fort Collins as good examples of the Craftsman bungalow architectural style; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Preservation Commission has determined that the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the code and is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark;and WHEREAS, the owner of the property has consented to such landmark designation. NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved by the Landmark Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins as follows: Section 1. That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommends to the Council of the City of Fort Collins that the buildings and structures known as the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm, located on the lands in the City of Fort Collins,Larimer County,Colorado,described as follows, to wit: Tract J at Rigden Farm City of Fort Collins,County of Larimer,State of Colorado, also known as 2902 Rigden Parkway be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter I4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. 281 North College Avenue - PO.Box 580 - Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 - (970)221-6376 FAX(970)224-6111 - TDD(970)224-6002 - E-mail:aplanningCci.fort-collins.co.us Landmark Preservation Commission Resolution No. 10,2000 Page 2 Section 2. That the Secretary of the Interiort standards and guidelines for the treatment of historic properties will serve as the standards by which alterations,additions and other changes to buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III,of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation C ssion of of Fort Collins held this 13th day of September,A.D.2000. Per H tad,Chairman A c Secretary/Staff ATTACHMENT 6 t: RCPTN # 2000081652 11/30/2000 12:12:00 # PAGES - 2 FEE - $10.00 4' M RODENBERGER RECORDER, LARIMER COUNTY CO STATE DOC FEE - .00 ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2000 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM BUILDINGS, 2902 RIGDEN PARKWAY,FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection,enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks within the City; and i WHEREAS, by Resolution dated September 13, 2000, the Landmark Preservation is Commission(the"Commission")has determined that the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings #; have architectural importance to the City, as good examples of the Craftsman bungalow style of architecture in Fort Collins; and WHEREAS,the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the Code and is eligible for designation as a landmark,and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property has consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a historic landmark. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the buildings and structures historically known as the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, located on lands in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Tract J at Rigden Farm, also known as 2902 Rigden Parkway be, and hereby is,designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 2. That the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for the treatment of historic properties will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to these building and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of October,A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th d of November, A.D. 2000. Mayor Ni" y a t ilk 1. q ,�cc"i �E. 'Ct 310 fflfi�-' rl�t��& dK a5Sssed and adopted on final reading this 7th day of November, A.D. 2000. Mayor :ATTEST: J4 Crty Cllt. r'. Landmar!c Preservation commission ATTACHMENT 7 Regular Meeting Minutes May 12. 1999 Page 3 parish office building. Mr. Hattman explained that the details of the windows were changed on the new plans to four panes to be more compatible with the original windows. He said that they had changed the roofing and ventilation systems for fire safety. The vents originally designed for the gables and walls were replaced with spl' block features on the northwest and east ends. The double doors at the main entr ce were changed from a full glass door to a hollow metal for better maintenan and safety. The one over one design would also hide the panic bar on the or. Mr. Hattman added that the new door would have more historic character. T entrance area would also be vaulted to acquire more, light and a larger circular endow would accent the west side. Mr. Hattman explained the elevation of the addition and its rei onship to the parish office, where it would be connected. The elevation of the ad ' on needed to be above the soffit line of the original building .to accommodate dr age on the roof and the mechanical systems. A simple gutter would be installed h no particular detailing. He tried to keep the design of the gables on the addition ilar to gables on other parts of the building. On the south elevation, the parapet uld reach 28 feet high versus 32 feet high, as submitted earlier. Ms. Tunner-asked about what would happe o the windows and doors of the old parish once that side of the building became an . edor wall. Mr. Hattman explained that there was one window.in the stairwell, whit are illegal, and two windows in the bathroom. One would be taken out and then ould become an entrance to the offices. The windows on the lower level in t bathrooms would ,be blocked in and a ventilation system would be installed. Ms. unner suggested saving the original windows and said that they could be used as r acements in the.future. Mr. Hattman said that he would advise his client. The Co ission inquired about the new windows, which were snap- in and made of painte uminum. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was any citizen input, and there was none. s. Ore asked about the size of the circular window. Mr. Hattman explained that the rthest ring on the round window was masonry trim to help set the window-apart fr the brick. Mr. Frick oved to approve the changes to the previously final LPC approved plan for he addition to. the historic building as presented and shown on the subm' led documents. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed un imously. (6-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Cal Johnson/ Riaden Farm Property Mr. Frank explained the LPC really doesn't have a role in the design review process with Planning and Zoning, but should rather provide comments to staff. Ms. McWilliams added that they would be involved in the design review if the property were designated. Tonight, they reviewed the development plans with the idea of determining a placement and design elements that the Commission would feel comfortable with and would not adversely affect the property's determination of eligibility. Mr. Jones, current project Landmark Preservation Commissian Regular Meeting Minutes May 12. 1999 Page a planner explained that Drake Road was being widened, which was a separate project , from the Rigden Farm POP. However, the relocation of the structures needed to be approved prior to the approval of the PDP. The Commission also needed to determine where the structures should be moved and whether the structures would still be eligible for local landmark designation when moved. The LPC discussed whether the structure should be designated before they were moved or if they should approve the relocation, contingent on designation. Ms. McWilliams reported that the buildings on the farm have been determined to be individually eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places and for Local Landmark designation. The buildings are significant for their architecture and association with the Johnson family, The Commission discussed whether they could approve the conceptual plan on the condition that the structures are designated. Ms. McWilliams explained that integrity was based on the location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of the farm. The historic and architectural significance of the farm has been established. The inte ri of the farm may be impacted, especially by altering the setting, which would alter the feeling and association of the farm. Ms. Carpenter presented the current proposed plans for the farm structures to move them to a community center. The setting around the building would be open space with a drainage area that was greater than five acres. The area would be accessible by pedestrians and by the bike path. The Commission liked the open space around the farm structures and community center. Ms. Carpenter explained that they kept the original orientation of the buildings the same. A proposed deck was moved to the back of the house. The circular drive mimics the original site. She explained that relocating the bunkhouse and the garage would make it difficult to lay out the other buildings. They would try to move and reuse the spruce trees from the original site. They discussed incorporating a handicap ramp or wheelchair lift into the deck and what design would minimize the impact. Ms. Tunner recommended using the landscape to create a ramp up to the building. The Commission talked about whether the deck would impact the eligibility of the farmhouse for designation. They discussed what sort of designs-would make the deck more sympathetic to the historic structure. Mr. Frick suggested detaching the deck from the house. Mr. Hogestad suggested breaking up the deck with a higher and lower grade area and the handicap ramp. They discussed the relocation and new configuration of the farm buildings. Ms. McWilliams suggested that the bunkhouse could be used for storage of maintenance and garden equipment for the community garden area. Ms. Carpenter liked the idea. The house was built in the 1920s and the garage could have been built around the same time as the original house. Ms. Ore was concerned about the integrity of the site. 'She reviewed the seven criteria for establishing integrity. She explained that moving a farm building to a commercial setting sets a precedent and that they need to be careful about designating an adaptive re-use. The LPC agreed that the setting of the farm would still be gone. even if it were not. relocated. Efforts need to be made to preserve the feeling of the farm. They agreed that the deck created a big issue in preserving the `Si Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 12. 1999 Page 5 feeling of a farmhouse. Ms. Carpenter explained that four out of the five buildings would be relocated in the original configuration. The bunkhouse would come close to the original position. The Commission further discussed how moving the structures would affect the setting, feeling and association of a farm, and therefore would impact the historic integrity of the structures. They discussed the impact of ,moving the structures on its integrity according to the seven criteria. The location would be lost. The design would still be there, but would still be impacted by alterations. There was discussion concerning the setting and physical environment of the structures. The LPC discussed how pristine the setting needed to be for an historic structure to still be considered eligible for local landmark designation. The materials and physical elements would not be affected. The workmanship would be maintained. The feeling and association was also discussed further. They questioned whether it would still convey, a period of time and a certain historic character. The association described the relationship between the farm and certain people. It was suggested that less landscaping would portray the feeling of the farmstead better. Ms. Carpenter explained that its use as a community center would never feel like a farm. Ms. Ore was concerned about moving historic buildings to the middle of a sub-division and then calling it an historic district. Mr. Frank agreed that developers should be encouraged to re-use historic structures on site instead of moving them. It was agreed that when the Cal Johnson buildings are moved they would be eligible only for their architecture. The farm would be completely out of the setting and the context which have contributed to its significance. The LPC also wanted to see the bunkhouse and garage in the plan and suggested that the arbor or gazebo structure be removed. They, agreed that a plan should be made that conveyed the farmstead better. Mr. Tanner said that here should be stronger connections between the buildings. Mr. Hogestad said that there should be fewer trees and you should be able to see the barn from the house. He asked if there was any public input, and there was.none. Ms. Milewski suggested that if the farm buildings would no longer be eligible for their setting, then create the setting of a community center, while preserving the historic architecture of the buildings that still have integrity. Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC declare the Johnson Farm buildings and structures eligible for Local Landmark designation on the condition that at least three of the buildings, the house, the barn, and the chicken coop, be moved and located in the configuration and location in the conceptual plan presented. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion. A friendly amendment was not accepted that was made by Mr. Frick to look at moving the garage with the other buildings including the bunkhouse. (4-2) (Yeas: Hogestad, Milewski, Tanner, Pouppirt) (Nays: Frick, Ore) The Commission discussed moving the additional buildings. Mr. Tanner felt that they should be more flexible with an adaptive reuse" Ms. Milewski agreed. Mr. Frank said that eligibility should not be based on moving all or nothing. Ms. Tunner agreed that it Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 12. 1999 Page 6 would still appear as a farm without the garage. Mr. Frick disagreed and said that the garage was part of the farm and was consistent with the architecture of the house. Mr. Griffin summarized from the meeting that the applicants should pursue designation, change the design of the deck and consider a patio feature, possibly create grade changes to minimize the impact of a ramp, look at including the bunkhouse and garage, and maintain sight lines between the house and bam. OTHER BUSINESS. Art in Public Places, Michael Hayden) Powers introduced Mr. Hayden, artist, who was selected to contribute his artwork to do town Fort Collins as part of Art in Public Places. Mr. Hayden gave a presentation on inking Lightly" and described his portfolio of work and the theme, constru . and p cement of the proposed hologram sails for downtown Fort Collins. sails would ve like large, rigid rudders in the wind. The surface would be a rticulated hologram ncapsulated in laminated plastic. The sails would be in ed between twenty and feet feet high on the thirty-four light poles that line Colle . Avenue between LaPorte and agnolia streets. They would have a maximum Ight of eight feet and have thirty in es of width at the bottom. They would n compete with the existing signage, his-CH architecture, or trees along the street r. Tanner asked if they would be permanently stalled, which they would be. I gestad asked about the weight of the sails, the w d load, and the materials. ayden explained that they would be only twenty-five po nds and that a proto ould be built first. Mr. Hogestad asked how large the reflec 'ons of the hologra would cast. Mr. Hayden did not know, but explained that it wo be very pa . The LPC discussed whether the structures would interfere with sig views t e historic buildings and other features of the design and installation of the sa DISCUSSION ITEMS NUED Council Policy enda Ms. Tunner sented a me describing the role of a quasi-judicial board and information n avoiding ex pa contacts .made by City board and commission member Thelf�eeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary. Landmark Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. INN APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The., regular meeting of August .9 and the special meeting of August 31 minutes were approved by affirmation with no changes. HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM, 2902 Rigden Parkway (Designation) Ms. McWilliams discussed the history of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm, including the reasons for its move. The LPC had previously determined, in a discussion before the buildings were moved, that the buildings would have architectural significance even after moving them. She said that the Rigden Farm project now' moved them off the comer of.Timberline and Horsetooth Roads, back into the new development. They have 'maintained the same orientation but the buildings are closer together. Some foundation bricks of the house and one bam door were lost in the moving and have' been replaced: The other, non-original bam door bam-`door was also replaced. The non-original overhead fiberglass garage door was also replaced. She showed slides of the buildings on the new site, and recommended designation of all the buildings based on their architectural significance. Mr. Pouppirt asked the age of the garage. Ms. McWilliams responded late 30s or early 40s. Ms. Dix questioned replacing the garage door.- Ms. McWilliams 'said the 'one it replaced was not original, although she would have preferred the replacement be more in character to the age of the buildings. Mr. Frick noted that the replacement is better . than the fiberglass one. Mr. Pouppirt moved to accept the landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm at 2902 Rigden Parkway. Ms. Aguilera seconded. the motion. Motion passed,5-1. Ms. Ore explained her nay vote by.saying the farm had lost too much integrity and setting by the moving of the buildings. She felt that designating them was setting a bad precedent. Mr. Pouppirt expressed the opposite view, saying that they had done a great job., to _save the buildings. With the .Timberline Road widening, it was the only solution. Mr. Hogestad summarized by saying that this was an unusual circumstance. 411 S. _WHITCOMB. STREET, DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR LqAft LANDMARK STATUS (Scott Mullen for Bill Coulson, prospective owner Ms. McWilliams described the house and introduced Scott Mullen, w representing prospective. uyer, Bill Coulson. Alterations to the house inclu early'c. 1920 rear addition, and, recently, two poured concrete window we d rear aluminum screens. She said the house still has good integrity. It has dition on the garage which does not distract from the .property. . The. ho and garage are significant for their architecture. She read a September . er from prospective buyer,William Coulson disagreeing with Ms. McWilliam ' nion that the property was eligible .for designation, and she clarified that the a and the garage are being considered for eligibility but this does not start t esignation process. Mr. Mullen, representative for Mr. Coulson, said that Mr. son wants to know the property's status before buying so that he will know ential regulations. <i i ii I :r %/ 7. f{ \: + y orloll rl% IN, 1. zoo No _ - 5 I I _ f I Tf1 ' x ' 16 I I , I`•' � r�r . oll r R III oo. � ` 1. `Irl — - g� _ - N-. ' — - r{R y No. Jbe 2 1 • { + I Noll - k ' lr ter. -1 ".� L1 ` L \ . IIIIIf }IIIII r x \\\ :f 1� ' t _ _._ . . _ _ _ _ I� j xw Ilot y. . r 1 f l 1 I +1 IJ J 4 "Llooloof -I Noll _ 5 t . + .� - - ! h. No JI1' -Xf I I ill I ' x! _ LL l ' ■i } 1 I " ffbb me if .. '� [ -ti_ _�_.�-. - rr of. r 1 s 'T'�— tpr i� I ry J`r J ! _ . 1 i 'tf �r ! + f .r . _ y- { T To L"_ �.� 11 ,1 �' Ei� * •s > _ I. . ! I " • ' . . - M1ti r, ' lj�!F _ __ + + +' i . l � y5 . . 1 _, .•,�.. . .; -Y - —' r. - -d ,v _ r am. I .. ' I ram17 - ��� - - lor oo� V I I 1 ill, 1 - rrrx% y 16 r { + l4 ' �Y ' Ir� 4 yI 1 ,. .. 5 q yloll Illowr ,x 'J I — t ! f i r ..�} i rs CC t1 No r{ . * } 1T� ' r } L Noll li l�,IrIINoll I+ I , A S •? ItNooll F �. ' roll x-r r I Ile a ' { ' 1' k . TV x. r`. . . ! V 1 �I * _1 _ V "A. t �. FU r I _ --------------- t If _ V, , � • -�r, 1. , :�•e� � r�' ""^' �o �- Fort Co^llins w` .�.• ".��m. .a...�...._ 0 45 90 IN 27j 450 5do�F. -_�✓ .- _ `"'°•"^^• 47912010 2:07:59 PM ATTACHMENT 10 Fort Collins Landmark Standards Standards for Designation Sites, buildings, structures, objects or districts may be designated. To be designated as a landmark, a property must not only be significant, but it also must have physical integrity. Significance 1. The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history. C 2. The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history. 3. The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. 4. The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. � r �:r' �i Integrity ti Integrity: the ability of a property to eonrey its significance. Integrity is the composite of seven aspects, or qualities, which in various combinations define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,feeling, and association 1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure, and style of a property. 3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship, the surrounding features and open space. 4. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. 5. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, or site. 6. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property s historic character. 7. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and an historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. The degree of integrity required for landmark status is relative to a property's significance. The more qualities present in a property, the higher its physical integrity. Ultimately the question of physical integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. f,; ATTACHMENT 11 RIGDEN FARM, LLC PJGDEN DEVELOPMENT9 LLC 1027 WEST HORSETOOTH ROAD,SUITE 204 FORT COLLINS,CO 80526 Phone 970-266-1500 Fax 970-266-8400 May 3,2010 Mike Schwab,Manager ProHOAm,Inc. 363 West Drake Road Fort Collins,CO 805526 RE: Historic Designation Dear Mr. Schwab: We were very:surprised to learn that the buildings from the Calvin Johnson farm have been listed on the City of Fort Collins'.historic register. It-was our understanding that once the buildings were moved,they lost any historic significance. W6 were unaware of the designation until you told us that the City required approval of the barn siding by the Landmark Preservation Commission and we received a copy of the application that was signed by Felix Rojas on behalf of Rigden Farm, To the best of our recollection we have never had any discussion with Mr. Rojas that would have allowed him to execute that document and Mr. Rojas was never a manager or member of Rigden Farm, LLC or Rigdcn Development,LLC.,Under the terms of the LLC Operating Agreements, Wolverine Management Group, Inc. and Sierra Resources Corporation are,and always have been,the only managers of Rigden Farm, LLC or Rigden Development, LLC with alltlibrity to,bind either of these two entities. Respectfully, Fred, L.Croci, President David J. Pietenpol, President Wolverine Management Group, Inc. Sierra Resources Corporation Manager Manager Rigden Farm, LLC Rigden Farm, LLC Rigden Development, LLC Rigden Development, LLC ATTACHMENT 12 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting DRAFT May 12, 2010 Minutes Council Liaison: Mr. David Roy (407-7393) Staff Liaison: Mr. Steve Dush (221-6765) Commission Chairperson: Terence Hoaglund SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission heard the Application for Removing a Designated Property from the Fort Collins Landmark List for the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Complex, 2902 Rigden Parkway, moved that Rigden Farm LLC knew about the designation of the property for a sufficiently long enough period of time that it had ample opportunity to object to the designation; found that Rigden Farm LLC was not coerced on the designation; found that the criteria for designation was adequately and properly addressed; and moved to recommend that City Council deny the application. The Commission also held a Complimentary Review of Solar Panels at 262 E. Mountain, the Mitchell Block/Bohemian Building. The Commission granted Final Design Review of Egress Windows at 529 S. Whitcomb, the Hale House. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to,order by Acting Chair Frick with a quorum present at 5:34 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Bud Frick, John Albright, Doug Ernest, Earen Hummel, and Ron Sladek were present. Sondra Carson and Terence Hoaglund were absent: Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, Karen McWilliams, Preservation'Planner, Matt-Baker, Street Oversizing Manager, Randy Wilson, City Inspector, and;Steve Dush, Director, Community Development andNeighborhood Services, represented city staff. 2902 Rigden Parkway, Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Complex—Application for Removing a Designated Property from the Fort Collins Landmark List—Mike Schwab "Manager,Rigden Farm`Master Homeowners Association: Ms. McWilliams introduced-Mike Schwab, Nlanaget of the Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association and David\Wyatt, the attorney for kigden Farm, LLC. The application is for removal of 2902 Rigden-Parkway from the Landmark List. Ms. McWilliams read the Staff Report into the record, noting Previous Decisions/Actions: On May 12, 1999, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) determined that the farm structures associated with Jessup/Johnson farm property would be eligible, as per Chapter 14 of the City Code, as local landmarks, even when relocated to the middle of the new subdivision at the Rigden Farm community center. A notarized application requesting landmark designation, dated September 6, 2000, and signed by Felix Rojas as owner's representative, was filed with the City. On September 13, 2000, upon finding compliance with Chapter 14 of the City Code, the LPC passed Resolution 10, 2000 recommending to City Council local landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings at the new location—2902 Rigden Parkway. Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 2 - On October 17, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000 designating the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City'Code. On November 7, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000. Ms. McWilliams provided Project Background: Henry and Edna Jessup built the farmhouse and barn in 1919. The distinctive masonry house and gambrel-roofed barn were occupied by the Jessups through 1961. Calvin and Lois Johnson purchased the farm in that year. Calvin, and his brother Glen Johnson, operated the farm under the name Spring Creek Farms,LLC, Their local business consisted of alfalfa and feed corn crops along with a`cattle operation. In 1999, Calvin sold the farm to Rigden Farm LLC. The farm and the outbuildings were moved to 2902 Rigden Parkway in the spring of 2000 to make way for the widening of Timberline Road, Drake Road and their intersection. Timberline Road is designated on the City's Master Street Plan as a-major arterial (six lanes) and Drake Road is designated as a standard arterial (four lanes). Since the Rigden Farm subdivision adjoined these two sectionvline roads, and since new development would add a significant number of traffic'to the roads, it was the obligation of the Rigden Farm LLC to improve these roadways to their full designation and pay for their local street portion. Without these improvements, the,Rigden Farm development would have failed to comply with the City'sland Use Code requiring that adequate public facilities be constructed to mitigate4he'impact-of new g'r'owth on the edge of the urban area where existing infrastructure is�not ful'ly'improved. On May 12, 1999,_the LP�C determined that the farm structures associated with Jessup/Johnson farm-prope would be eligible, as per Chapter 14 of the City Code, as local landmarks even;when relocated to the mi'ddleof the new subdivision at the Rigden Farm community center�.The L,PC-agreed that,the original setting of the farm at the Timberline and Drake intersection would be gone, even if the farm buildings were not relocated due to the road and'intersection widening. After May 12, 1999, the farmhouse and surrounding outbuildings were moved and,placed in their same orientation and relative configuration at the center of the Rigden Farm development. A notarized application requesting Landmark designation, dated September 6, 2000, and signed by,Felix,Rojas as owner's representative, was filed with the City. On September,13;2000, upon finding compliance with Chapter 14 of the City Code, the LPC passed/Resolution 10, 2000 recommending to City Council local landmark designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings at the new location—2902 Rigden Parkway. On October 17, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000 designating the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings, 2902 Rigden Parkway, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. On November 7, 2000, City Council unanimously adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 141, 2000. Staff reviewed the Applicant's Request for Delisting and Staff Response: Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 3 - Ms. McWilliams noted that the applicant had provided three reasons for the de- listing of 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List. The applicant's points were summarized, and were followed by Staff's response: A. On September 6, 2000, the application for Local Landmark Designation Nomination Form for designating 2902 Rigden Parkway was signed by Mr. Felix Rojas who was not a representative of Rigden Farm LLC. Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC, the owner of the property. In response, Staff noted that Mr. Felix Rojas did indeed sign the application, dated September 6, 2000, and further, under his signature, Mr. Rojas stated that he was doing so as "Owners Representative." Staff can only assume that Mr. Rojas was acting properly, duly authorized and not committing fraud by misrepresenting his association with the owner. Staff further noted that at the LPC meeting of May 12, 1999, the public record indicates that the owners were represented by Mr.,Scott Griffin. In addition, at the LPC public hearing of Resolution 10, 2000 of the Landmark Preservation Commission, on September 13, 2000, the Resolution states: "WHEREAS;the owner'of the property has consented to such landmark designation." Staff also notes that at City Council First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2000, the Agen&,Item Summary—Executive Summary states: "The owner of the property, Rigden Farrri,LLC is/initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Henry Jessup/Cal-Johnson Farm Buildings." At the December 9, 2009 Landmark Preservation Commissionpublic hearing, the owners were represented by Mr. Mike Schwab. The public record is clear`Rigden Farm LLC is on record as being represented by Mr. Scott,�Griffin; Mr. Felix Rojas;and Mr. Mike Schwab. At no time between May 12, 1999 and March 2, 2010 was the issue of an improper representation or an improper signature ever raised. B. Rigden Farm LLC_was forced to accept this designation in order to move ahead with this development. The developrent was held up for apx. (sic) 18 months while Rigden Farm LLC;and the city fought.over what to do the buildings. Rigden Farm LLC risked losingthe-main anchor/King Soopers if an agreement was not reached:In-addition at�this'same Carrie;something had to be done with the house as it stood-in th'e,way of the widening of Timberline. In response, Staff noted that there,is,no.evidence in the public record to indicate that the landmark designation was nonconsensual. Further, there is no evidence in the record with regard to the status of securing King Soopers as an anchor tenant. C. In designating the structures, the City and LPC ignored national criteria on historic landmarks: The main decision to add these structures was based on a compromised(sic)�reached between the developer and the city. The decision did not take intoconsideration the actual national historic standards that the landmark listing should be based. The only factor that the LPC could cite in their decision was the architectural significance. In doing so, they ignored a plethora of other factors that should have been considered. In response, Staff noted that the public record indicates that the merits of eligibility pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code were thoroughly discussed at the May 12, 1999 Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing. At this hearing, the LPC determined that the buildings and structures associated with the Jessup/Johnson farm had sufficient architectural significance and that they would retain their eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, even if they were moved to their new location at the center of the Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 4 - Rigden Farm development. Further, the City's standards for Landmark designation mirror the national standards, so the National Park Service Standards were indeed considered. While there are, in fact, four different standards for determining eligibility for designation, only one of the four is needed for a proper designation. At the September 13, 2000 LPC public hearing, the Commission found that, following the buildings' move, the arrangement of the buildings, the surrounding open space, and with minimal damage to the buildings from the move, the buildings did retained their eligibility for Landmark status. Consequently, at the September 13, 2000 public hearing, the LPC determined that the farm buildings had architectural importance to the City in sufficient compliance with Section 14-5 of the City Code. Staff s Findings: In evaluating the request to remove 2902 Rigden Parkway from the Landmark List, Staff makes the following findings: A. Staff finds that the public record indicates that the'owners, Rigden Farm LLC, were properly represented by individuals who indicated they were acting as bona fide owner's representatives. B. There is no evidence in the record that designation as a Landmark was improper, coerced or nonconsensual,'., C. In designating the Jessup/Johnson farm�buildings, the LPC and City Council acted properly_.in accordance with'Section 14 of the City Code. D. Staff finds that de-listing the,farm buildings,would violate the provisions of Section 14 of the Cit' ode and,thus ieopardize.the protected status of the buildings. Staff s Recommendation:_ Staff recommends denial of the Application for Removal of 2902 Rigden Parkway:from the Landmark List. il Discussion: ` Mr. Frick asked Mr.�Eckrrian to_confirm that the Commission is considering the application for de-listing and\th&three reasons the applicant provided. Mr. Eckman replied that the applicant framedvthe issues in the Application for De-listing. If the applicant had other issues they wished to raise, the Commission would hear those and staff may want to respond. He stated the Commission may want to ask questions of the staff. The next step is to listen to the applicant and decide if it is appropriate to unwind the designatiori.\\\Unwinding*the designation follows-about the same procedure as completing the designation process. Mr. Eckman"stated he is not here to advocate for the staff, but is here to serve the Board. He may have some questions of staff or the applicant that might help clarify things that might be helpful for the Commission to know. If the Commission has any questions of the staff or applicant, feel free to ask them. Mr. Eckman added that a copy of the Code might be needed in case there are questions about the de-listing process, which staff noted was available. Mr. Schwab asked Mr. Eckman what his position is. Eckman replied that he is the Deputy City Attorney for the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Schwab stated they did make an error in the application, as it pertains around King Soopers. After he met with the developer again, the developer said that King Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 5 - Soopers had not signed a contract with them at the time to buy that property. They were in negotiations. They were just trying to develop the land, and this process was delaying that development. There was another error that needs to be clarified on page 4 of the Staff Report. It says that Mr. Schwab is a representative of Rigden Farm LLC. He has never been a representative of Rigden Farm LLC. He thinks there's some confusion as to the different parties involved here. Rigden Farm LLC is the partnership that bought Rigden Farm. It is managed by the principals, Fred Croci and David Pientopal. They are the ones that did the development. Mr. Schwab said he represents Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association. It is a separate entity. Rigden Farm LLC was the original owner, and they turned it over to the Rigden Farm Master Homeowners Association, and that is who he represents. Then, Scott Griffin and Felix Rojas were never employed by Rigden Farm LLC, they were employees of Wheeler Construction which was the company that Rigden Farm LLC hired to do the site work!In talking to the developers, they weren't even sure that Felix was an employee or whether he was doing an internship at that time. Mr. Wyatt spoke. Taking the first issue on whether Mr. Rojas had the authority to sign. Mr. Schwab discussed who the people were , Mr. Griffin and Mr. Rojas and the fact that they were working for Wheeler Construction. He:stated that it is his,opinion that if you have an individual that's proposing to represent an entity; then given the significance of what he was signing on,the application;that,you should have required a statement of authority from Rigden Farm`LLC stating that,tl�6,individual did, in fact, have the authority to sign off on their behalf. That"'was not ever,as faras he was aware, requested or obtained form Rigden Farm LLC.`Obviously, given the significance of this, in any real estate closing or anything else,'they require a statement of authority before they will allow a person to_si .1i off and execute deeds, etc: Assumptions don't get you anywhere. You need to get a statement of authority. Staff states that there is no'evidence of coercion. Mr. Wyatt's question is why the Landmark Commission`went ahead and approyedor said it was entitled to designation in May of 1999; and the application wasn't_even-submitted until 2000. So, they had already done the approval and'everything,else before the application had even been submitted. Why was that done if it wasn't in,an attempt to go ahead and get everything put in place so theycould force the designation of"the landmark? As far as the criteria and there only being one with the architectural significance. If you look at the.meeting in 1999 where the Commission debated all the different issues, there was a great deal of discussion about the integrity and all the concerns about it. So, the members raised the-issue of integrity of the structures. Then, it goes into 2000, and the City actually approved the ordinance. They said it kept its integrity. But, I didn't see anything in there where they looked at those items that were raised and whether they really did conform to the integrity. It was just sort of a blanket, oh, now it meets the integrity, and those issues won't be raised. Yet, in that 1999 meeting, there were big concerns, saying, we need to look at this and see. Does this really affect the integrity of the architectural or can we really designate this? I would be happy to go through the criteria, but I don't think this is the appropriate time. Those criteria are quite numerous. So, if you wanted to go into that, I would request that you have another hearing specifically on the criteria and whether that was legitimate. Was the integrity there still Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 6 - or does it meet the integrity? Mr. Frick responded that this was the appropriate time and place to consider that issue, as it is one of the issues the raised in the application. Mr. Wyatt listed the issues that he did not think were ever re-addressed or didn't appear to be re-addressed when the approval was made, but were brought up during the initial meeting. If you go through all the different standards, probably the biggest ones are when they were looking at it, did it actually conform to the criteria during that meeting. The issues that were raised. The handicapped ramp, that's on the deck. That was one of the major issues raised that compromised the integrity. Ms. McWilliams asked him which document he was referencing. Mr. Wyatt responded it was the meeting held on May 12, 1999. Ms. McWilliams noted the minutes of thatmeeting are in the packet. Mr. Wyatt stated the second issue for integrity was the,adaptive reuse of the buildings, and whether that's appropriate being basically a community house. The impact of moving the structures on its integrity according,Wthe,seven criteria is also an issue. The location would be lost. How pristine the setting is, you put it into kind of a commercial setting, it doesn't resemble a farm or historic,site. That's obviously one of the criteria that you preserve the feel of the farm site or the historical feeling. Moving it into the subdivision. One of the issues looked at was if it were to be moved, is the integrity affected by putting the buildings closer together or actually removing some of the buildings. We have an issue with replacement of the barn doors. Those are the major ones, that he doesn't think were ever-re-addressed or didn't.appear to be re-addressed when the approval was made, but they,were,brought up during the initial meeting. Ms. McWilliams offered to address�each-item. She asked;Mr. Sladek to set up the two boards that contain the landmark standar&-so everyone could view them. Mr. Eckman asked that the applicants be provide d,with a,copy.�Ms. McWilliams noted that they had been previously.given copies. The,applicants have a copy of everything the Commission has received. Ms. McWilliams-first stated that the Fort,.Collins Standards literally mirror the National Register Standards. The-only real change is the numbering. The National Register Standards refer to,Criteria A; B,_C,-and D, while the City uses numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Other thamthat,they are virtually the same. In the National Register, when you look at eligibility, and-again thisis mirrored in our own code, the eligibility of a property for designation is based on one or more standards for designation, or significance. For designation, a,building is Considered if it is significant for one or more reasons. In this case, the property was found to be significant for its architecture. When we look at the integrity of the building, the question is, does the building retain a preponderance-of integrity? Is there sufficient integrity to reflect the reason why the building is significant? Again, in this case, its significance is the architecture. So, when you go through the seven different aspects of integrity, you are looking at: Location. Indeed, the building was moved and no longer sits on its original location. Design, which is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the buildings. The design was retained substantially in its new location. Next is the physical setting of the historic property. The Commission had looked at that at length and talked about the configuration of the buildings, the orientation of the buildings, in that they would be in the same relative location to each other. There was discussion about the way the new setting was going to be designed with a circular drive to mimic the original circular drive. Basically, while the setting is of a farm at the Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 7 - intersection of Timberline and Drake Road, a lot of the setting of the farm buildings and their architectural significance was retained. Materials. Virtually all materials were retained. Some of the changes that did occur because of the move were that a historic . door was damaged, a people door, as Ms. McWilliams remembered. The barn doors, which were non original already, were removed and then replaced again following the move. They were already non original materials, and the Commission actually had felt that the new barn door that was selected was better than what it replaced, although not as good as it could have been. The next integrity aspect is workmanship, which is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during a period of time. She felt that the buildings' workmanship is very much still evident.following the move. Feeling, which is the property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of the period of time is also very much in place when you evaluate.its architectural significance. When anybody looks at those buildings, they know that it's a hist�orico d,farm building with the feeling that the architecture conveys. Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic property. That would-likely have been,lost because the association with Cal Johnson and the Henry Jessup,families on their original location was fairly compromised by moving it to a new location. So, Association probably isn't there. When the Commission looked at all of thie,seven different aspects of integrity, they felt, according to the minutes of record and thc'motibn that it made and forwarded on to City Council, that the buildings;did indeed meet the landmark standard of architectural significance to the City of Fort Collins, and thacit did indeed retain sufficient integrity to reflect that architectural significance, and therefore made the decision that it be recommended for designation., In discussing its adaptive reuse: the Commission frequently supports adaptive reuses of buildings. That's one of the best ways possible to preserve historic structures. It's always ideal to have a building retain the`same use and never change, but that's also very unrealistic. If you'look around town, you�will,find dozens of examples of adaptive reuses, whether it is a Euilding,that has become offices that was once a home or buildings that have changed their use_fro"m a`historic school and are now used for a different purpose.. We have-dozens of examples of adaptive reuse. That is one of the tenants of historic preservation,'that adaptive reuse is a wonderful way to preserve historic buildings. The deck was,,proposed originally on the front of the farm house. The Commission did, in Ms. McWilliams' opinion, rightly so, have some concerns about the deck being located on the front of the house. They felt that this would have had more impact on the building's character, on its architecture. And instead, per their discussions, the property's owners'or owners' representative or whoever was here representing the owners at that time,did indeed agree, and worked an arrangement that the deck was placed on the rear of the building, thereby preserving a major aspect of the building's architecture. In terms of the deck on the rear of the building, the Commission very frequently allows that. There's a need for handicapped accessibility. Handicapped accessibility off the back of the building is a good solution that very rarely damages a building's architectural significance to the point that it no longer becomes eligible. Ms. McWilliams noted that they had already discussed the impact of the move according to the seven aspects of integrity. Ms. McWilliams stated that the Commission had gone through each aspect of integrity and decided whether the impact was there or not, and decided that the buildings definitely did retain sufficient integrity, and were Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 8 - eligible. Originally, the applicants were talking about moving only some of the buildings. The Commission was hopeful that they could move all of them. The motion from the May 12, 1999 minutes was that Mr. Tanner moved that the LPC declare the Johnson Farm Buildings and structures eligible for local landmark designation on the condition that at least three of the five buildings—the house, the barn, and the chicken coop, be moved and located in a configuration and location in the conceptual plan presented. There was a friendly amendment that Mr. Frick made to also move the garage. That was actually turned down. The Commission felt that having three of the buildings was sufficient, and they were not going to require that the garage be moved too. Later, the property owners, or the developer or applicant, the representative, whoever it was, came back, and actually all five of the buildings were moved and,relocated in their new configuration, even though the Commission did not require that-for designation. Ms. McWilliams next reviewed the change of setting. She stated'that'is also part of integrity, and has already been addressed. And, the replacement of some of the elements on the building, indeed non-historic doors were damaged in"the move and were.replaced. The amount of damage to the buildings was far less than what we typically see on buildings that have never been moved, and are still eligible for landmark designation. The Commission felt that there was no problem with that aspect of integrity. Regarding the May 12, 1999 meeting. Whafthe Commission was actually being asked to do at that meeting was to talk about the eligibil'ity,of the building. They didn't pass a motion to designate the building. They were asked,to find out whether the building would still be eligible should the fartri be moved. Thaf was at the request of the applicant which happened to be the property owner'or property%wners' representative. The Commission looked carefully at all ofilie factor's;and;according to their motion, they answered the question that�was put befor.Ithem. The question was, with those stipulations such as,.being in the original configuration and everything else involved, would the buildings-be eligible should they be'rnoved, and the Commission felt that, yes, they would be. They did riot actually designate or recommend for designation at this meeting. They just gavea'determination.of eligibility. Mr.-Schwab,asked a question about the barn and the fact the doors were damaged. He felt that if you look at barn now, an entire front was put on that barn. With the glass doors, the entire front and entrance were changed. Mr. Frick noted that the glass was just in the doorway, within the'frame of the original barn doors. There was a door to begin with before they moved it. To make it accessible and to put light into the building, they framed it in aluminum,storefront, which is perfectly acceptable because it still retained the original opening as was in the original barn. Ms. McWilliams stated it also provides for the adaptive reuse by allowing light. That's a common adaptive change in buildings in order to reuse them. Mr. Eckman asked the applicant if they had any other responses or rebuttals they would like to make to Ms. McWilliams' remarks. Mr. Wyatt stated it is kind of based on the assumption that she assumes they re-addressed those criteria. The record doesn't show anything after that meeting that they actually relooked at everything. Mr. Frick asked if he meant that they re-looked at the integrity. Mr. Wyatt said, exactly, and stated, I realize that these questions were raised at the 1999 meeting. My question is were they in fact, each one of them, gone through and re-looked at every one of those criteria for integrity and significance after that fact to make sure they still contained it. There's no Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 9 - record of it, so it's based on assumptions that they have. Mr. Frick said yes, based on the fact that they moved more buildings than required and kept them in the same orientation and in the same similar type of setting. And the character was looked at again basically, not point by point. If the plan didn't follow what the Commission had wanted and previously agreed to, then it would not have been approved. It's probably not point by point written in the records. Mr. Frick asked Mr. Eckman about the question of authority. Mr. Eckman asked the applicants, on behalf of the Commission, when Rigden Farm was conveyed to the Rigden Farm Master Association, as the applicants said Rigden Farm LLC was their predecessor in interest and it conveyed to the Rigden Farm Master Association at some point. Mr. Schwab said, right. Mr. Eckman asked if he knew what year that conveyance occurred. Mr. Schwab said he was not sure. Mr. Eckman asked,if it was after the year 2000. Mr. Schwab said, definitely, I'm guessing it was 2002 or�2003 or 2004. Mr. Eckman asked Ms. McWilliams if the City Council, when it designates a property as a landmark, does it record it with the Larimer County'Clerkand Recorder:, Ms. McWilliams replied, yes, it does. Mr. Eckman asked if this one was recorded. Ms. McWilliams said that to the best of her knowledge,it was.,`She said the process-is through the City Clerk's Office. They receive all of the material that needs to be recorded by action of the City Council. Mr. Eckman noted that,if the designation was recorded, then at this conveyance, the Rigden Farm�Master Association would have taken it with notice of that designation. `A '- \�.1 Mr. Eckman stated that he was still unclear if it is the\position of the Master Association that Mr. Rojas committed a fraud upon'Rigden Farm LLC by filing this application without their'consent or even permission? .Mr. Schwab said he didn't think he could address that. Mr.-Wyatt said he thought it would'be because he acted beyond the scope of his authority. As far as he was aware they never gave him that authority to sign. Mr. Eckman asked if any criminal action,has;arisen out of that fraud that Mr. Wyatt was aware of. Mr. Wyatt said lie didn't think they discovered it until they went in to do the reconstruction, and then the,whole-issue'came up that we can't do it because it's under landmark designation. 'Then, we went back and looked at the application. Mr. Wyatt/told Mr. Croci he had actually signed, and he said, well, he never worked for us an&he never had that authority. So,,we didn't become aware of it until just recently. Mr. Eckman confirmed that Mr. Croci'was one of the partners in Rigden Farm LLC. Mr. Wyatt said yes. Mr. Eckman asked, are you saying that Mr. Croci said he didn't have the authority to do that? Mr. Schwab said he has a letter from Mr. Croci and Mr. Pietenpol saying the same things=They were unaware that it had been placed on the landmark list until this whole process came about when we were looking at siding options. Mr. Eckman said,just to make it clear, so your position is that Mr. Rojas committed a fraud upon Rigden Farm, not that Rigden Farm committed a fraud upon the City by filing a bogus application with the City. Rather, that it was really Rigden Farm that got fooled in this. Mr. Wyatt said yes, because he acted beyond his scope of authority because he had no authority to actually sign the application. Mr. Schwab said it would be interesting to see if he signed anything else with regard to the whole Rigden development. Mr. Eckman stated he had a few more questions. In the other part'of the argument, the applicants said that the application was filed by coercion—the City was pressuring. The third part was that there was a compromise reached. The second Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 10 - argument was the coercive nature of it. The third argument was that it was a compromise. If I remember right, it didn't complete the integrity of the building or something. But, how can that be that it was, first, a fraud, and then, it was a coercive thing. But if it was coercive, would there not have been involvement by Rigden Farm LLC that it had known about it and been forced into it? Or, if it was a compromise, they would have agreed to something and they would have, therefore, been intellectually involved in this, and it wouldn't have been this fraud thing that the first argument makes? How does it all fit together? Mr. Wyatt responded that it was his understanding that the issue was what to do with the buildings. And, whether it was going into a landmark designation was another issue. The biggest issue was, initially, we had the widening of the road, we had the development, and we have these structures that are blocking/I think that initially was the whole concern about what do we do with the buildings. Lthifik\hat's what the delay was. And, it delayed the project and then I don't know how_1V1r1.Rojas was.able to get in and do the application. Mr. Croci stated that he wasn't aware of it. So,'he didn'tknow it was actually going into the landmark designation, but he did know that there was a major issue about what to do with the buildings because they were blocking the whole project. Mr. Schwab said that Ms. McWilliams could address this better because it's his understanding from the developers she was involved,in'those negotiations from the very start. The problem was that they wanted to develop thatpieee of property, and she stepped in and said we can't touch those buildings. �\ Mr. Eckman said the 1999 minutes,show..that some folks were in attendance at that meeting, but no one was there from Rigdeh-Farm LLC. There was someone there from Wheeler Realty. Do you know who Wheeler Realty is? Mr. Schwab said that Wheeler Realty was actually Bill Neal's company. Mr.Eckman asked why they were at this meeting. Mr. Schwab rep lied Ithat Bill Neal was originally a partner in Rigden Farms before the plane crash. He was part of Rigden farm LLC. Mr. Eckman said, when you t read Wheeler Realty, are,you reading.Rigden Farm LLC together? Mr. Schwab said they were separate: Mr:-Eckman satd Jennifer Carpenter was listed as being there and Scott Griffin was-there. Mr.'Schwab said that Scott Griffin was an employee of this Wheeler Construction. Mr. Eckman,asked,who.Jennifer Carpenter was. He then asked if she was in the room,today. Ms.MWilliams�noted she was. Mr. Eckman said it might be helpful for Ms. Carpenter to try to.shed some light on how involved Wheeler Realty was or who they were, what'their connection is with Rigden Farm through Jennifer Carpenter if you can. Mr. Frick Ms. Carpenter if she could answer those questions. Ms. Carpenter'stated she could explain what she knew. She stated Bill Neal called her, and aske&her to take a look at the buildings and what she thought we could do with them. How they could work through - obviously, something had to happen with those buildings. She stated she had known Bill for many years and was working on her real estate license at the time and wanted to look on the development side. He brought her in to work on that project as well as a few other things. Ms. Carpenter noted that this was one of the first developments that went through under the new City Plan, and she had been on the City Plan Advisory Committee. And, there were a few kinks that had been worked out. There are things that people don't expect. Some of them have to do with historic preservation and some of them don't. She actually came in and worked with Bill, Dave Pietenpol, and Scott Griffin, to look at the different possibilities they could pursue Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 11 - and how they could reuse the buildings. Bill, Dave, Scott, and also Fred [Croci] were very aware that this was landmarked. They knew that was happening. I'm just kind of amazed at this, because it was part of the plan, in trying to come up with ways that they could still be landmarked. My opinion was, and what they told me at the time, was that they were very pleased with it as a part of the development and as an amenity. Mr. Eckman asked who Fred was. Ms. Carpenter said Fred Croci. Mr. Eckman said, the same Fred Croci that has now said to the applicant that he knew nothing about it? Ms. Carpenter clarified that she didn't work very much with Fred. He was in the office. Most of her work was done with Bill, Dave Pietenpol, and Scott Griffin. But, Fred knew why she was there, and what was going on. She didn't know Fred-before and she hasn't seen him since, well a couple of times. Mr. Frick stated that one of the reasons the buildings,had to be moved was the road was going to be right at the front door. Ms. Carpenter.said-that was when Bill called her. Mr. Eckman asked how Wheeler Realty is related to Rigden Farm LLC? Ms. Carpenter said she was not privy to what all their relationships were: She knew that Bill was the principle in Wheeler Realty, and he was/also a principle in Rigden Farm LLC, but what their deal was, she didn't know. Mr. Eckman said to Mr. Schwab and Mr. Wyatt that he,wanted to try.to focus their argument so the Board would be able to understand'how you fit together that there was first of all fraud by Mr. Rojas, but then secondly, if.you would like to try to explain that a little more clearly so I can understand_it- How does,the,fraud part mix with Rigden Farm LLC being forced to accept it, and`the;Rigden Farm LLC`reaching a compromise with the City? It seems like you can't, like one-of those arguments fails if the other two succeed, or vice versa. I don't see how they all/an fii.together. Is it an either/or situation? Mr. Schwab.said, first'of all, you're saying fraud and we never brought that up. We just said he wasn't an authorized signer. I think those are your words. Mr. Eckman said, I'm assuming if he had no authority, then what is it? Mr. Schwab responded, I don't know, I'm not an attorney. I'm just saying what we put down that he was not an authorized,signer: As far as the buildings being moved, Fred knew they were being moved: I think the discussion was;should they moved or should they be torn down. Mi�\Eckman said; in only comment to the Commission is that you need to address these arguments that the applicant has made, but at the same time, they have made perhaps more pertinent arguments about the standards and whether it should have ever been listed'or not under these standards. That's quite substantive and the rest of it is, it's not nonsubstantive but it's off the topic of landmark preservation. Look at all of those factors, their arguments about the procedure and how this went through and whether it was a forced, or fraudulent, or a compromise, or he wasn't authorized. That's relevant to think about. Mr. Eckman stated that in that context, there went by some ten years since that happened. There is a [legal] concept called "laches," sitting on your rights. It's an equitable thing, where if you don't do anything for too long of a time then it's too late to do anything. He said he welcomed the Commission's argument about that also. His feeling was that ten years is a pretty long time, and that the equitable concept of laches might apply. Even if Mr. Rojas didn't have the authority, even if it were a compromise by the City and the developer, or forced, this concept of laches begins to come into play Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 12 - after a long passage of time. That was his thought, and he welcomed contrary argument. Beyond that, it's now time for the Commission to debate amongst itself and decide whether this thing should be unwound or not and make a recommendation to the City Council. It's the Council that ultimately decides this. Mr. Frick asked if anybody on the Board had questions of the applicant. Mr. Sladek asked why this has come to the floor at this point. Mr. Wyatt said it was because of the improvements that are going to be made. That's what brought all the issues up, because according to Mr. Croci he wasn't aware that it had gone in for landmark designation. Based upon what he has told me that it was news to him and he wants it removed. Mr. Frick asked if he is still part of the Rigden Farm LLC or Master Association? Mr. Schwab responded that he is still a primary of Rigden Farm LLC, and he is the president of the Rigden Farm Master Homeowner Association because it's still under developer control, the Master HOA. Mr. Eckman asked Mr.,Schwab if he had the authority to sign this application. Mr. Schwab said yes, because he represents the HOA. Mr. Ernest said, in looking through the documentation it appears.that in November 2009, the question before the Board was repairs to the barn which is one of five buildings. He asked if he was correct in thinking thafthe de-listing being asked for now applies to all five buildings, not just the barrt that was.4in`question afew months ago. Mr. Wyatt responded yes. Mr. Schwab stated that what-was in question a few months ago was doing all the outbuildings, not just the barn. Ms. Hummel asked Ms. McWilliams if, when a property goes through City Council as approved for designation as a-local landmark, isn't the property owner notified of that, or does it just go to the Clerk? Ms. McWilliams responded that follow up letters are sent to the owners' representative or toJhe,o�wner. .So, staff did indeed send Mr. Rojas a letter and the dates,Jelling him the action that occurred. He represented the property owner to us;and that's who our contact was. They were informed of the two hearings of City Council and ofthe subsequent,actions. Mr. Frick asked if there,were any more,guestions from the Board members. Mr. Schwab directed a comment to Ms'McWilliams and said it was his understanding from.talking to the,developers that her original position was the buildings were not,going to be moved. That's what she stated at the start and that's why they had thavlong delay before amagreemem was reached. It wasn't until Matt Baker stepped in and said we re tearing it down because we have to widen the street that something was accomplished. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that Matt Baker was also present. If the Commission or,anybody had any questions of Matt, they could ask him. Ms. McWilliams"stated that her role is as the Historic Preservation Planner for the City of Fort Collins. She is tasked with following the Land Use Code that was in effect at that time and following the rest of the City's standards for historic preservation. She stated that what she did say was that the best possible thing for the farm property would be to remain in its original location and the adaptive reuse there. Actually, the ultimate choice would be to retain it as a farm, in its original location. Failing that, then the next best thing would be to retain the buildings in their original location and adaptively reuse them. Failing that, then the next thing would be to move the buildings to an appropriate new location that retained a preponderance of the integrity of the buildings, which ultimately did occur. She stated she would not have had the authority or the ability to say Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 13 - those buildings will not move. Her position was that historic preservation prefers to see the buildings retained in their original location and not moved. Mr. Frick asked if there were more questions from the Board, or public input? There was no public input. Ms. McWilliams asked if the Commission still needs to go through the standards? Mr. Eckman addressed the Commission and stated that when you make a motion, you will have to decide if you want to unwind this. For example, if you think there was no authority on the part of Mr. Rojas to file that application and that Rigden Farm LLC didn't know about it and didn't consent to it, ten years passed, and that's not unreasonable, that's not laches, that's not too long to sit on your rights, then I think you should unwind this. Similarly, if you think that there was a coercive thing!tlat Rigden Farm LLC was forced to sign this application to get this designation, or else the City was just going to do something horrible, so they had a gun to their head. Again, ten years,passed, there are still no laches, it hasn't been too long yet, they haven't sat on their rights.too long, again you should unwind this. If you think that it was a compromise„which was their third argument, I;don't see that as being coercion or anything. A compromise rsa compromise, and then,you'd probably go to those historic things [standards] to see i instill h fas got the integrity. Again, I keep saying the laches thing-because that keeps,coming up in my mind. Mr. Eckman discussed the legal concept of coercion,`which is any contract that is entered into coercively. Someone is forced'.to do it. They don't have any choices in it. The penalty for not doing it is so great, so overwhelming, that they can't negotiate in any reasonable way. Those kinds of contracts voidable. So,the question is do we have that kind of coercion here,_or do.we have a. ud here from Mr. Rojas, or do we have a compromise. You'll,have to"decide those things and address each of the points that the applicant has made Then, if you;f nd that the'first argument that they made doesn't persuade you, the second,arguniem-made doesri''t�persuade you, the third argument doesn't, or maybe does persuade you;I think/you should also look and advise the Council, make a recommendation.to the Council, on whether you think the buildings as relocated still have the,landmark4ritegrity that they need to have so the Council will i know"that'also. Mr. Frick asked if there should be a motion on each one of their points. Mr. � 4 i Eckman said\yes,, Mr.Frick said we will entertain a motion on no statement of authority and that Felix Rojas did not,have'the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC. Mr. Ernest said; so moved. He asked if Mr. Frick wanted him to repeat it. Mr. Frick said, yes. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission consider Point 1 from Rigden Farm HOA, correct, that Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign the Rigden Farm LLC agreement in 2000. Does that cover it? Mr. Eckman confirmed that Mr. Ernest's motion was that Mr. Rojas did not have the authority. Mr. Ernest stated he would reframe it that Felix Rojas, according to the reasoning in the documentation that Rigden Farm's HOA has given us, Felix Rojas did not have the Landmark Preservation Commission May 12, 2010 - 14 - authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC, the owner of the said property. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Sladek moved that, whether or not Felix Rojas had authority to act on behalf of Rigden Farm LLC, it does appear that Rigden Farm LLC knew about the designation of the property for a long enough period of time that it had an opportunity to object to that designation. Mr. Albright said, if that's a motion I second it. Mr. Frick asked if there was further discussion or questions. He called for a vote and asked that all those in favor signify with an "Aye". Motion passed: (5-0). Mr. Frick: As to Point B, Rigden Farm was forced to accept the designation. Does someone want to frame a motion for that? Mr. Albright moved that the Commission find that Rigden Far ,wits not coerced, but indeed discussed and compromised on this designation and there was no coercion involved. Mr. Sladek seconded the motion. Mr. Frick asked'if Mr.Albright wanted to amend that to Rigden Farm LLC, Mr. Albright agreed:,Mr. Frick-said then, that the farm buildings were relocated; the reason was thelwidening of Timberline. Mr. Albright and Mr. Sladek accepted that amendment. Motion passed: (5-0). Mr. Eckman asked if that covered both�'Point 2 and,point 3 of the applicant because you meant in your motion that it was not coerced but it was compromised. That covers both points. Mr. Sladek responded that point�three is a different issue. Three is the criteria. Frick: As to the final one, thatdesignating the structures ignored national criteria. Mr.Albright moved that the Commission fndthat the criteria for'designation was adequately and properly addressed and sp found 4-the Board in 1999. Ms. Hummel seconded the motion. �` l� Mr. Frick asked tf Mr.Albright wanted to list the,points of integrity. Mr. Albright replied that he thought,it unnecessary to do so'v Mr. Albright stated that this Commission does not have to rediscuss what;tlie Commission did in 1999. Mr. Eckman asked if the Commission wanted to include in that motion, in the interest of time, any recommendation to_thi Council as to your final ultimate decision as to whether.this-should be kept\as`a historic landmark. Mr. Frick said he thought that should be separate. Motion passed: (5-0). Mr. Frick stated, recommendation to City Council to not delist. Mr.Albright moved for the recommendation that City Council not approve the request for de-listing that has been-made for the Jessup/Johnson Buildings at 2902 Rigden Parkway. Mr. Sladek-seconded the motion. Mr. Frick asked if there was any discussion. There was not. Vote: Motion passed: (5-0). ATTACHMENT Henry Jessup / Cal Johnson Barn 2902 Rigden Parkway Request for Removal of a Fort Collins Landmark from the Landmark List Henry Jessup/ Cal Johnson Farm • Established in 1919 by Henry and Edna Jessup • Historic farm consists of five buildings • Jessups sold to Calvin and Lois Johnson in 1961 • Calvin and Glen Johnson sold to Rigden Farm , LLC in 1999 . F�tf Background • Buildings Relocated in 2000 • New Development - Rigden Farm Commercial Center ( King Soopers ) • Rigden Farm LLC Obligated for Improvements • Impact on Farm of Widening Timberline to 6 Lanes , and Drake to 4 Lanes f • Development Plans to LPC in 1999 • Need to meet LUC requirements • Proposal to relocate buildings • Buildings eligible as local landmarks when relocated • Farm buildings relocated in Spring 2000 F� [tins • Farm Designated . . Notarized application signed by Felix Rojas , Owners ' Representative . LPC Resolution 10 , 2000 recommending designation — Ordinance No . 141 , 2000 designating the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings Fit,fly • Received Request for Removal of the Jessup/ Johnson Farm from the Landmark List • Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing May 12 , 2010 • Commission Recommends Council Deny Request F�t [tins Applicant's Reasons for Delisting : 1 . Felix Rojas did not have the authority to sign for Rigden Farm LLC, the owner of the property. LPC considered : - Rigden Farm LLC , was properly represented by individuals who indicated they were acting as bona fide owner' s representatives Owners were aware of designation " Laches " - Owners had 10 years to object Fit,f LPC Finding of Fact and Conclusion : "Whether or not Felix Rojas had authority to act on behalf of Rigden Farm LLC , Rigden Farm LLC knew about the designation for a long enough period of time that it had ample opportunity to object to that designation . " F� [tins Applicant' s Reasons for Delisting : 2. Rigden Farm LLC was forced to accept designation. Also, designation was a compromise between developer and City. • LPC considered : - Is there any evidence in the record to indicate that the designation was nonconsensual ? - How can it be fraud , then coercion , then a compromise? F�t LPC Finding of Fact and Conclusion : " Rigden Farm LLC was not coerced , but discussed and compromised on this designation and that there was no coercion involved . " F� [tins Applicant's Reasons for Delisting : 3. In designating the structures, the City and LPC ignored national criteria on historic landmarks. LPC considered : - City Standards same as National Standards - Significance & Integrity thoroughly reviewed [tins LPC Finding of Fact and Conclusion : " The criteria for designation was adequately and properly addressed , and so found by the Board in 1999 . " F�t [tins Recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission to City Council In regards to the Application for Removal of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings , at 2902 Rigden Parkway , from the Landmark List , the Landmark Preservation Commission made the following motion : " That the Council not approve the request for delisting that has been made for the Jessup/ Johnson buildings at 2902 Rigden Parkway . " [tins Rigden Farmhouse r 14 Back of Farmhouse 1 �MK..Yf � `•L V1��• - � . yam/ ..�C F1►.�._ _ �� r I - r, OL th Rehabilitated Barn > I > 17 Gara • - and Bunk House F - - 18 1 9 Chicken e • tt 19 10 ORDINANCE NO. 072, 2010 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RESCINDING THE DESIGNATION OF THE HENRY JESSUP/CAL JOHNSON FARM BUILDINGS, 2902 RIGDEN PARKWAY, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS,by Ordinance No. 141,2000,the City Council designated the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings at 2902 Rigden Parkway in the City as a historic landmark pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code; and WHEREAS,the City has received an application dated Mary 12,2010,from the Rigden Farm Master Owners Association requesting that the designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings as a historic landmark be rescinded; and WHEREAS, Section 14-31 of the City Code provides that a landmark designation may be rescinded in the same manner as the original designation was made; and WHEREAS,in accordance with Section 14-31 of the City Code,the Landmark Preservation Commission considered the application of the Rigden Farm Master Association at its meeting on May 12, 2010 and recommended to the City Council that the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings historic designation not be rescinded; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission, the City Council has determined that there were sufficient flaws and defects in the designation process for the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings that the designation should be rescinded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the designation of the Henry Jessup/Cal Johnson Farm Buildings pursuant to Ordinance No. 141, 2000, is hereby rescinded and that the City Manager is directed to record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorded this ordinance rescinding said designation. Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 1 st day of June, A.D. 2010, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of June, A.D. 2010. . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of June, A.D. 2010. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk