Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/03/2018 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVAgenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Consideration of an Appeal of the Landmark Preservation Commission Decision Regarding the Eligibility of the Spradley Barr Property, 2601 South College Avenue, to Qualify as a Landmark. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of the Landmark Preservation Commission’s (LPC) de novo decision made on February 21, 2018, finding that the property at 2601 South College Avenue is eligible for individual landmark designation. This decision was consistent with the initial decision made by the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director and the LPC Chair. On March 7, 2018, an appeal was filed challenging the LPC’s decision. Only parties-in-interest as defined in City Code Section 2-47 may participate in this hearing and the scope of the appeal is limited to those items identified as grounds for appeal in the Notice of Appeal. COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURE Appeals to City Council are governed by Fort Collins Municipal Code (City Code) Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, Sections 2-46 through 2-55. A final decision by the LPC or other City decision-maker described in City Code Section 2-47 may be appealed to City Council. I. Parties-in- Interest – Only parties-in-interest may participate in the appeal. The Code defines “party-in- interest” to include: A. The applicant; B. Any party with a proprietary or possessory interest in the land that is the subject of the application; C. Any person to whom or organization to which the City mailed notice of the hearing on the matter being appealed; D. Any person or organization that provided written comments prior to or at the hearing on the matter being appealed; and E. Any person or organization that appeared before the Decision-maker at the hearing on the matter being appealed. II. Grounds for Appeal – A Decision-maker’s final decision may be appealed to City Council on the following grounds: A. Fair Hearing Issues: A final decision may be appealed on the basis that a fair hearing was not conducted because the Decision-maker: 1. Exceeded its authority or jurisdiction; Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 2. Substantially ignored its previously established rules or procedure; 3. Considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; 4. Improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant; or 5. Was biased against the appellant by reason of a conflict of interest or other close business, personal, or social relationship that interfered with the Decision-maker’s independence of judgment. B. Interpretation and Application of the Code: A decision may also be appealed on the basis that the Decision-maker failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. III. Procedure at Hearing – The City Code provides that Council’s hearing on the appeal is based on the record of the evidence considered for the decision being appealed. The Council hearing will proceed in the following order: A. City Staff: explanation of nature of the appeal and presentation. B. Councilmembers: comments regarding observations or questions from any site visit. C. Mayor: establishes limits on time and scope for presentation of argument on the merits of the appeal and consideration of procedural issues; may include setting of a separate time for Council to consider and determine (by majority vote) procedural issues related to the hearing, including: 1. Introduction or exclusion of certain evidence; 2. Allocation of time for presentation of arguments; and 3. Concerns or objections related to the record on appeal, including new evidence. D. Presentation of Argument: by Appellant and any party-in-interest supporting the appeal. E. Presentation of Argument: by any party-in-interest opposing the appeal. F. Rebuttal: by Appellant and party-in-interest supporting the appeal. G. Rebuttal: by any party-in-interest opposing the appeal. H. Councilmembers: questions of City staff and parties-in-interest. I. Close public hearing. J. Councilmembers: motion, discussion and vote; Council may uphold, overturn, or modify the decision (including addition of conditions). IV. Final Action by Council – City Council is required to adopt a resolution setting forth findings of fact and its final decision no later than its next regular meeting after the hearing of the appeal. The date on which such a resolution is adopted by Council is the date of final action for purposes of seeking subsequent judicial review of the Council decision. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code provides the process for determining the eligibility of a property to qualify as a landmark. A determination of eligibility does not designate a property as a landmark. Instead it evaluates the property’s ability to qualify for such designation based on criteria for significance and integrity established by the Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service. The evaluation considers historical and current information relevant to the property, and results in a decision regarding eligibility made by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission. This decision may be appealed to the LPC. Any final decision of the LPC may, in turn, be appealed to City Council. On October 20, 2017, Bill Wells, Brinkman Development, acting on behalf of the owners of the Spradley Barr property at 2601 South College Avenue (the “Property”), formally submitted a request for a determination of the Property’s eligibility to qualify as a landmark. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 14-72, on October 26, 2017 the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director and the LPC Chair reviewed the eligibility of the Property. Following the consideration of both current and historical photographs and research, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director and the LPC Chair issued a decision that the Property has both significance and integrity, as defined by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service and adopted in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code; and that the Property would qualify for individual designation as a landmark under three of the four standards for determining eligibility: Standard A, for its Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 3 association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our local, state, or national history; Standard B, for the property’s association with the lives of persons significant in our past; and Standard C, finding that the Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction. The fourth standard for determining eligibility, Standard D, Information Potential, was not evaluated. On November 7, 2017, Mr. Wells appealed the decision of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director and LPC Chair to the LPC. On February 21, 2018, the LPC conducted a de novo hearing on the eligibility of the Property. At this meeting, the Commission unanimously (6-0; Dunn, Hogestad recused; Frick absent) found that the property is eligible for individual designation as a landmark, consistent with the decision of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director and LPC Chair. The LPC found that the property retains integrity and has significance under Standard A, for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our local, state, or national history; and Standard C, the property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction. The Commission members felt that they did not have sufficient information to make a finding on Standard B, the property’s association with the lives of persons significant in our past. The complete text of the LPC adopted motion is on pages 25-26 of the verbatim transcript. On March 7, 2018, Bill Wells, Kriss Spradley, and Bill Barr (the Appellants) filed an appeal challenging the LPC decision made at the February 21, 2018 hearing. ASSERTIONS OF APPEAL The Appellants assert that the LPC failed to properly interpret and apply five sections of City Code Chapter 14, Article I, as follows: A. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(1), defining significance. B. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(2), regarding specific standards for determining significance. C. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(3), defining exterior integrity. D. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(4), regarding specific standards for determining exterior integrity. E. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(5), regarding context. The Appellants cite the following facts to support their allegation:  Detailed analysis and conclusions of Autobee & Autobee, LLC as to the property's noneligibility for designation as a local landmark contained in the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory prepared by Autobee & Autobee, LLC.  Testimony of Kristen Autobee regarding Autobee & Autobee, LLC's analysis and conclusions regarding the property's noneligibility for designation as a local landmark.  Testimony of Todd Parker of Brinkman Development, Appellant, regarding the property's noneligibility for designation as a local landmark.  Photographs of the property.  Photographs of other automobile dealerships. Evidence Pertinent to the Assertion the LPC failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code: A. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(1). Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(1) reads as follows: Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 4 Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how properties are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. Staff’s Response:  On page 3, lines 39-42 of the hearing verbatim transcript, staff discussed that Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code, Standards for Determining the Eligibility of Sites, Structures, Objects, and Districts for Designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, provides the framework for making the determination of eligibility. Staff noted that eligibility is based on significance and exterior integrity. In determining eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered.  On page 4, lines 1-19 of the hearing verbatim transcript, staff discussed the definitions of the four standards of significance. B. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(2). Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(2) reads as follows: Standards for determining significance: a. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. b. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. c. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. d. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Staff’s Response:  In its consideration regarding significance, the LPC discussed pertinent evidence, documentation, photographs, and testimony.  The LPC’s discussion concerning the Property’s significance substantially occurs on pages 17-23 of the hearing verbatim transcript. Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 5 o On page 14, lines 18-40 of the hearing verbatim transcript, the LPC discussed the Property’s significance under Standard A, events; and Standard C, design/construction. o The LPC discussed the Property’s eligibility under Standard A, events, on page 17, lines 4-40 and page 18, lines 1-15 of the hearing verbatim transcript. o The LPC discussed the Property’s eligibility under Standard B, persons, on page 18, lines 16- 40; page 19, lines 1-39; and page 20, lines 1-17 of the hearing verbatim transcript. o The LPC discussed the Property’s eligibility under Standard C, design/construction, on page 20, lines 17-37; page 21, lines 1-40; page 22, lines 1-38; and page 23, lines 1-23 of the hearing verbatim transcript.  Discussion concerning the Property’s significance by Kristen Autobee, Autobee and Autobee, substantially occurs on pages 8-13 of the hearing verbatim transcript. o On page 9, lines 5-15 and lines 36-41; and page 10, lines 13-39 of the hearing verbatim transcript, Kristen Autobee, Autobee and Autobee, LLC discussed her assessment of the Property’s significance under Standard A, events. o On page 9, lines 16-35; page 12, lines 10-34; and page 13, lines 1-28 of the hearing verbatim transcript, Ms. Autobee discussed her assessment of the Property’s significance under Standard B, persons. o On page 6, lines 24-40; page 7, lines 17-25; page 8, lines 35-42; page 9, lines 1-4; page 10, lines 1-12; page 11, lines 1-35; and page 12, lines 1-8 of the hearing verbatim transcript, Ms. Autobee, discussed her assessment of the Property’s significance under Standard C, design/construction.  On page 7, lines 33-36, and page 8, lines 1-33 of the hearing verbatim transcript, Todd Parker, Brinkman Development, presented photographs of other automobile dealerships in other cities.  On page 13, lines 29-38 of the hearing verbatim transcript, LPC member Simpson clarified information about the age of the buildings in Mr. Parker’s photographs when the dealerships were altered or demolished. C. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(3). Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(3) reads as follows: Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Staff’s Response:  On page 5, lines 1-4 of the hearing verbatim transcript, staff notes that the framework for determining eligibility is established in the National Parks Service Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. For Standards A, events, and B, people, the integrity aspects of location, setting, materials, and design are particularly important. For Standard C, design and construction, the integrity aspects of materials, design, and workmanship are particularly important. D. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(4). Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 6 Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(4) states: Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. 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 to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. 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. f. 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. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a 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. Staff’s Response:  In its consideration regarding integrity, the LPC discussed pertinent evidence, documentation, photographs, and testimony.  On page 4, lines 20-39 of the hearing verbatim transcript, staff discussed exterior integrity, noting that all seven qualities or aspects do not need to be present, but that the Property must still convey its overall sense of history and place.  The LPC’s discussion regarding integrity substantially occurs on pages 15 – 17 of the hearing verbatim transcript, more specifically, on page 15, lines 32-43; page 16, lines 1-38; and page 17, lines 1-4. E. Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(5) Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Section 14-5(5) states: Context. The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area. Upon the submittal of an application necessitating a determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark or Landmark District, the Director and/or the chair of the Commission shall determine the minimum area required for evaluating context, and such information, including photographs and other documents, as required for the determination. Staff’s Response:  In its consideration regarding context, the LPC discussed pertinent evidence, documentation, photographs, and testimony.  On page 3, lines 24-38 of the hearing verbatim transcript, staff described the existing context of the Property, noting that the property is at the intersection of two arterials, Drake Road and College Avenue, and describing the development on each corner. Staff noted that on the northwest corner of the Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 7 intersection is a commercial block with an active development review application, PDP 160043, also known as King Soopers number 146, Midtown Gardens Marketplace. Staff noted that the application includes a proposed supermarket within the existing Kmart building, and a new 7,200 square foot retail building that would replace an existing vacant building on the northeast corner of the site.  The LPC’s discussion regarding context substantially occurs on pages 23 and 24 of the hearing verbatim transcript, more specifically, on page 23, lines 24-40; and page 24, lines 1-30. SUMMARY The Appellants assert that the LPC failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Hearing and Site Visit (PDF) 2. Notice of Appeal, filed March 7, 2018 (PDF) 3. Staff Report to the Landmark Preservation Commission (PDF) 4. Emails from LPC members (PDF) 5. Staff Presentation to LPC (PDF) 6. Applicant Architectural Examples Provided at LPC Hearing (PDF) 7. Verbatim Transcript of LPC Hearing (PDF) 8. Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Council (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing and Site Visit Notice ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal filed by Bill Wells, Brinkman Development, March 7, 2018 ATTACHMENT 3 Staff Report (with attachments) Provided to the Landmark Preservation Commission, Hearing held February 21, 2018 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 21, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 2601 SOUTH COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins local landmark designation of 2601 South College Avenue, which was considered eligible for its association with the growth of the automobile industry and the Ghent family and for its distinctive mid-century automobile dealership characteristics. APPLICANT: Bill Wells, Brinkman Partners, applicant OWNER: Dracol LLC, owner RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND On October 20, 2017, Historic Preservation staff received an application for Historic Review for three properties associated with a potential development proposal at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Drake Road. Brinkman Construction submitted the application on behalf of the current property owners of 2601 South College Avenue, 2627 South College Avenue, and 132 West Thunderbird Road. The existing buildings at 2627 South College Avenue and 132 West Thunderbird Road were constructed less than 50 years ago, so Historic Review was not required for either property. Land Use Code section 3.4.7(C), “Determination of Landmark Eligibility,” provides the process for identifying historic resources on and adjacent to development sites and requires that the decisions be made in accordance with the applicable provisions in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. On October 26, 2017, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the 2601 South College Avenue property based on the provisions in Chapter 14 Section 14-72 and found that the proposed demolition of the primary structure on the property, constructed circa 1966, would constitute a major alteration because it would negatively impact all seven aspects of exterior physical integrity. They also determined that the property is individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark based on significance under Standard A for its association with the growth of the automobile industry and automobile dealerships in Fort Collins; under Standard B for its association with the Ghent family; and under Standard C, as a property that still embodies the distinctive original characteristics of a mid-century automobile dealership. The Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission noted that the building may be the last remaining mid-century modern automobile dealership with good historic integrity in Fort Collins. The reviewers also noted that the roof materials have changed over time and some service garage doors were replaced, but that the property maintains a preponderance of original architectural integrity. The reviewers found that seven of the seven aspects of integrity are intact, as follows: 3 Packet Pg. 91 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 • Materials: Exterior materials appear to be original except for the roof and garage doors based on evidence from the Larimer County Tax Assessor card and photograph from 1978, negatives from the Coloradoan collection at the Fort Collins Local History Archives, and present-day photos provided by the applicant. • Design: Building proportions, configuration, roofline, and large windows remain intact. • Workmanship: The property provides evidence of historic construction trends for mid-century modern dealerships. • Location: Building is in its original location on the site. • Setting: The building’s commercial setting on a large corner lot at the intersection of two arterials, College and Drake, remains largely intact. • Feeling: The majority of physical features-design, materials, workmanship, and setting-are intact and convey the building’s intact historic character. • Association: As a functioning auto dealership today, the building retains its historic association with the automobile industry. The following documentation was provided at the October 26, 2017 meeting as evidence to inform the determination of eligibility: Larimer County Tax Assessor information, negatives from the Coloradoan collection, the applicant’s photographs, archival research on Dwight and Frank Ghent, and knowledge of historic midcentury architecture by staff and Landmark Preservation Commission members. The documentation also included a conceptual development review application dated August 30, 2017. This information has been attached to this report. When making the original determination of eligibility, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission did not have the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, which is required documentation for the appeal process, or the photographs of the historic W.A. Drake carriage steps on the property, submitted by Meg Dunn on November 2, 2017. This new information is also attached. Following the determination of major work and the determination of eligibility, the property was posted and public notice in the Coloradoan and on the City website was provided, as required by Section 14-6(a) of the Fort Collins Municipal Code in order to provide opportunity for public comment and appeal of the determination of eligibility. On November 7, 2017, Bill Wells, on behalf of the current owner of 2601 South College Avenue, submitted a written appeal of the decision that the property is individually eligible in accordance with the appeal procedure outlined in Sections 14-6(b) and 14-72(e). The appellant has met all of the requirements outlined in the code regarding the appeal process, including submittal of a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation and paid for by the appellant. The appeal of the determination of eligibility was publicly posted on January 5, 2017. Historic Preservation staff received no other comment or appeals from other members of the public within fourteen days of the original determination of eligibility. RELEVANT CODES AND PROCESSES FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Section 14-5, “Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” includes the following information regarding determinations of eligibility. “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered. (1) Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how properties are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. 3 Packet Pg. 92 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 (2) Standards for determining significance: a. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. b. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. c. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. d. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (3) Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. (4) Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. 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 to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. 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. f. 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. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a 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. 3 Packet Pg. 93 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 (5) Context. The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area. Upon the submittal of an application necessitating a determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark or Landmark District, the Director and/or the chair of the Commission shall determine the minimum area required for evaluating context, and such information, including photographs and other documents, as required for the determination.” The process for application of the above Municipal Code to properties submitted for historic review is based on the framework established in the National Park Service Bulletin 15, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” According to that federal guidance, a property considered significant under Standard C (architectural significance), must retain three of the seven aspects of integrity in particular: materials, design, and workmanship. The bulletin also notes that feeling is an aspect of integrity that requires the presence of the majority of the physical features (design, materials, workmanship, and setting) that together convey historic character. Because this relies on perception, feeling should be noted as an intact aspect of integrity only in combination with those other aspects of integrity to support a determination of eligibility. Likewise, association also relies on perception and thus must be combined with other aspects of integrity to support eligibility. ROLE OF THE COMMISSION Based on the appeal process for determinations of eligibility outlined in Section 14-6(b), the Commission must consider an appeal of determination based on the provided evidence from the initial review and the new evidence in the form of the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation. The Commission should use the above standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks in Section 14-5 to make that determination. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the City Council, as stated in Section 14-9. SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission determines that the property is individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find 2601 South College Avenue individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings].” If the Commission finds that the property is not individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find 2601 South College Avenue not individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact [insert findings].” Note: The Commission may propose other wording for the motion based on its evaluation. 3 Packet Pg. 94 COMMISSION REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (FEBRUARY 14 WORK SESSION): For the Applicant: What will happen with the W. A. Drake steps on the property? Staff has let the applicant know about this request. Bill Wells with Brinkman Partners has confirmed that they plan to save or reuse the steps in any redevelopment. They will be prepared to discuss the steps at the February 21 meeting. For Staff: What is the current context of the area? The 2601 South College Avenue site is in a commercial block at the southwest corner of two arterials: Drake Road and College Avenue. On the southeast corner of the Drake and College intersection is more commercial development with residential further east. On the northeast corner, there is some commercial development with residential toward the north and east. Some of the residential buildings in this area have commercial occupants. On the northwest corner of the intersection is a commercial block with an active development review application, PDP160043, King Soopers #146, Midtown Gardens Marketplace. The application includes a proposed supermarket within the existing Kmart building and a new 7,200 square foot retail building that would replace an existing vacant building on the northeast corner of the site. The project had a neighborhood meeting on November 2, 2016. The Round 1 staff review meeting was held on January 18, 2017 and additional review is ongoing. What is known about the energy efficiency of the 2601 South College building as it stands? (See attached email from Michael Bello) Staff has forwarded this request to the applicant. Staff notes that this question is not applicable to the code requirements for determining the eligibility for designation of a property. Additionally, staff does not have information readily available to address it. Bud Frick’s email with historic photographs of automobile dealerships. (See attached email from Bud Frick). Bud Frick sent an email on February 15, 2018 to the Landmark Preservation Commission and staff regarding automobile dealerships from this era. Staff has forwarded this email to the applicant, included the email as an attachment this report, and pulled the photographs from each link into the attachment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. 2017-10-26 Historic Review (PDF) 3. 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (PDF) 4. 1978 Tax Assessor Card (PDF) 5. 1966-1967 Coloradoan Negatives (PDF) 6. Historical Information Ghent Family (PDF) 7. 2017-11-02 Carriage Steps (PDF) 8. Architectural Inventory Form (PDF) Item # 4 Page 4 Packet Pg. 95 E Drake Rd W Drake Rd S College Ave Mcclell a n d Dr Princeton R d W Thunderbird Dr Yal e Av e Harvard S t E Thunderbird Dr Frontage Rd Frontage Rd Frontage Rd Bay R d R edwin g Rd «¬287 Colorado State University 2601 South College Avenue © Location Map 1 inch = 194 feet Site 3.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Location Map (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 3.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 2017-10-26 Historic Review (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Attachment 2 to staff report to LPC 3.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 2017-10-26 Historic Review (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Attachment 2 to staff report to LPC 3.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 2017-10-26 Historic Review (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Attachment 2 to staff report to LPC 3.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 2017-10-26 Historic Review (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Attachment 2 to staff report to LPC 3.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 2017-10-26 Historic Review (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Attachment 2 to staff report to LPC Showroom East - Looking West 3.c Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Showroom East - Looking West 3.c Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Showroom North - Looking South West 3.c Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Showroom North - Looking South 3.c Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Showroom South - Looking North 3.c Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Showroom South - Looking North East 3.c Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Showroom North West - Looking South East 3.c Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South East - Looking North East Showroom West - Looking North East 3.c Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair and Showroom North East - Looking South East 3.c Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair North Center - Looking South 3.c Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair North Center - Looking South 3.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair North Center - Looking South 3.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair North West - Looking South East Showroom West - Looking South East 3.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair North West - Looking South West 3.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair North West - Looking South West 3.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair North West - Looking South 3.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair West - Looking East 3.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Outbuilding South - Looking North 3.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South Center - Looking North 3.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South - Looking North 3.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South - Looking North West 3.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South - Looking North West 3.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South - Looking North 3.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South East - Looking North East Showroom West - Looking North East 3.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Service.Repair South West - Looking North West 3.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Outbuilding East - Looking West 3.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Outbuilding North - Looking South 3.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Outbuilding South - Looking North 3.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC Outbuilding West - Looking East 3.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 2017-10-20 Applicant Photos of Property (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Attachment 3 to staff report to LPC 3.d Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 1978 Tax Assessor Card (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Attachment 4 to staff report to LPC 3.d Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 1978 Tax Assessor Card (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Attachment 4 to staff report to LPC Coloradoan Collection Fort Collins Local History Archives Date: 1967-01-09 3.e Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 1966-1967 Coloradoan Negatives (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Coloradoan Collection Fort Collins Local History Archives Date: 1966-09-01 3.e Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 1966-1967 Coloradoan Negatives (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Coloradoan Collection Fort Collins Local History Archives Date: 1966-10-01 3.e Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 1966-1967 Coloradoan Negatives (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Coloradoan Collection Fort Collins Local History Archives Date: 1966-10-22 3.e Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 1966-1967 Coloradoan Negatives (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPTUBLFOPO/PWFNCFS CZ.FH %VOO5IFTFQIPUPTXFSFOPUBWBJMBCMFGPS UIFEFNPMJUJPOBMUFSBUJPOSFWJFX 3.g Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 2017-11-02 Carriage Steps (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY               1IPUPTUBLFOPO/PWFNCFS CZ.FH %VOO5IFTFQIPUPTXFSFOPUBWBJMBCMFGPS UIFEFNPMJUJPOBMUFSBUJPOSFWJFX 3.g Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 2017-11-02 Carriage Steps (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY                                                                           1IPUPTUBLFOPO/PWFNCFS CZ.FH %VOO5IFTFQIPUPTXFSFOPUBWBJMBCMFGPS UIFEFNPMJUJPOBMUFSBUJPOSFWJFX 3.g Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 2017-11-02 Carriage Steps (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY 3.f Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Historical Information Ghent Family (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF 3.f Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Historical Information Ghent Family (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 1 OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form I. IDENTIFICATION Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. Resource number: 5LR.14283 2. Temporary resource number: 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Ghents Motors Company 6. Current building name: Spradley-Barr Mazda, Inc. 7. Building address: 2601 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80525 8. Owner name and address: DraCol, LLC., P.O. Box 270710, Fort Collins, CO., 80527. II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 26 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 4 9 3 3 4 9 mE 4 4 8 9 0 1 9 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins 1960 (p.r.1984) Year: 1984 Map scale: 7.5' x 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 1 Block: Ghent FTC; Less 96030371; Less POR to City Per 20150057258. Addition: Ghent Annexation Year of Addition: 1966 13. Boundary Description and Justification: From the Larimer County Assessor’s Office is the following legal land description for Larimer County Parcel No. 9726114001. The commercial building is on the southwest corner of the intersection of South College Avenue and West Drake Road. The property's northern boundary is West Drake, the eastern boundary is South College Avenue, the western boundary is McClelland Drive and the southern boundary is West Thunderbird Drive. Annexed to the city of Fort Collins as the Ghent Annexation in 1966, the boundary description dates from the mid-1960s. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): There are two buildings associated with 5LR.14283. Building A is the main showroom and features an irregular building plan, Building B is a garage and features a rectangular footprint. 15. Dimensions in feet: A: Length 83.5’’ x Width 104’ B: Length: 59.3’ x Width 29.3’. 16. Number of stories: Bldgs. A and B: Single. 17. Primary external wall material(s): Bldg. A: Glass and Stone. Bldg., B: Concrete and Stone 18. Roof configuration: Bldg. A: Gable and Flat. Bldg B: Gable. 19. Primary external roof material: Bldgs. A and B: Metal. 3.h Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 2 20. Special features: Two separate buildings both associated with automobile sales and service, Parking lot surrounds both buildings. Large stationary windows. Metal gable roof canopy. Rolling metal garage doors with windows. 21. General architectural description: This is the first recordation of 5LR.14283. According to the Larimer County Assessor, 5LR.14283 was constructed in 1966. Bldg A, Eastern Elevation: A gabled metal roof extends from Bldg. A’s exterior to form a canopy. The canopy measures 56 feet in length and 30 feet wide. Six metal posts support the metal gable roof. It is unclear when this canopy was added. Beneath the roof are two signs. The first sign, closest to the gable’s peak, reads “Mazda.” The sign below reads: “Spradley/Barr.” Building A’s eastern elevation is composed of six large glass metal window framed windows. These windows begin at ground level and extend to the height of the walls. Above the windows, paneling indeterminate materials covers six original windows, and reach to the gable’s peak. A decorative stone façade is set to the south of the showroom. This is the north wall of the parts and service section of the building. Bldg. A Northern elevation: Five stationary metal frame windows extend from the building’s northeast corner to the east. A metal frame commercial door is located within in this glass panel. This door provides the primary entry into the building’s showroom. A stone façade extends approximately 20 feet from this entry way. The stone façade extends from ground level to beneath the roofline. The stone façade is interrupted by four stationary metal frame windows similar in design and materials to those near the building’s northeast corner. The stone façade continues to the north for approximately another 25 feet. The façade extends from the ground to beneath the roofline. A glass and metal foyer connects the showroom and the parts and service garage of Bldg. A. This foyer is irregularly shaped and is about six feet wide on the northern elevation. The Service Section of the building appears to have been stuccoed. The roof line of the northern roofline features a cornice along the façade’s length. The Service Section is in three sections, with the center section tall enough to accommodate trucks. The first section has three backlit signs beneath the cornice. The first “Service Parts,” is above a rectangular metal sliding window. This appears to have been the first service bay of nine in the first section. Approximately five feet to the west is the second service bay. The second backlit sign reads “Full Service” and is above fourth and fifth bays. “Express Lube Plus” is above the eighth and ninth service bays. The metal rolling garage doors in this section each have three-over-three stationary windows in the center and all are replacements. The original rolling doors were predominately glass, the panes arranged in three columns and five rows. The bottom row was solid and probably metal. The center section has three truck sized rolling doors. Of the three doors the one farthest east appears to be original with three columns and six rows of glass panels, the seventh row at the ground level is metal. The other two doors are newer and match the ones in the first section. A sign above the two new doors reads “Spradley Barr.” Six feet west is a double human door, above which a backlit sign, “Body & Paint.” The third section has four rolling garage doors. A backlit sign, “Collision Center,” is above the first two doors. The second door is original. The other three rolling doors are newer. All of the rolling doors on this elevation are spaced two feet apart, except the two furthest to the west which are four feet apart. Bldg. A Western elevation: There are no fenestrations along the showroom’s western elevation. Concrete block is visible from ground level to the gable peak. The wood laminate beams supporting the roof are visible. On the western elevation of the service and parts garage is a solid concrete block wall. Two small prefabricated 3.h Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 3 additions were made to the building in the 1990s. They have shed roofs, and human doors on the southern elevations. Bldg. A Southern elevation: Beginning at the building’s southeast corner and heading to the west are stationary metal framed windows. These windows extend from the ground level to beneath the roofline. A metal framed commercial door is located in the glass panel nearest to the parts and service exterior. This door is the only access to the showroom from the southern elevation. The southern elevation of the parts and service section features a square, rolling garage door near this section’s southeastern corner. An eight-foot high chain link fence extends from the exterior wall for approximately eight feet and surrounds a loading dock that is two feet from ground level. Outside of the fence, three steps lead up to a metal human door. Near the south west corner of the parts and service section is a three sided metal framed bay window. A rolling metal door can close off the bay window from the main building. The foyer between the parts and service section and the service bays is about 15 feet wide on this elevation and its flat roof has a three foot eave. A small rounded porch is a couple of inches above ground level. Similar to the northern elevation, the southern elevation features a like number rolling garage doors. The last four in the first section appear to be original, as is the second door in the center section. Bldg. B (Used Car Sales): Bldg., B was originally constructed as the Used Car Sales office. It is located approximately 20 feet north of Bldg. A. Bldg. B features a metal gable roof with exposed wood laminate beams. Eastern elevation. The rough stone treatment found on the eastern and northern elevations of Bldg. A covers almost half of the eastern elevation of Bldg. B. Stationary metal framed windows also like Bldg. A. extend from the ground to the gable peak and from the stone covered wall to the northeast corner. In the northeast corner a metal framed stationary glass door enters the front office area. Northern elevation: From northeast corner, six, two-foot-wide, metal-framed, stationary windows reach from the floor to the top of the wall. The rest of the wall is the same rough stone as use on the eastern elevation. Western elevation: Two metal and glass rolling garage doors cover this elevation. These doors have 15 panels in five rows. The middle three rows are glass and the top and bottom rows are metal. The doors are set about two feet apart. The wall is painted concrete block. The wood laminate beams are exposed under the roof. Southern elevation: A metal, human door is located near the southwest corner. There are no other fenestrations along this elevation, and the wall is painted concrete block. 22. Architectural style/building type: Bldgs. A and B: No Style. 23. Landscaping or special setting features: An open asphalt parking lot surrounds 5LR.14283 in four directions. A mature deciduous tree grows near the main showroom’s southeast corner. Four small trees grow along the curb parallel South College Avenue. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: As of December 2017, there were other commercial buildings within the boundaries of the Ghent Addition. Most notably, the Sherwin-Williams Paint Shop at 2627 South College Avenue. This building was not recorded as part of this survey. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1966 Source of information: Larimer County Office Website, Parcel No. 9726114001. https://www.larimer.org/assessor/search#/property/?fromAddrNum=2601&address=College&city=FORT%20CO LLINS&sales=any&accountid=R0133361. Accessed December 10, 2017. 3.h Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 4 26. Architect: Unknown. Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown. Source of information: 28. Original owner: Frank Ghent Source of information: R.L. Polk, 1966 City of Fort Collins Directory. Located at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives and City of Fort Collins Building Permit Correspondence, Tom Coffey to Mike DiTullio, June 7, 1972. http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=51&docid=12054&dt=OA-OTHER+AGREEMENTS. Accessed December 27, 2017. 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The Larimer County Assessor’s Office gives the date of construction for 5LR.14283 as 1966. For most of the twentieth century, this site was W.A. Drake farm site. The construction of the Ghents car dealership came after the publication of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. The Ghent’s added a car wash-service station to the site in 1972. The introduction of the car wash required the introduction of sidewalks, curb, and gutters. The canopy was added later, it does not appear in the earliest photos held by the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The windows in the gable were likely replaced at the same time as the ceiling was lowered. A permit for alteration for a minor office remodel in 1998 is perhaps when the ceiling was lowered. Plans held at the Fort Collins Permit Office indicate two additions – one measuring 18.5’ x 10’ and the other measuring 15’ x 10’ – were constructed along the building’s western façade in 2004. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Commerce-Trade/Specialty 32. Intermediate use(s): Commerce-Trade/Specialty 33. Current use(s): Commerce-Trade/Specialty 34. Site type(s): Automobile Dealership 35. Historical background: Based on photographs held at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, W.A. Drake operated a farm at the southwest corner of South College Avenue and West Drake Road as early as 1905. In 1919, Frank Ghent was discharged from the United States Navy. After the war, Ghent, and his wife Vera, lived in Fort Collins, and homesteaded in northwestern Colorado before returning to Fort Collins and working as a real estate agent. In 1940, he opened a car dealership at 205 North College Avenue, and in the 1950s he had a location at 262 East Mountain Avenue. In addition to his business interests, Ghent was a chair of a Fort Collins Civil Defense organization during World War II and served eight years as a Colorado highway commissioner. In 1966, Ghent moved his Ford-Lincoln-Mercury dealership to 2601 South College Avenue. The dealership is contained in the Ghent Annexation. The City of Fort Collins formalized the Ghent Annexation at the time Frank Ghent was getting ready to build his new dealership. As part of the deal the city accepted as approved the county’s building permits, and added street lights, curb and gutter on Drake Street. In 1996, the Ghents sold to another established Fort Collins auto dealer, Spradley-Barr. In 2012, DraCol assumed ownership of this property, but kept the Spradley-Barr name of the dealership. As of December 2017, DraCol retains ownership of 5LR.14283. 3.h Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 5 36. Sources of information: Cara Neth, “90-year-old Founder of Ghent Motors Dies,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, (January 7, 1985): A-1, A-10, R.L. Polk, Fort Collins City Directories, 1966-2006. Located at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, History Archives; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1917-1943; Located on the Denver Public Library-Western History Collection website; Larimer County Assessor’s Office Appraisal Card, Parcel No. 9726114001, and City of Fort Collins Building Permit Correspondence, Tom Coffey to Mike DiTullio, June 7, 1972. City of Fort Collins Public Records, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=51&docid=12054&dt=OA-OTHER+AGREEMENTS. Accessed December 27, 2017. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria Applicable City of Fort Collins Local Landmark Criteria: ___ 1. The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or 2. The property is associated with the lives of persons that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or, 3. The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. X Does not meet any of the above Local Landmark criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: None. 40. Period of significance: N/A 41. Level of significance: National State Local 42. Statement of significance: This is the first recordation of 5LR.14283. The Ghents/Spradley-Barr dealership has been at this location since 1966. The car dealership is one of many along College Avenue. This was the third location for Ghent during the twentieth century. Because of the predominance of car dealerships as a twentieth century business model nationally, across Colorado and along College Avenue in Fort Collins, 5LR.14283 would not be considered eligible for listing to either the National or State Register under Criterion A. Frank Ghent was a successful 3.h Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 6 Fort Collins businessman from the 1940s until his death in 1985. Mr. Ghent was actively involved in the life of his community for most of his 90 years. However, that involvement is not at a level of eligibility for listing to the National or State Register under Criterion B. Based on photographs from the 1970s, the exterior of the 51-year-old car dealership has undergone minimal alterations or additions. The exterior is similar to other car dealerships constructed across the United States during the 1960s. The use of large, open glass windows and stone exterior treatments can still be found on other car dealerships, supermarkets, and professional buildings from the same period. The building retains fair historic physical integrity. Because there is nothing unique about the architectural style, settling, feeling, and association, 5LR.14283 is not eligible for listing to the National or State Register under Criterion C. Ghent/Spradley-Barr are perhaps the two best known car dealership in Northern Colorado. Mr. Ghent had been in the auto business for a quarter-century before relocating to this address. His children sold the dealership in 1996 after thirty years at 2601 South College Avenue. Because, Mr. Ghent had started and established his business at another location, 5LR.14283 would not qualify under Fort Collins Local Landmark Criteria 1. Mr. Ghent’s activities in the development of Larimer County and Fort Collins primarily took place before the move to 2601 South College Avenue in 1966. Because of that lack of association with a period in Mr. Ghent’s life where he made his contributions to the county and the city, 5LR.14283 would not qualify as a Fort Collins Local Landmark under Criteria 2. The exterior has undergone alterations over the past five decades. The building does not possess the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. 5LR.14283 would not qualify as a Fort Collins Local Landmark under Criteria 3. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Research was unable to precisely date alterations to the building A’s footprint since original construction. The largest addition is the canopy on the eastern elevation. One out of 16 original service bays has been enclosed and one bay door has been enclosed on the south elevation at the far west end of Building A. Both of the original rolling garage doors on Building B have been replaced. Twenty-seven of the original garage doors have been replaced. As a result only four of the original 34 rolling garage doors remain. The original doors were 80%-85% windows and the new doors are only 40% window. The roof has been replaced with material not used in 1960s which distracts from the overall historic integrity. It should be noted that 5LR.14283 is well kept but only displays a fair level of historic physical integrity. The change of the roof to non- period materials, and the loss of a character defining elements in the loss of the service bay doors greatly detracts from the historic nature of the building. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: The commercial district in the vicinity of the intersection of South College Avenue and West Drake Road contains a number of buildings less than 50 years old. The proposed introduction of a residential/commercial center at the southwest corner of South College and West Drake would lessen the current national district potential. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing X 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing 3.h Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 7 VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: 5LR.14283a through 5LR.14283j. Negatives filed at: Electronic images held by Autobee & Autobee, LLC, Lakewood, CO. 48. Report title: Letter Report: “Determination of Eligibility for 2602 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO.” 49. Date(s): December 28, 2017 50. Recorder(s): Robert and Kristen Autobee 51. Organization: Autobee & Autobee, LLC 52. Address: 6900 W. 26th Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80214. 53. Phone number(s): 303-906-7829 NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 3.h Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 8 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom (Bldg. A) Eastern and northern elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283a. Photos showing the eastern elevation before the addition of the canopy, the lowering of the showroom ceiling, and covering of the gable windows. Photos taken September 1, 1966 (right) and September 6, 1966 (left). From Coloradoan Collection, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 3.h Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 9 Ghents Motors (6/2/1978). Post canopy addition. Photograph located Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 2601SCol78_01. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom (Bldg. A) Eastern and southern elevations. Looking northwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283b. 3.h Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 10 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom and Service Bay Section (Bldg. A) Eastern and southern elevations. Looking northwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283c. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Foyer between Parts and Service Section and the Service Bay Section (Bldg. A) Southern elevation. Looking northwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283d. 3.h Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 11 Ghents Motors. Photos showing the southern elevation of the Service Bay Section with original rolling garage doors. Photos taken September 1, 1966 From Coloradoan Collection, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Showroom (Bldg. A) Northern and western elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283e. 3.h Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 12 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Parts and Service Entry (Foyer) (Bldg. A) Northern elevation. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR14283f. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr Parts and Service Entry (Foyer) (Bldg. A) Western elevation. Northern elevation of the Service Bay Section. Looking east. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283g. 3.h Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 13 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr - Showroom (Bldg. A). Northern and eastern elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283h. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr – Used Car Sales. (Bldg. B) Western and southern elevations. Looking southwest. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283i. 3.h Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 14 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr – Used Car Sales (Bldg. B) Eastern and southern elevations. Looking northeast. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283j. 5LR.14283 – Spradley-Barr – Used Car Sales (Bldg. B) Northern elevation. Looking southeast. December 2017. Image 5LR.14283k. 3.h Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 15 Ghents Motors (6/2/1978) Photograph located Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 2601SCol78_02. Ghents Motors (6/2/1978) Northern elevation of Service Bay Section. Photograph located Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 2601SCol78_03. 3.h Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 16 2601 South College Avenue (5LR.14283) 6th P.M., Township 7N, Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 26 UTM reference Zone 13 4 9 3 3 4 9 mE 4 4 8 9 0 1 9 mN Fort Collins 1960 (p.r., 1984), 7.5’ USGS topo map Larimer County 5LR.14283 3.h Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Resource Number: 5LR.14283 Temporary Resource Number: 17 Sketch Map (5LR.14283) 2601 South College Avenue Showroom N West Drake Road South College Avenue A B A Used Car Sales Service Bays Foyer Parts and Service Parking Parking Parking 5LR.1428 3 Sherwin-Williams Paint Store – Not part of survey. McClelland Drive 3.h Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) ATTACHMENT 4 Emails from Landmark Preservation Commission members From: W.J. FRICK To: Cassandra Bumgarner; Alexandra Wallace; Kristin Gensmer; Per Hogestad; Mollie Simpson; Meg Dunn; Kaitlin Dorn Subject: Auto dealerships Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 11:33:48 AM Attached are photos of low pitched/lots of glass 1960's dealerships. These are to counter Attabee's statement that "there is nothing unique about this style" We in Fort America have this one remaining virtually unaltered, set on a pedestal 1960's auto dealership still in it's original use. I can't find Mikes e-mail so forward these to him. Thanks https://i.pinimg.com/736x/36/f7/de/36f7de5260d6a9e6ecc1d83bb03a17b7-- vintage-stuff-vintage-auto.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/06/73/8c/06738c0e0664e10df1743902319d8595-- car-pics-car-pictures.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/86/7c/c4/867cc48524103faa8a7a59b55da079bf-- car-dealerships-photo-credit.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/bossmustang/4215068136/in/album- 72157622945726489/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/bossmustang/4214038271/in/album- 72157622945726489/ https://i.pinimg.com/236x/51/24/1a/51241acdeb12f75bd228e8523bc7c1f2-- car-dealerships-san-antonio.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/236x/6b/af/11/6baf11797b8f6c5f614cdf18e3138fc5-- definition-community-high-definition.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/bossmustang/12893762455/in/album- 72157622945726489/ ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 1 of 16 Packet Page 172-1 https://www.flickr.com/photos/bossmustang/4219826006/in/album- 72157622945726489/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/bossmustang/4214811474/in/album- 72157622945726489/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/bossmustang/4214810030/in/album- 72157622945726489/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/bossmustang/4214809388/in/album- 72157622945726489/ http://www.roadarch.com/09/8/sunrisech.jpg https://assets.hemmings.com/uimage/3656866-750-539.jpg ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 2 of 16 Packet Page 172-2 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 3 of 16 Packet Page 172-3 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 4 of 16 Packet Page 172-4 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 5 of 16 Packet Page 172-5 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 6 of 16 Packet Page 172-6 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 7 of 16 Packet Page 172-7 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 8 of 16 Packet Page 172-8 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 9 of 16 Packet Page 172-9 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 10 of 16 Packet Page 172-10 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 11 of 16 Packet Page 172-11 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 12 of 16 Packet Page 172-12 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 13 of 16 Packet Page 172-13 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 14 of 16 Packet Page 172-14 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 15 of 16 Packet Page 172-15 ITEM 3, AUTO DEALERSHIP INFO FROM BUD FRICK Page 16 of 16 Packet Page 172-16 From: Michael Bello To: Maren Bzdek Cc: Meg Dunn (barefootmeg@gmail.com); Per Hogestad (per.hogestad@comcast.net); Mike Bello (mbello10@comcast.net); Michael Bello; Katie Dorn (kaitlinedorn@gmail.com); Bud Frick (wjfdg@hotmail.com); Kristin Gensmer (Kgensmer@gmail.com); Kevin Murray - Work (empire@verinet.com); Kevin Murray (kevinmurray@verinet.com); Mollie Simpson (molliecsimpson@gmail.com); alexandra.wallace@colostate.edu; Brad Yatabe; Cassandra Bumgarner; Karen McWilliams Subject: Request for Additional Information on 2601 South College Determination of Eligibility Appeal Date: Friday, February 16, 2018 10:51:14 AM Maren, If it is still possible, I would like to know what is known about the energy efficiency of the 2601 South College building as it stands, especially the front glass structure. This can be supplied at our hearing on Wednesday, I don’t need it ahead of time. Thank you. Michael Bello ITEM 3, REQUEST FROM MIKE BELLO Packet Page 172-17 ATTACHMENT 5 Staff Presentation to the Landmark Preservation Commission, February 21, 2018 1 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 02.21.2018 2601 South College Avenue, Appeal— Landmark Designation Eligibility Background and History 2 • Construction Date: 1966 • Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair Review: • Proposed work is major • Property was determined individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard A, B, and C: • Events - Association with automobile industry • People/Groups - Association with Ghent family • Design/Construction - intact example of mid-century automobile dealership ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-18 Location and Context 3 2601 South College Avenue East Elevation, 2017 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-19 2601 S College 2601 S College ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-20 2601 S College 2601 S College ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-21 2601 S College 2601 S College ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-22 2601 S College 2601 S College ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-23 2601 S College 2601 S College ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-24 2601 S College Project Summary 16 • Full demolition ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-25 Relevant Codes and Processes Section 14-5, ““Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” provides framework for making the determination of eligibility. Eligibility is • Significance • Exterior Integrity *LPC must consider context as well 17 Relevant Codes and Processes Section 14-5, “Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” includes the following information regarding determinations of eligibility. “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered. (1) Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how properties are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential.” 18 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-26 Relevant Codes and Processes “(2) Standards for determining significance: a. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: • 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or • 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. b. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented.” 19 Relevant Codes and Processes “c. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. d. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” 20 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-27 Relevant Codes and Processes Significance (must meet one or more of the 4) • Events • Groups/People • Design/Construction • Information Potential 21 Relevant Codes and Processes “(3) Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. (4) Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property.” 22 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-28 Relevant Codes and Processes “c. 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 to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. 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. f. 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.” 23 Relevant Codes and Processes “g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a 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.” 24 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-29 Relevant Codes and Processes Exterior Integrity (All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident.) • Location •Design • Setting • Materials •Workmanship • Feeling • Association 25 Relevant Codes and Processes (5) Context. The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area...” 26 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-30 National Register Criteria for Evaluation The framework for processing applications is established in the National Park Service Bulletin 15, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Standard A/B: • Location • Setting • Materials •Design Standard C: • Materials •Design • Workmanship 27 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission • Based on the appeal process outlined in Section 14-6(b), the Commission must determine whether 2601 S College Avenue is individually eligible. • This is a new determination of eligibility based on provided evidence from the initial review and the new evidence in form of the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation. • The Commission should use the above criteria from Section 14-5 to make that determination. 28 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-31 Appeal of Decisions Sec. 14-9. - Appeal of decisions. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the City Council as set forth in §2-46et seq., unless otherwise provided. Any action taken in reliance upon any decision of the Commission that is subject to appeal under the provisions of this Chapter shall be at the sole risk of the person(s) taking such action, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. 29 30 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 02.21.2018 2601 South College Avenue, Appeal— Landmark Designation Eligibility ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT, UPDATED FOR HEARING Packet Page 172-32 ATTACHMENT 6 Applicant Architectural Examples Provided at the Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 2 APPLICANT ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES Packet Page 172-33 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 2 APPLICANT ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES Packet Page 172-34 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 2 APPLICANT ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES Packet Page 172-35 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 2 APPLICANT ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES Packet Page 172-36 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 2 APPLICANT ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES Packet Page 172-37 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 2 APPLICANT ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES Packet Page 172-38 ATTACHMENT 7 Verbatim Transcript of the Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing February 21, 2018 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held FEBRUARY 21, 2018 City Council Chambers 300 North Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: 2601 South College Determination of Eligibility Appeal Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, February 21, 2018 Commission Members Present: Alexandra Wallace, Acting Chair Michael Bello Katie Dorn Kristin Gensmer Staff Members Present: Karen McWilliams Cassandra Bumgarner Brad Yatabe Gretchen Schiager Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson **Secretary’s Note: Chair Meg Dunn and Vice Chair Per Hogestad recused themselves from the discussion of this item due to conflicts of interest. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 CHAIR ALEXANDRA WALLACE: Just as a note, both Meg and Per are still going to be recusing themselves from this portion of the agenda. So, this is the…for discussion item number 3; this is the item to consider the appeal of the Determination of Eligibility for Fort Collins Local Landmark Designation at 2601 South College Avenue, which was considered eligible for its association with the growth of the automobile industry and with the Ghent family, and for its distinctive, mid-century automobile dealership characteristics. Does staff have any new information received since the work session? MS. CASSANDRA BUMGARNER: Thank you Ms. Wallace. Yes, we did have some requests for additional information following the work session. The first one, what will happen with the W.A. Drake steps on the property? Staff has let the applicant know about this request and Bill Wells with Brinkman Partners has confirmed that the plan is to save or reuse the steps in any redevelopment…and they are prepared to discuss the steps at this meeting. We also had a question about the current context of the area, which I will review during my staff presentation. We received an email asking about the energy efficiency of 2601 South College building as it stands. Staff forwarded this request to the applicant but also notes that this question is not applicable to the Code requirements for determining the eligibility for designation of a property. Additionally, staff does not have this information readily available to address it. And then, finally, there was Bud Frick’s email with historic photos of automobile dealerships which was attached to the staff report. He sent this email on February 15th of 2018 to the Landmark Preservation Commission and staff regarding automobile dealerships from this era. Staff has forwarded this email to the applicant, included the email as an attachment, and pulled the photographs from each 3 1 MS. BUMGARNER: Yes. Alright, thank you Ms. Wallace, and good evening. My name is 2 Cassandra Bumgarner; I’m an Historic Preservation Planner and I’m presenting the staff report on 2601 3 South College Avenue…the appeal of the landmark designation eligibility. 4 On October 20th, 2017, Historic Preservation staff received an application for historic review for 5 three properties associated with a potential development proposal at the southwest corner of College 6 Avenue and Drake Road. As Ms. Wallace briefly stated, we did not review 2627 South College Avenue 7 or 132 West Thunderbird Road. Neither of those buildings were over 50 years of age, so the historic 8 review was not required for either of those properties. Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(C), Determination of 9 Landmark Eligibility, provides the process for identifying historic resources on and adjacent to 10 development sites, and requires that the decisions be made in accordance with the applicable provisions in 11 Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. 12 On October 26th, 2017, the Director of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services 13 and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the 2601 South College Avenue 14 property based on the provisions in Chapter 14 Section 72, and found that the proposed demolition of the 15 primary structures on the property constructed circa 1966 would constitute a major alteration because it 16 would negatively impact all seven aspects of exterior physical integrity. They also at that point 17 determined that the property was individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark based on significance 18 under standard A, B, and C. 19 On November 7th, 2017, Bill Wells, on behalf of the current owners, submitted a written appeal of 20 the decision that the property is individually eligible in accordance with the appeal procedure outlined in 21 Sections 14-6(B) and 14-72(E). The appellant has met all of the requirements outlined in the Code 22 regarding the appeal process, including submittal of a Colorado cultural resource survey architectural 23 inventory form, which was prepared by an independent consultant in historic preservation. 24 The 2601 South College Avenue site is on a commercial block at the southwest corner of two 25 arterials: Drake Road and College Avenue. On the southeast corner of the Drake and College intersection 26 is more commercial development with residential further east. On the northeast corner, there is some 27 commercial development with residential toward the north and the east. Some of the residential buildings 28 in this area have commercial occupants. On the northwest corner of the intersection is a commercial 29 block with an active development review application, PDP 160043, also known as King Soopers number 30 146, Midtown Gardens Marketplace. The application includes a proposed supermarket within the existing 31 Kmart building, and a new 7,200 square foot retail building that would replace an existing vacant building 32 on the northeast corner of the site. The project had a neighborhood meeting on November 2nd, 2016. The 33 round one staff review was held on January 18th of 2017…an additional review is ongoing. 34 So, the next few slides are current photographs of the property. There are three buildings on the 35 property, and this is showing you the showroom…and here are some more views of the showroom. Then, 36 on this slide and the following, you start to see more of the service repair garage and garage bays. And 37 then this is an additional building on the property which has been labeled as the outbuilding. And the 38 proposed work is for full demolition of those buildings. 39 So, Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code: Standards for Determining the Eligibility of Site 40 Structures, Objects, and Districts for Designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, 41 provides the framework for making the determination of eligibility. Eligibility is based on significance 42 and exterior integrity. The Landmark Preservation Commission must consider context as well. 4 1 The Code explains that significance is the importance of the site to the history, architecture, 2 archeology, engineering, or culture of our community, state, or nation. The property must meet at least 3 one of the four standards of recognized significance. I’ll now be reviewing the four standards of 4 significance; the first is events, and a property can be associated with either or both of two types of 5 events: one is a specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins pre-history or history, or two, 6 a pattern of events or an historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the 7 community, state, or nation. The second standard of significance is persons or groups. The property 8 could be determined significant if associated with the lives of people…persons or groups recognizable in 9 the history of the community whose specific contributions can be identified. The third standard of 10 significance is design or construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the 11 identifiable characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a craftsman 12 or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic, style, and quality, possess 13 high artistic values or design concepts, or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of 14 properties. Then the fourth standard of significance is information potential. Properties may be 15 determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in pre- 16 history or history. 17 So, just to review, there are four types of significance, and a property must meet the criteria for 18 one or more if it is eligible for designation. The four types, again, are events, groups and people, design 19 construction, or information potential. 20 So, in addition to significance, a property must retain exterior integrity. All seven qualities do not 21 need to be present for a site to be eligible, as long as the overall sense of pastime and place is evident. 22 The first two standards for determining exterior integrity are location…and that’s, is this the place where 23 the historic property was constructed, or a place where an historic event occurred, and design…does the 24 property still have the combination of events that create the form, plan space, structure, and style of the 25 property. Next, we have setting, which is the physical environment of the historic property. Whereas 26 location refers to a specific place where the property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the 27 character of the place…it involves, how, not just where, the property is situated, and its relationship to 28 surrounding features and open space. Then, we also have materials as an aspect of integrity. 29 Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts or a particular culture or people during any given 30 period in history. And feeling is the sixth aspect of integrity, which is a property’s expression of the 31 aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time; it results from the presence of physical features 32 that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. And then, finally, the last aspect of integrity 33 is association. Association is a direct link between an important historic event or person and an historic 34 property. A property retains association if its place where the event or activity occurred and is 35 sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the 36 presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. 37 And then, like I did with significance, this is a review of the seven aspects of integrity, which are 38 location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. All seven qualities do not 39 need to be present, but it must convey an overall sense of history and place. 40 The Code also requires the LPC to consider context. Context is the area required for evaluating a 41 resource’s…context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. For example, a house located 42 in the middle of a residential block would be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the 43 block, while a house located on the corner may require a different contextual area. 5 1 The framework for processing eligibility is established in the National Parks Service Bulletin 15, 2 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. For standards A, events, and B, people, the 3 aspects of integrity of location, setting, materials, and design are particularly important. For standard C, 4 design and construction, materials, design, and workmanship are particularly important. Based on the 5 appeal process outlined in the Code, the Commission must determine whether 2601 South College 6 Avenue is individually eligible. If the property is individually eligible, the Commission should identify 7 which buildings contribute to that eligibility or do not contribute. This is a new determination of 8 eligibility based on provided evidence from the initial review and the new evidence in the form of the 9 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by an independent expert in 10 historic preservation, and the Commission should use the above criteria from Section 14-5 to make that 11 determination. All final decisions of the Commission are subject to the right of the appeal to the City 12 Council. And this concludes my presentation; I’m happy to pull up any of these slides during your 13 discussion. Thank you. 14 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you, Cassie. Do any members of the LPC have any questions for 15 staff? Okay, seeing none, does the appellant have a presentation to the Commission? And I ask that you 16 state your name and sign in please. 17 MR. TODD PARKER: My name is Todd Parker; I’m with Brinkman, representing the 18 ownership. 19 Thank you, Commission, for hearing our appeal on this, for 2601…as I said, I represent the 20 ownership, the Spradley-Barr family, as well as Brinkman…we are a partner, general partner, in the 21 redevelopment, hopefully, of this parcel. In direct response, I wanted to address a few things that were 22 brought up in the presentation, or the additional materials to the presentation. The W.A. Drake carriage 23 steps…those steps actually are an integral part of this project. In fact, the history of the parcel is an 24 integral part of the project. We have branded this redevelopment as the Drake at Midtown, and that is a 25 direct correlation to the W.A. Drake farm that existed there prior to the automobile dealership. The 26 carriage steps themselves, actually, are going to be a part of the redevelopment. And, I don’t know 27 if…can staff bring up the proposed development? That slide…if that’s doable? Yes, that one right there 28 would be awesome. 29 So, this is…there’s been a progression on this design, but this is not dissimilar from what we’re 30 proposing. The redevelopment of this block is really taking cues from the Midtown Plan as well as the 31 City Plan to focus a catalyst project in the Midtown area. And, with those two plans, one of the focuses 32 of the redevelopment is to bifurcate large block areas. You’ll see a large…or, a long north-south drive, 33 and we’ve actually made that more of a winding drive, and it’s going to have about a 30 to 50 foot buffer 34 on either side of it for gathering areas, parks, green areas…and the carriage steps are going to be integral 35 into those areas. How that is to be integrated, I’m not a hundred percent sure yet; design hasn’t 36 progressed to that point. But we’re going to take the carriage stones…carriage steps, and make it part of 37 that arcade area. 38 I also wanted to address…I know it’s not part of the determination, but, Mr. Bello had a question 39 on the efficiency of those buildings. Talking with Bill Barr today, the inefficiency of that building is 40 reflected in a lot of what…the energy that is going out that main window…it just has a reflection. This 41 last month, Spradley-Barr paid $8,000 in gas and electrical bills for heating, as compared to their Ford 42 dealership on South College, they only paid about $2,000, $2,200 for that same gas and electrical bill for 43 about twice the size; the Ford dealership is about twice the size of this one, so it really is a financial 6 1 burden on…the current architecture is as well. I know it’s not a part of the determination, but to address 2 that question. 3 And then, the last part is in response to the photographs that Mr. Frick provided to staff and was 4 copied to us as well this last week. I was looking at…in reflection of the architecture being indicative of 5 something that can be defined as mid-century modern. The photographs that were provided are similar to 6 what is currently on the site; however, I would also present that if you look for those properties today, I 7 could only find one that is in existence as an existing…as it was existing…as it was previously built out. 8 So, that architecture…to say that that architecture style is unique for this time period, I think is arguably 9 erroneous, and I actually have provided…or, have…can provide the Commission those same 10 photographs. I did some research and did a print out of those, and I have it on a flash drive too, if that’s 11 admissible to the Commission. 12 And then, as staff also noted, there was a third party…as part of the appeal process…the third- 13 party investigation. And, with me, I have Kris Autobee, and she was going to address the Commission as 14 well, if that’s okay? 15 MS. KRISTEN AUTOBEE: My name is Kris Autobee…what else to I need to tell you as my 16 introduction? 17 CHAIR WALLACE: Just sign in please, thank you. If you could…if you could actually state for 18 the record who you are with. 19 MS. AUTOBEE: Okay, my name is Kristen Autobee and I’m with Autobee and Autobee, and I’m 20 really here to answer any questions you might have about our report, our findings. We don’t often end up 21 on the side that says ‘not historic,’ so it’s kind of a new place for us. 22 CHAIR WALLACE: Well, at this time, we’re just taking in to consideration if you have any 23 presentation or anything you would like to share with us and make known. 24 MS. AUTOBEE: Again, about the architecture, I guess I would encourage you to keep in mind 25 the car dealership, auto dealership, auto showroom, is not a recognized form of architecture under the 26 state of Colorado in the Colorado lexicon that we’re in. In the OAHP Field Guide to Architecture, this 27 falls under specialty…under specialty shop, or specialty commercial. So, it really needs to be part of a 28 broader look at architecture and not simply at auto dealerships in Fort Collins, because other types of 29 showrooms such as furniture, or hardware, or motorcycles, or other things are sold out of those same 30 styles of buildings, or types of buildings. So, there isn’t actually a style called ‘auto dealerships.’ So, 31 you’re really needing to consider that as part of this. 32 I also would like to encourage you to think in terms about the amount of change that has 33 happened to character-defining features of this structure. The façades that seem to be of the most interest 34 are on the east side and on the north side of the building of the main showroom. That really only 35 represents about 30% of the building. Another almost 30% has been changed, and what I would consider 36 to be character-defining elements, which are the rolling doors along the service bays. There’s been a 37 tremendous loss of glass…that building has a very different look from the original photographs, with very 38 light, airy, open…it has a very different feeling with the modern doors in it, and I would ask you to 39 consider that and those changes to that physical integrity, the historic integrity, as part of that. 40 Again, I’ll answer any questions about the report. 7 1 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you. Do any Commission members have any questions of the 2 appellant? 3 MR. MICHAEL BELLO: Yeah, Mr. Parker, can I ask you? So, what’s the ability to be able to 4 sever the garages from that showroom section? Is that possible? And keep the integrity of the 5 showroom? 6 MR. PARKER: The…not being a structural engineer, I can’t truly answer that Mr. Bello; 7 however, I will say that in one of our initial design concepts with the ownership group, we did look at 8 severing the auto body and…well, the auto body shop; there’s like 15 bays there or something like that. 9 We looked at severing that, taking that out, because it ran where that north-south drive was at, and leaving 10 the main building. But, we couldn’t make that work, and because of the way it was inefficient energy- 11 wise, the ownership decided they didn’t want to pursue that, so we didn’t look at it any further. 12 MR. BELLO: Thank you. 13 MR. PARKER: Yep. 14 CHAIR WALLACE: Kevin? 15 MR. KEVIN MURRAY: So, Ms. Autobee…is that right? 16 MS. AUTOBEE: Autobee. 17 MR. MURRY: Autobee. Are the three things that, if I read your survey correctly, the three things 18 that you guys felt were detrimental were the front overhang, the roofing type, and then the garage doors. 19 Is that correct? 20 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes. 21 MR. MURRAY: Okay. 22 MS. AUTOBEE: We felt those were the character-defining elements of this building. That, 23 without those pieces, you have a significantly different look and feeling to that structure. 24 MR. MURRAY: Thanks. 25 CHAIR WALLACE: Any other questions? 26 MR. BRAD YATABE: Madam Chair, Mr. Parker did offer some photos, I believe, in association 27 with Mr. Frick’s…the photos that he had provided. I didn’t know if the LPC was interested in viewing 28 those, or wanted to do anything with that information. 29 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes, I think we would be interested in seeing those. 30 MR. PARKER: I can do one of two things; I have them on a flash drive, or I printed them out. 31 What would you prefer? 32 CHAIR WALLACE: Probably if we can do flash drive…you can access those. 33 MR. PARKER: So…these are a demonstration of a before and after for…I think there’s…I didn’t 34 count, but maybe a dozen, short of a dozen, examples that were provided in the email chain. And, what 35 I’ve done is taken the examples where I could see a name and determine a location, and then…like I said, 36 did a before and after. And you can see in each one of these, the…okay, thank you. So, you can see the 8 1 before here being…zoom in, even, probably not. You can kind of see the similar sort of architecture 2 that’s referenced…the low-slope roof, the big panes of glass off of pretty much the whole gabled end of 3 the building. And then you can see what it is today…this is an example in Clean, if I mispronounce it I 4 apologize…Texas. Second…I’ll go through these somewhat fast. The second one is Herb-Gould Ford 5 dealership, and see how its changed over the years; that’s in California. The one in New York, not a 6 dissimilar look; it’s actually turned into an ice cream shop. This one is the Gillboy Mercury, if I’m 7 reading it right, and that’s in Pennsylvania, and it’s now the modern version of the Ford. This one’s an 8 interesting one; it’s actually in a suburb of Detroit, Royal Oak. You can see the Royal Oak Pontiac 9 dealership up top. The middle photograph is what it was on Google, so they’ve scraped it and they are 10 doing something with it. And then right across the street, the interesting part is, you can see the old…I 11 don’t know if they’re designated, but historic buildings across the street. So…the end points of that 12 architecture as well. 13 And this is the one building that I could find an example where they maintained the old building. 14 You can see the low, sloped roof. Up here, you can even see the pre-engineered metal building in the 15 background. Same thing…a little hard because it’s off the street a ways. You can see the same low 16 slope, and then the metal building in the background; and you can even see this telephone pole is still in 17 the back here…and all the wires that make it look all pretty. But this is the only one that I could even find 18 that was the same building, and that’s in Ohio. 19 And, like I noted there, a few of these are back east, which, you know, arguably, has a very strong 20 passion or sense of what is and is not historic. And then to have one of the dealerships in Detroit, 21 Michigan, and they scraped that one as well…I think might say something to that same argument. Does 22 that provide context? 23 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you. 24 MR. PARKER: You bet. 25 CHAIR WALLACE: Any other questions that the commission has? 26 MR. BELLO: Yeah, so I guess I’m trying to understand…Mr. Parker, what your argument is 27 here? That the fact that these have been scraped…isn’t that kind of supporting the fact that this is the last 28 of the type of architecture that we should then preserve? 29 MR. PARKER: Sure…I’m not an historian, but speaking with Kris, and maybe she can get to it 30 better, but the mid-century modern period really predates even the construction of this building, which 31 was 1966, and you can find different documentation, but it actually goes up until like the mid-1960’s. 32 Not to say that it can’t still be built to that style, but to say that it’s unique to that period is not the case. 33 So, the argument is, is that other jurisdictions did not see anything unique in that architectural style. 34 MR. BELLO: Gotcha. Okay, thanks. 35 MS. AUTOBEE: I would add to that in saying that Fort Collins…again, if we look at this…can 36 you put up a picture of the current building? Thank you. Again, if we’re looking at this as being a non- 37 style, a non-form, a non-ground print, and that leaves us with construction type and construction 38 materials. Fort Collins retains several structures that are of this same construction method and 39 construction materials. For example, the Safeway that is on College…is that still standing? It was last 40 time…the marina style with the nice curved roof? Again, that’s large, metal frame, plate windows with 41 the stone façade. Front Range Power Sports, a smaller example, but again, it would appear to be concrete 42 block with the stone façade and the large windows. So, this is not as unique as it might sound. It might 9 1 be the only one that’s currently in use as an auto dealership, but these elements are in other buildings in 2 Fort Collins. So, again, it’s not the only one, so to speak, because it isn’t of an official style. So, in 3 looking at it in terms of construction method and construction materials, Fort Collins has other examples 4 of this. 5 MS. KATIE DORN: I have a question for Mrs. Autobee. In your research, I’m just curios, those 6 two earlier locations for the auto dealerships…are those still existing? 7 MS. AUTOBEE: I didn’t go so far as to look to see if the building was still there or if it had 8 been…if there was some re-façading or any other changes. I did not look at that. I think that it’s 9 incorrect to call this an early auto dealership. Fort Collins has auto dealerships as early as 1909; that 10 would be the auto dealership to preserve, and to really say, this is what kicks it off. By the time this 11 building is built, a lot of the city planning is in place for the automobile. This is 50 years after the advent 12 of the car in Fort Collins. So, I don’t feel that it’s a really strong argument to say that this somehow 13 continues to influence that. We’re kind of stuck with the car. This might be the middle period of car 14 ownership if the young trendies have their way and we have a lot more public transportation, maybe the 15 car goes away. Maybe that increases the importance of this, but that’s in the future. So, no, we didn’t 16 look into those other structures. I would also argue that Frank Ghent, in terms of his importance, also 17 predates this building, and for exactly that reason: he has two other locations prior to this. 18 MS. DORN: Did you look at the entire Ghent family, including his son that he started the 19 dealership with, or just Frank? 20 MS. AUTOBEE: We just looked at Frank, and the reason for that is, I believe that his son’s home 21 is already recognized. Is that correct? Am I right about that? That one of the sons’ homes is recognized? 22 MS. KAREN MCWILLIAMS: I’m sorry; I couldn’t answer that question; I’m not aware that 23 we’ve recognized a home for the son, so…I don’t know. 24 MS. AUTOBEE: Okay. So, no, we looked specifically at Frank Ghent, and one of the reasons we 25 looked really, specifically at him, is that his importance to the city of Fort Collins seems to predate even 26 his…it comes from other things other than selling cars. He’s a naval vet from the first World War, he 27 tries to homestead after that, comes back to town, starts another dealership, by that time, the second 28 World War is getting underway, he’s a member of the Civil Defense, he goes on to be a Highway 29 Commissioner for a brief period of time. So, it doesn’t…I don’t know that this building represents Frank 30 Ghent in such a way that you can’t separate the two and still tell a good story. 31 I look at historic preservation this way: these are the buildings that we feel so strongly about that 32 we take them with us into the future, because the future can’t understand our current story without them. 33 And so that’s part of how we looked at the story of Frank Ghent, the story of the construction 34 methods…is, did that weigh so heavily. And that’s perhaps a little bit beyond what the City of Fort 35 Collins standards are, but in theory, that’s historic preservation. 36 MR. MURRAY: Ms. Autobee, I heard you say earlier, and I want to just make sure…confirm this 37 for me. You said that it’s probably not as significant as an earlier, like 1909 auto, but you said it would 38 probably be significant as a mid-automobile era? 39 MS. AUTOBEE: If the automobile goes away in 50 years, yes. But that’s a hard thing to base a 40 judgement on today, does this tell the story of auto dealerships to the extent that we have to have this one 41 or the set is incomplete, the story is incomplete. 10 1 MR. MURRAY: And then one other question, on the lexicon that you brought up. 2 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes. 3 MR. MURRAY: Wouldn’t you think the style would be mid-century modern with the type of 4 commercial? 5 MS. AUTOBEE: No. 6 MR. MURRAY: No? Why is that? 7 MS. AUTOBEE: There’s…that phrase is not actually in the lexicon. And right now, the state 8 historic fund, the lexicon there, kind of catching up with mid-century modern because it’s suddenly 9 becoming important. So, really looking at it from what is in the lexicon to date, and what is in the field 10 guides at this point in time, it becomes a commercial building, it becomes a specialty store in terms of its 11 use. But, we really can’t call it mid-century I don’t think. It’s built in the mid-century, but that’s a time 12 period, not a style. 13 CHAIR WALLACE: I’m curious, did you happen o consider the context of College as a main 14 thoroughfare connecting…as part of 287, potentially connecting to the Lincoln corridor…did you 15 consider that as a context. 16 MS. AUTOBEE: That’s an interesting thing to consider on this, and perhaps that’s why the stone 17 is only on the north and the east side when that structure is built. I don’t believe that there’s a lot of 18 development to what is the southeast of that. And in fact, the other two buildings on this parcel are not 19 being considered because they weren’t built yet. So, that’s open space. In some ways, that building has 20 lost its context for how you would view it coming from Fort Collins. When the structure is built, its only 21 as the permits are being pulled that the City of Fort Collins annexes that property. So, again, that was 22 outside of town at the point at which the Ghent family is pulling permits. And, contextually then, that 23 must mean that there’s not a lot beyond that. But, of course that’s outside the scope of our work. 24 MS. MOLLIE SIMPSON: I’m sorry, you just said that the…can you repeat what you said about 25 not being able to understand the building because everything was developed around it. I’m…what did 26 you say about that again? 27 MS. AUTOBEE: I think our understanding of the building historically…in 1967, if you went to 28 build…or to buy a car here, you’re probably approaching it from the northeast. That’s why those walls, 29 those façades, are the most decorative. 30 MS. SIMPSON: And did you take the building orientation on the site into consideration with 31 that? 32 MS. AUTOBEE: That absolutely takes it into consideration. Again, people aren’t necessarily 33 coming…he’s not advertising…the point of commercial architecture is to advertise your business. And 34 so, he’s advertising his business and how clean and how sleek his architecture is, that it is modern at that 35 moment in time. He’s trying to give his customers a feeling of security. They’re coming to this nice, 36 new, modern place. I don’t know that that’s how we read that building today, but in 1967 we would have. 37 And, we would have been coming, then, probably, from the north and the east. And, again, that’s why 38 those two façades have the stone work on them; that’s why those façades, and why the building is slightly 39 turned in that direction. 11 1 MS. SIMPSON: If you’re standing on the north and east corner, how is that changed? I’m just 2 not understanding that. 3 MS. AUTOBEE: I wouldn’t say that…the orientation of the building has not changed, that’s true. 4 But, I’m not sure that we read that building with the same eye toward the decorative as what we would 5 have in 1967. 6 MS. SIMPSON: Wouldn’t you say the decorative part is what’s inside the windows, though, and 7 that’s why he has the larger windows in order to sell what’s inside? 8 MS. AUTOBEE: When I say decorative, I’m referring to the stone work that’s been applied to the 9 exterior. That’s the decorative feature of that building. 10 MS. SIMPSON: Okay, I see. 11 MS. AUTOBEE: But, again, that only covers about 30% of the structure. 12 MS. SIMPSON: Which is still visible from the northeast corner? 13 MS. AUTOBEE: It’s still visible, yes. 14 MS. SIMPSON: So, it hasn’t changed? 15 MS. AUTOBEE: No, but what is beyond that building has. There are new…there are other 16 buildings now within the sight line, so that has changed…that context of the neighborhood has changed. 17 And those are not being considered on this review because they are less than 50 years old. 18 CHAIR WALLACE: And, I reviewed your report, but I just wanted to clarify that the front 19 addition was circa ’72 to ’78, is that correct? When that was extended? 20 MS. AUTOBEE: Yeah. 21 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Yes, Kevin? 22 MR. MURRAY: Actually…I actually have to have you change to a different page and all that, 23 but the Coloradoan picture shows that it was installed about a month after it was built in 1966, October 24 1st. 25 MS. AUTOBEE: Do you know…may I ask you a question? 26 MR. MURRAY: Sure. 27 MS. AUTOBEE: Do you have an idea of why that was added on? 28 MR. MURRAY: I have no…no…I’m old, but I’m not that…well, I’m that old I guess. But, just 29 in the picture, it’s…let me see…I was going to save that for discussion, but…page 135 shows the 30 Coloradoan photos. And…of October 1st, 1966, and it’s installed in those pictures. 31 MS. DORN: And, Cassie, what is the date on those…’66? 32 MS. BUMGARNER: So the date is October 1st of 1966. 33 MS. AUTOBEE: I think it’s interesting that they would need to make a modification so quickly. 34 MR. MURRAY: Maybe it was a hot summer, I don’t know. But, I think the page before is 35 September, and it shows it without it. 12 1 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes. 2 MR. MURRAY: So, it was added… 3 MS. AUTOBEE: I read that as being there was some…forgive me for using the word, but some 4 failure in the use of that building, if it is the sun. And then of course those windows are going to create a 5 tremendous amount of heat on the inside, that they have to make an immediate modification. 6 CHAIR WALLACE: True, but that is something to consider, that the alterations would also be 7 historic at this point, and not dating to the 1970’s. 8 MS. AUTOBEE: Accepted. 9 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? 10 MS. DORN: Sure…do you know of any other existing buildings that are associated with Frank 11 Ghent in Fort Collins? 12 MS. AUTOBEE: I did not look specifically for that. 13 MS. DORN: Okay, thank you. 14 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 15 MS. SIMPSON: You state in your report that Frank Ghent…the majority of the work that he did 16 for the town of Fort Collins was predated…this building. Do you have years on any of that stuff by 17 chance? 18 MS. AUTOBEE: The area of the report where we talk about that history is on… 19 MS. SIMPSON: I apologize; I did not see that, so if I missed that, I’m sorry. 20 MS. AUTOBEE: On page four of the report is where we talk about his World War I service. His 21 first car dealership is opened in 1940, so he’s been in business 26 years when he builds this structure. So, 22 this is…again, it’s not his first, it’s not the first car dealership, it’s not the beginning of something, it’s 23 very much in the moment I would say. That’s not a good historic way to explain what I’m thinking; I 24 apologize for that. 25 MS. GENSMER: To follow-up on that question, going to page four on the report when you 26 discuss when…or that he was a Colorado Highway Commissioner. When was that? Was that during 27 World War II while he was also part of the Civil Defense Organization? 28 MS. AUTOBEE: I believe that is the case. 29 MS. GENSMER: Thank you. 30 MS. SIMPSON: One of the other documents we have also states that he served on the Water 31 Board of Fort Collins; do you know when that was? 32 MS. AUTOBEE: I do not know when that was. 33 MS. SIMPSON: Okay. He was part of the Northern Colorado Rod and Gun Club…any idea on 34 that? I don’t know that that’s important, but…? 13 1 MS. AUTOBEE: Again, do those things…is that story told through this building? Is his 2 ownership of a car dealership, his building of this…is his story so well told through this building that 3 that’s important here? 4 MS. DORN: But I guess the question is also, are there other buildings associated with him that 5 still exist? 6 MS. AUTOBEE: Again, I don’t know the answer to that because the question was, is this 7 building indicative of this man’s life? Is saving this building the best way to preserve his memory, the 8 best way to honor his legacy as a dedicated community participant and…I mean he was very much a 9 member of the community fabric; that’s obvious. What isn’t obvious, is that community life in 10 relationship to a business he owns? 11 MS. SIMPSON: It looks like another document we received from 1980 shows that the Ghent 12 dealership was awarded quite a significant award, which was a business that Frank Ghent and his son 13 started. Did you take this award into consideration? 14 MS. AUTOBEE: Yes…and I’m not sure if this is the award that’s awarded to him by other car 15 dealerships? 16 MS. SIMPSON: It looks like Times [sic] magazine. 17 MS. AUTOBEE: I don’t know that Time magazine awarded him anything; they might be 18 reporting on that. And I don’t have that document in front of me. So, that I can’t speak to. There is no 19 question that this is a going concern…that Frank Ghent builds a successful business. But, is that what is 20 memorable about Frank Ghent? 21 CHAIR WALLACE: Mollie, is this the article that you were thinking about with the other article? 22 Okay…so the first line on that one? That Dwight Ghent, president of Ghent Motor Company of Fort 23 Collins will soon be featured in Time magazine. And then also that Ghent recently was one of the 70 car 24 dealers in the nation named a Time magazine quality dealer award winner for 1980. Okay. 25 MR. MURRAY: The problem might be with that is that Dwight wasn’t researched, Frank was. 26 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree. 27 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, are there any other questions that we would like to ask Kris? Okay. 28 Thank you. 29 MS. SIMPSON: I have one question for the other gentleman. The images that you shared of the 30 buildings that were scraped that looked similar…or altered, scraped or altered. Do you have years when 31 those were scraped or altered? 32 MR. PARKER: No, it was just research I did in about a 24-hour period, so I didn’t have time to 33 figure that out. 34 MS. SIMPSON: Okay, so it might have been before the 50-year period where they might have 35 been more significant? 36 MR. PARKER: Potentially; I think there are some that are indicative of being after…or well 37 within that 50-year period, like the new Ford dealerships. But some of them very well could be, yes. 38 MS. SIMPSON: Okay. 14 1 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, thank you. Does staff have anything they would like to add in light 2 of the appellant’s presentation? 3 MS. BUMGARNER: Yeah, I just wanted to address Ms. Dorn’s question about the two other 4 locations. Staff had looked those two up…neither one exists anymore. One, the Mountain Avenue 5 address is now the Mitchell Block, the site of the Fort Collins Food Co-op. And then, the College 6 Avenue address is now what is Beau Jo’s and City Drug. 7 CHAIR WALLACE: Thank you Cassie. Okay, does the Commission have any questions of staff 8 or any other questions for the appellant before we move into…away from public comment…or move into 9 public comment…apologies. Okay, seeing none, are there any members of the public that wish to 10 provide comments on the appeal to the Commission? Okay, seeing none…do any of the Commission 11 members have any additional questions before we close the public comment and move on to our 12 discussion? No… 13 MR. MURRAY: Do we have a discussion session on this too? 14 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. Okay, then we will close taking of evidence and move into a 15 discussion amongst ourselves in front. 16 MR. MURRAY: Sorry, did you say discussion? 17 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes, yes I did. 18 MR. MURRAY: I’m new at this, guys, so bear with me. I hear the…you know, it might not be 19 Frank Ghent’s best memory, but I wonder if this isn’t, probably, you know, the best example we have of 20 a…I know, if it’s not the lexicon…but, commercial building of this style for the age, especially talking 21 about context right now with the parking lot around it. Not sure it’s the best use, but it has…you know 22 what it is, and you recognize it as something that you would have seen growing up or whatever. 23 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree with that; I also feel strongly that this might not be a great 24 example considering that it’s not from the era of when the automobile started in this area, but it 25 definitely…it’s definitely a great example of an auto-centric time period of when Fort Collins was formed 26 and how it was formed. Drake Road and the way the building is oriented with the front angled towards 27 the road so when you’re driving down, you can actually see into the building. I think it’s very…it’s a 28 good example of that, a great example of an era of when the automobile was more important. Something 29 to consider. 30 CHAIR WALLACE: That was something that I was also considering, especially when I was 31 considering it…the span of it…that the Lincoln corridor, which I know that you had done some work on 32 so you might be able to speak to that more than I, but…how that extends throughout town and particularly 33 at that intersection, it seems to be a crossing point within the community, and that’s a long stretch of road 34 for College to go, and I know that there have been quite a few car dealerships…and most of them have 35 been more recent, but that particular property has been here, perhaps one of the longer times, to my 36 knowledge. 37 MR. BELLO: I hear what you’re saying…I think the front building is probably the significant 38 portion of this in terms of the architecture, and the history. I think the garages are certainly something 39 that’s been changed over time; you can tell from the photos. It’s not consistent with the…and I’m not 40 sure if we would apply this, but not consistent with the Land Use Code in terms of being able to have 15 1 garages like that. But, it seems to me the entire structure is not something that would be identifiable in 2 that regard. From the history, it’s mostly just that front structure. 3 MR. MURRAY: Just kind of a point of information, I am this old. I do believe that roof, going 4 by it every day going to Greeley to work for a while, was a hot tar and gravel roof, and it was kind of light 5 brown in color…the gravel was like a pea gravel. They probably got tired of it raining down on the new 6 cars, or something like that. But, anyway, I’m not sure…I mean, keeping the style of the building and the 7 way it faces and all that, to me, is…says that the change of roof doesn’t really change it. And garage 8 doors could always be changed back. I’m not sure if…maybe it’s not our position to think about how 9 anything could be developed well, it’s just more whether or not it’s…it’s individually eligible. But, 10 yeah… 11 CHAIR WALLACE: I agree with that; the roof shape is still there; the structure is still there even 12 though the material has changed. And, in terms of the garage doors, the voids are still there…so, the 13 garage doors could easily be changed back with new glazing. I don’t see that as a concern, considering 14 the voids are still there. When I was considering this property, I was really trying to figure out what I 15 would consider some of the character defining features, as Ms. Autobee had mentioned. And, they were 16 definitely the stone, which are still intact…it’s that front A-line…or not A-line, but that higher pitched 17 gable, and that’s still intact. One of the things that I was getting stuck up on was that canopy, and then 18 finding out that that actually is an historic addition. Because the other additions, like Mollie mentioned, 19 the doors and windows can be changed. The additions to the west side, I don’t see as being incredibly 20 significant. But the only other one that I’m thinking of is that roof. But, most of the character-defining 21 features, especially the windows, and the canopy, and the shape, I think, are all still intact. And so, I 22 think that it fulfills the…most of the integrity that I’m considering according to Code. 23 MR. MURRAY: It just hit me; I hadn’t thought about this before, but, if we’re going on the 50- 24 year theory, the used car office and carwash in the back…it’s kind of a cool building, but I’m not sure 25 when that was put in. I read in some of the information that it came later…I’m not sure if that was in the 26 ‘70’s or something like that. I mean, it helps a lot in context with the other stuff. But, it might not 27 be…it’s not as old, I don’t think, as the showroom. 28 MS. DORN: I definitely agree that the design aspect of integrity remains intact, and I do agree 29 that perhaps the material aspect of integrity has been lost with this building. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 MS. SIMPSON: That might be true, but I would also say that both location and setting are pretty intact. CHAIR WALLACE: So, in looking at Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code, the standards for determining eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts, number four, the standards for determining exterior integrity, location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association…I think it might be helpful to go through them and see which ones the Commission thinks are still intact. MR. MURRAY: Well, starting off with the top one on exterior integrity…the location. I think the buildings stand in the same spot they are and the way they did originally with the parking lot all around it…asphalt around. And, I did just answer my own question though too…the used car building was put in 1967. So, my mind, the location fits, and also, the design of the building and it being turned toward the existing city and all that still exists. The setting obviously changes but it also goes back to when the city wanted to have parking lots out front and the buildings back from the area, like the Kmart 43 place, and I believe Key Bank is the same, but not in context. The Walgreens is it? On the corner? That 16 1 has more the new design where you have it out by the sidewalk. The feeling…you feel like you’re going 2 to the car…you know, the car dealership. So, and I feel the association, which I know is a smaller area of 3 integrity, but it’s associated with expanding the city to when the car people moved out of the heart of 4 town with the idea that things were expanding in the city and moving out, and is also associated with the 5 expansion of auto as automobile is the main center of transportation. 6 MS. SIMPSON: Can you pull up the definition of setting, please? Thank you. 7 MS. GENSMER: In this case, with the definition directly in front, I would say that setting is 8 preserved, specifically the part that says it involves how, not just where. And by that, I mean how it 9 relates to College Avenue in that location, how it interfaces with the road…it is a car dealership; it’s 10 directly tied to the transportation corridor in that way. 11 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree with that. Both Drake and College are still intact. 12 MS. GENSMER: Yes. 13 CHAIR WALLACE: Any thoughts on workmanship? If that remains intact? 14 MR. BELLO: Well, I guess, you know, for this type of building, I would say it’s probably there, 15 but I don’t think the workmanship is anything like, you know, real craftsmanship; it’s a fairly simplistic 16 architecture from that standpoint. But, for this genre, for this type of building, it’s consistent with what 17 was built at the time I guess. 18 CHAIR WALLACE: And what about materials? 19 MR. MURRAY: Well, I think materials, you know, it really talks to when everybody…the big 20 glass and lots of lights to give you an idea of looking in and seeing your shiny new car. I think that was a 21 new development…the idea that you could use big glass and it didn’t fall over…or you could still have 22 the structure with a less showing structure, because the glass could go all the way to the corner. So, I 23 think it’s a good example of that. And the materials are all there. I’m not sure if the stone…it’s moss 24 rock, which was big in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s in Fort Collins in commercial buildings…I’m not sure if that’s 25 a pre-stress panel, or if that’s put on concrete block…applied…and it could be either one. 26 MS. GENSMER: To me, the use of the large windows in that way gets more at design. With 27 materials…I mean, it is part…the glass material is obviously part of it, but with materials, I’m 28 considering more how much of the actual historic fabric is intact. We know that the roof itself, while it 29 has that form, that design, we know the materials were replaced in that regard. 30 CHAIR WALLACE: Plus, I think it was 27 out of the 34 windows or doors had been removed or 31 replaced, so that’s a significant number. 32 MS. GENSMER: Yeah, I would agree with that. So, I’m not sure about the integrity of the 33 materials, though I do think other aspects, such as design, are there. 34 MR. MURRAY: So, what windows were replaced…27 out of 34? 35 CHAIR WALLACE: Of the paneling for the doors, the sliding doors are no longer original. 36 MS. GENSMER: Yeah, and when they were replaced, they had less glass than the others. 37 MR. BELLO: These are the garage doors? 38 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. 17 1 MS. GENSMER: Yes. 2 CHAIR WALLACE: Any other Commission thoughts on materials? So, on that discussion, it 3 seems that we lean towards six out of the seven are intact, for the qualities for integrity, so that’s 4 definitely a preponderance I would say, so that’s something that we can consider. If we also consider 5 previously within the Code, the standards for determining significance, usually associated with events for 6 standard A, for standard B, persons or groups, and design or construction for standard C, and D, which I 7 don’t think pertains to this information potential. As a Commission, do we have any thoughts on whether 8 or not it meets one or more of these levels of significance? 9 MS. DORN: I’m not convinced that it meets the design construction standard because of, like, 10 what Mrs. Autobee mentioned, that unfortunately this type of building is not included in the state lexicon. 11 MR. MURRAY: I know the state lexicon is not always what the City uses, but I’m thinking that 12 they, by not being in the lexicon…and I think Ms. Autobee said, also, the state is still trying to catch up 13 on their lexicons too. I think as far as the design and construction goes, even though it may not have a 14 name, it’s obvious to everybody what era it comes from, and that most of the main parts are there in my 15 mind. I don’t know if events…events is kind of such an open word. But, in my mind, it’s significant in a 16 pattern of events of, you know, the automobile industry moving out to the sticks, and opening wide up to 17 get more space and all that. But is this supposed to be more of a specific event, like somebody was hung 18 from the front of the building or something like that. 19 CHAIR WALLACE: Well, according to the standards for events, the second option under events 20 is a pattern of events or an historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the 21 community, state, or nation. Do you think that it fulfills that? 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 MR. MURRAY: I think it was trendy when it was built, so maybe number two, not number one though. MR. BELLO: Yeah, I’m struggling with it being a recognizable contribution to the development of the community. I don’t see Fort Collins being a community of auto dealerships or of this type of building, so I’m not sure it’s recognizable. I mean, if you talk about this kind of context, I would think of downtown…the buildings downtown that are significant in terms of what Fort Collins is all about, and how that’s contributed to the development of the community. But, I don’t see this one building as doing that. MS. SIMPSON: I see the event or historic trend being the car-centric development of our city and how it was designed for cars, and this building reinforces that, being a car dealership. CHAIR WALLACE: Well, I’m wondering, too, if that area to the south was more open, if that would help to encourage the southward movement that the community has seen since the 1970’s. I know the mall opening up and a lot of that movement…moving away from the downtown area. I think an argument may be able to be made that those businesses helped encourage that southward movement as well. MR. BELLO: You’re saying this building helped develop it? Because it’s turned its back to the south, basically, right? CHAIR WALLACE: Possibly, but I guess I’m thinking, if the area to the south had been more 40 open, and then businesses starting to trickle down further south away from the downtown area, then that 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 could be part of that trend of southward movement for businesses and movement of citizens. I don’t know; I’m just trying to base it on the spot, thinking of the 1960’s and ‘70’s and ‘80’s in Fort Collins. MS. SIMPSON: And in the report, it talks about the Ghent annexation happening at the same time as the Ghent dealership was being built. The lights…I believe it said that the lights were also put in at that corner at that time. MR. MURRAY: The City actually…it says in the stuff that they…accepted the plans that the County had to allow it into the city to build curb and lights. And I think at the same time, that’s when all of the collegiate stuff was being built, late ‘60’s, early ‘70’s…all the ranches to the east and behind Key Bank, kind of back in there. CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, so it sounds like we may think it’s possible for it to be associated with…for significance under events? Seems like we might be a little split…does Katie or Kristi have any thoughts on whether or not it fits within that significance? MS. DORN: I think it could fit under a pattern of events with the southward expansion of the auto 14 dealership corridor in Fort Collins. 15 MS. GENSMER: I would agree with that. 16 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. What about it’s association with Ghent? 17 MR. MURRAY: I think especially if you put Dwight into the picture, that helps a little bit. The 18 Ghent family was big in town. I think it might be the…I don’t know how long the memory is in Fort 19 Collins. You know, everybody knows Whedbee, they know Avery, and those folks, and I’m not sure 20 Ghent is going to last as long. But, I think they’re probably the most significant person attached to it. I 21 don’t know if that’s as really a firm a thing in my mind. 22 MS. SIMPSON: I also…I can’t seem to find it, but somewhere I was reading that this, although 23 Frank had two previous dealerships, this was the one that he started with his son, making it more 24 important to the family as a whole as well. 25 MS. DORN: I think the association is a very important aspect, or standard, for significance for 26 this building. And I would like to see more research on the son himself, and his interaction with this 27 father in the auto dealership business here in the site. And I’d also like to learn a little bit more about the 28 different locations that might be associated with Frank Ghent, to see if they still exist and if they would 29 have a better association than this building. 30 MR. MURRAY: Well, the…yeah, I remodeled Beau Jo’s, and that is…was Ghent Bugas…Ford 31 dealership. And I think he bought it from Bugas, so Bugas started it originally, and then he took it and 32 moved it from there. But that is, I mean if you look at it, it would include Scrumpy’s and City Drug and 33 all that…it’s all one big room. That was the original Ford showroom in town. 34 CHAIR WALLACE: I can’t help feeling that even if these other two properties…because we 35 know that the building that…the other ones that were on the Mitchell Block and then the one where Beau 36 Jo’s and City Drug are now, if we’re going to say any of the properties that we’re aware of might be 37 associated with him, I would think it would be this property, because I would think that within the 38 community, if you say Ghent, then it’s usually associated with the auto dealership, not necessarily, here’s 39 Scrumpy’s, this used to be this, it no longer is, and it was associated with somebody who was associated 40 with the automotive industry and these other elements. So, I don’t know if it would change my opinion if 19 1 there was another property, because I think that what we know, this property may best signify that 2 association. 3 MR. MURRAY: I’m a little weirded out about thinking of the Ghent family as history. Is Dwight 4 still alive? It might be that we’re talking to him like he was history and he might be just sitting watching 5 this on TV. So, if you’re out there, Dwight, we love you. 6 MR. BELLO: You know, I’m new to this so I’m trying to understand exactly how the criteria 7 works, but I mean, Mr. Ghent, either one of them, their contribution to the community was opening up a 8 car dealership and doing some civic work and that kind of thing, but I don’t see that as being a significant 9 historian to the community. You know, I mean, it’s not like some of the great names in our country and 10 in our community that have done great things for the nation, or for the state, or for the community itself I 11 mean. So, I’m not sure how you tie this to the history of the community, and whether or not it’s 12 something that is…he’s notable for that reason. I mean, I think there’s other things that we’re picking up 13 on this for this building…I’m not sure this is one of the strongest ones for determining the eligibility of 14 this. 15 MS. GENSMER: I would tend to agree with what Mike said; I do see, of course, that it was 16 owned by…well, or operated by both Ghent’s in that regard, and that they were prominent businessmen 17 who were specifically tied to auto dealerships. But, at least based on the architectural inventory form 18 prepared by the independent contractor, it does seem to me that many…aside from being a businessman 19 and running that business, at least for Frank, many of his community involvements, for example, being in 20 the Civil Defense League, et cetera, were prior to this building. However, I also can’t really speak to 21 Dwight because I don’t have a lot of context for him. 22 CHAIR WALLACE: I, myself, am a little bit torn on the association with Ghent, because my 23 family has been in Fort Collins, so when they say Ghent, we all know what they’re talking about. But, if I 24 take my own family story out of it, I don’t know that I would see that being a strong association. It’s 25 definitely not as strong as I would say there is a connection to the automotive industry. So, would it be a 26 fair assessment…seems like we might still be a little split. Is there a consensus that we might have on its 27 association with Ghent? 28 MR. BELLO: Well, I think the association with Ghent is whether or not Ghent is a person of 29 historic significance, right? 30 CHAIR WALLACE: Right. 31 MR. BELLO: So, I would say, I would agree that he’s tied to this building, and he’s tied to that 32 industry, but is he… 33 CHAIR WALLACE: Is it significant? 34 MR. BELLO: Significant? 35 CHAIR WALLACE: Right, and you would say no? 36 MR. BELLO: No, right. 37 CHAIR WALLACE: Mollie, do you have any…which way you would lean? 38 MS. SIMPSON: I, like you, know the family name. I would love to know more research on the 39 family as whole before I comment on that. Mostly, Frank and Dwight. 20 1 out Frank and Dwight before being able to 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MS. DORN: I agree that I’d like more information ab solidly comment on the association with the Ghents. CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, and Kristi and Kevin? MS. GENSMER: Well, based on what’s before us today and the information that we have as far as associations with persons, I’d have to say no. Some of that is for a lack of the data, specifically with Dwight. However, that doesn’t preclude what I’d already said about thinking that…about the associations with events. So, I guess I’m saying not for persons. MR. MURRAY: I’ve been in town since ’71 I think, and when I first came to town, everybody knew who the Ghent family was, and I’m sure, I’m sorry, I don’t know if it’s G-E-N-T, or G-H-E-N-T, and so I’m going back and forth. But, I feel that, in the context of the associations and all that with automobile industry, and the growth of the automobile in Fort Collins, I see him as the only car dealer that really stands out…maybe Markley. But, like I say, yeah, it’s kind of…to me, it’s, I’d have to say yes, but is it a strong feeling to me…it’s not. If other things were no, I wouldn’t think of it as that strong. I’m sorry…I’m a mediocre…I can’t come up with a real strong yes or no, kind of in between. CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. So, it seems like, more or less, we’re leaning towards not based on the information that we have at hand on Frank and Dwight…again, to this time. Is that a correct assessment? Okay. Alright, then, we talked briefly about the design and construction and its significance. Do we have a consensus on whether or not the building retains that? MS. SIMPSON: I’d like to hear more about what the Commission has to say with design. Specifically, style, I guess…your thoughts on that. MR. MURRAY: I’m sorry, you want what on it now, I’m sorry. MS. SIMPSON: We just didn’t talk much about design or construction…I’d just like to hear more about what everyone has to say. MR. MURRAY: I’m not sure, are we going through the list, or are we just… CHAIR WALLACE: We’re considering the significance associated with standard C, design and construction. MR. MURRAY: Right. Okay, but I mean, under landmark, they have major event, ID with 28 someone import [sic]…we’re not doing all those? 29 CHAIR WALLACE: We have already looked at those ones, so we’re looking at standard C. 30 MR. MURRAY: Okay, so we’ve gone past the broad cultural, economic, and social? 31 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. 32 MR. MURRAY: Okay. It’s a very distinctive building. For its time and its age…it was when, 21 1 MR. BELLO: As I read through the design and construction…while you’re talking about 2 the…properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of 3 style and method, or period…or method…I’m sorry, period or method of construction. I mean, it 4 certainly does that…represents the work or craftsmanship of an architect whose work is distinguishable. I 5 mean, the craftsmanship, like I said, it’s not…I’m not sure it’s high craftsmanship, but it’s certainly 6 distinguishable style. And it talks about that, work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic, 7 style, and quality. And then, possesses high artistic values…I think that’s debatable…or design 8 concept…but, I think it is a design concept that is unique for that type of structure. So, I think there’s 9 parts of this that do apply and parts of it that don’t apply. But I think, if you take any part of this, there’s 10 sections of it that certainly do apply to it from that standpoint. So, it seems to meet the criteria if you 11 don’t have to have every piece of that. 12 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 13 MR. MURRAY: I think the landscape architecture is pretty unique to the time too…like I say, the 14 City doesn’t allow the big parking lots around the outside…but that’s the whole idea…I mean, if you go 15 down to any car place up to lately, it’s big shiny stuff…so as you’re driving by, you’ll see it and all that. 16 So, that fits in there too. 17 MS. SIMPSON: Well, something that I was looking at within that section, under standard C…it’s 18 the second to last sentence in that paragraph…a property can be significant, not only for the way it’s 19 originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period or for the way it 20 illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. And, although that building may 21 not have changed significantly in that, I feel like that might be interesting to consider how that was 22 different from a lot of the previous decades of architecture, especially moving to the north. 23 MS. GENSMER: I would agree, and to follow up on that, and kind of the larger trend of the rise 24 of the automobile and really focusing on that, many of those commercial properties up north you were 25 referencing were more pedestrian-oriented, whereas there’s the parking lot around it, there’s that whole 26 way it’s situated with regard to the roads…and the landscaping, I guess… 27 MS. SIMPSON: And…the change in taste for later as we were shown by the images of other 28 buildings and how they have been scraped. So, not only has the style changed from previous time 29 periods, but it’s also later time periods. So, this definitely marks a certain time period in the auto industry 30 sale. 31 MS. GENSMER: And just commercial. 32 MS. SIMPSON: And commercial, thank you. 33 CHAIR WALLACE: Katie, do you have any thoughts? 34 MS. DORN: I agree that it does illustrate changing tastes and attitudes, and it does represent a 35 specific period of time…in the style of automobile dealerships, especially in Fort Collins. 36 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 37 MS. SIMPSON: One of the things that I think is so interesting about our city is how we started 38 next to the river and we slowly started moving outward, and this is just another example of constantly 39 moving away from the river…moving south with the annexation of this area, with the orientation of the 40 building, with everything that’s developed beyond that as well. And how it was developed. 22 1 CHAIR WALLACE: I myself feel like this may be eligible under standard C for its design and 2 construction because it falls under a lot of the buildings that people don’t…mid-century modern is 3 starting to come about, and even just…it’s more modern even if we don’t reference it as big…big C 4 modern. It’s not necessarily that style, but it hints and suggests at that, and that’s…a lot of people still are 5 grappling with what they think about it. It’s not necessarily pretty; it’s not something that’s 6 recognizable…it looks like something that might be in a lot of different places. But, it shows that change 7 in Fort Collins design, and I think that people love that period of architecture; they hate that period of 8 architecture…there’s not usually a lot of in-betweens. But, I think it does represent that style…or lack of 9 style. It’s part of that emerging…it’s part of that change in design where a lot of steel, a lot of glass, a lot 10 of the stone is coming into place. 11 MS. SIMPSON: Alex, would you call this mid-century modern? 12 CHAIR WALLACE: What was that? 13 MS. SIMPSON: Would you consider this a mid-century modern… 14 CHAIR WALLACE: I would. 15 MS. SIMPSON: You would? 16 CHAIR WALLACE: I would classify it if I were looking at the building; I would have said it was 17 mid-century modern, particularly since a lot of the elements are hearkening not only to that…the steel and 18 the glass, but then I’m interested by the incorporation of the stone, which I tend to see more in Fort 19 Collins architecture in the ‘70’s. So, in some ways, that might be a little bit up and coming of an element. 20 But, I would have said it was mid-century modern. 21 MS. SIMPSON: I would agree with that…the floor-to-ceiling windows, the roof style, the 22 marriage of the indoor and outdoor spaces…normally you orient it so that way you can look out and you 23 have a connection to the outdoors, but what’s interesting about this is, considering it’s commercial, 24 everybody…it’s oriented so everybody’s looking inward. Also, the exposed beams, the rock on the 25 outside…I would definitely consider it mid-century if I were classifying it as well. 26 CHAIR WALLACE: So, as a Commission, do we think that it retains the design and style as far 27 as significance? Mike says yes. 28 MS. GENSMER: I say yes as well. 29 MR. MURRAY: I think so. 30 CHAIR WALLACE: I see nods. Katie? Yeah? 31 MS. DORN: I guess the only thing that just throws me off a little bit is the change of material of 32 the roof, the loss of integrity, and how that plays in with this particular standard for significance. 33 CHAIR WALLACE: Because also when we were discussing earlier the integrity, we were 34 thinking that materials may be questionable, and that six out of the seven…does that impact your thought 35 on its retaining, if we exclude the materials? 36 MS. DORN: Yes…Cassie, could you bring up that list that shows the most significant aspects of 37 integrity for each standard for significance? Thank you. 38 MS. BUMGARNER: Yeah, I just pulled it up. 23 1 MS. DORN: So, under standard C, it does list materials, design, and workmanship. And usually, 2 you should try and have at least five out of the…okay, so…the…sorry, I’m trying to figure out how to say 3 this on the spot. Feeling and association need to be kind of combined with the others, and so it’s really 4 important to have a good, clear cut evidence for aspects of integrity for materials, design, and 5 workmanship for the standard for design and construction. And so, if you take out materials because we 6 thought that was questionable, that takes out about 30% of this…the level…the integrity to support the 7 level of significance for this building in that case. I don’t know if that made any sense, but the fact that 8 we’re questioning materials worries me about the aspects of integrity to support this criteria for 9 significance. 10 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 11 MR. MURRAY: I’m thinking most of the material is there still, especially the asphalt…but, in 12 my mind, it’s…you know, the roof…the roof and the garage doors are things you always replace and 13 repair, and they could always go back. But, people are getting away from doing hot tar roofs now and 14 they’re going with other styles, so, that’ll probably never happen. But, I think we’re throwing materials 15 out…we’re talking about the massive beams, the tongue and groove ceiling, the glass fronts, and 16 then…and the moss rock sides. Then…it’s one of those generic ones…the whole garage is made out of 17 cinder block, which I think…or concrete block, and that’s original too. So, I’m seeing…when you look at 18 it, it’s got to be 90 to 80% of the materials there. 19 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 20 MS. SIMPSON: Although I don’t think that the materials…I don’t know…I’m kind of split on 21 the integrity in terms of materials. I don’t know that I consider design…or that this building is significant 22 for design; however, I do think that the design of this building continually adds to the fact that this 23 building is significant for a specific time period. 24 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Alright, well I’d like to move on and consider context. Do we feel 25 that the context is intact? Which, according to the Municipal Code, is the area required for evaluating a 26 resource’s context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. For example, a house located in 27 the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the 28 block, while a house located on a corner may be required a different contextual area. 29 MS. SIMPSON: I think we need to decide what the context is…this building, when it was built, it 30 was on the edge of town. It’s no longer on the edge of town; however, it was never oriented towards the 31 back side of town, it was oriented towards town and towards the street, and those streets are still intact 32 and all four corners do still have commercial buildings on them. College Avenue is still there. 33 MS. GENSMER: True…and is still commercial, at least in that area. 34 MR. BELLO: Does the changing environment around it…what’s going on the old Kmart site, 35 does that impact this at all in that regard? Or is this…just looking at it as it is today? Because the Kmart 36 site is going to be something completely different. 37 CHAIR WALLACE: Right, and I think that we can take it for what it is now, but also when it 38 changes, it’s still going to be commercial. 39 MR. BELLO: The Walmart site…I mean the Kmart site? 40 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes, that’s the plan as far as I understand. 24 1 MR. MURRAY: I don’t know if it fits, but I know Cassie wrote…or the staff wrote a current 2 context of the area that I think we all got, and points out that it’s the corner of a street that’s, you know, a 3 major intersection. And it does point out that there’s going to be change where the old Kmart was, but 4 it’s…it’s putting into the existing Kmart building, so that may not change a bunch. But, I think the 5 context, you know, obviously of the lot itself, stays, but the context around it is going to change. So, I 6 don’t know how we do that. The Walgreens being moved out to the…to the intersection is a change of 7 context for the block. But, the Key Bank and Kmart stay the same at this point, and so it fits with that 8 overall I think. 9 MS. SIMPSON: Although I do think the…the surrounding corners are important to take into 10 consideration if we’re considering this building for its association with the car industry and the vehicular 11 aspect of College and Drake, I still think that the fact that it’s still visible from those streets is the most 12 important. If you look at the pictures that were provided to us on page 135 from the Coloradoan, they 13 show the showroom, which Mr. Murray was talking about with the feeling you get when you see the cars 14 inside the windows, and how excited you are looking at the cars. I still think that is intact, and you can 15 still see that as you drive down College or Drake in your car. 16 MR. MURRAY: On your way to the drive-in. 17 CHAIR WALLACE: I would agree that the context remains intact, particularly since it’s at two 18 very strong arterials of College and Drake, and that it’s predominantly commercial, and since the time of 19 construction, I think the buildings that have been around it have been predominantly commercial. So, 20 there hasn’t been a drastic change as far as impacting that context. 21 MR. BELLO: You know, as I look at this photo that you pointed out, on page 135, if I remember 22 the development now…was there a change in grade or something? Because, you don’t see this from the 23 corner…you see the cars on the bottom and then there’s an elevation change. And I’m trying to wonder 24 how that occurred, because you don’t see it…it doesn’t look like this from the corner. 25 MS. SIMPSON: There’s also a lot of cars in the way now. 26 MR. BELLO: Yeah, there are a lot of cars in the way…right. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CHAIR WALLACE: Katie, Kristi, any thoughts on context? MS. GENSMER: I agree with what’s already been said. I do think the context remains intact. MS. DORN: I agree; the context remains intact, and I agree with the two arterials and the predominantly commercial area being intact. CHAIR WALLACE: So, as a Commission, it would appear that we have examined the integrity, the context, as well as the standards for determining significance. Are there any other aspects that anyone on the Commission would like to chime in on or consider at this time? No? Okay, then I think it might 34 be prudent to start putting forth a motion. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MS. GENSMER: I can try to do so…I may need help from my fellow Commission members as we add in our findings and seek to support it. So, I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission uphold the prior determination and find that 2601 South College Avenue is individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. This motion is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, as well as the discussion that we just had, with the following findings: the property has significance under…under standard A, events for associations with a pattern of events, specifically the movement of Fort Collins toward midtown from downtown, so moving south, the change in the city towards a community that relies on automobile transportation, the expansion of the automobile industry, as well as the larger expansion of the city, including the Ghent annexation. I also find that it is significant under…or under standard C, design and construction, because it embodies the identifiable characteristics of a specific period, in this case, mid-century commercial architecture. Some of the specific characteristics are: the very prominent windows facing out onto the major transportation arteries, the use of moss rock and concrete block, and the way that it is sited on the property on the landscape in relation to the major transportation corridors of Drake and College, as well as the way its situated in relation to the parking lot surrounding it. Okay, and…still going…the property exhibits exterior integrity and it satisfies integrity of location in that it remains in the same place; it has not been moved, integrity of design for many of these elements including the large windows, the way it was designed to face towards the streets. It retains integrity of setting because of the way it’s situated at that intersection. Integrity of workmanship…although as Mike said, it isn’t high style, it still embodies the type of construction that was done in that period, as well as integrity of feeling and association because it retains those larger characteristics tying it to both the vehicular arteries, commercial properties, and the automobile industry. And, feel free to add things in there. Finally, that the LPC has considered the context of the area surrounding the property as is required under City Code Chapter 14. We find that the context relates directly to the major transportation arteries of Drake and College, as well as the commercial properties that are surrounding it on those intersections, 27 and the way that they are oriented towards vehicular traffic and set back from the roads. I think that’s it. 28 CHAIR WALLACE: Gretchen, did you get all that? 29 MS. GENSMER: Yeah, I was worried about that. 30 CHAIR WALLACE: It’s on the recording of course, but, if you want to hear it again, she’s going 31 to have to repeat it. 32 MS. GENSMER: And that’s be interesting. 33 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, do we have a second? 26 1 for a roll call vote please. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. Alright, then I would like to call MS. SCHIAGER: Bello? MR. BELLO: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Dorn? MS. DORN: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Gensmer? MS. GENSMER: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Murray? MR. MURRAY: Yes. MS. SCHIAGER: Simpson? MS. SIMPSON: Yes. 12 MS. SCHIAGER: And Wallace? 13 CHAIR WALLACE: Yes. Okay, motion passes. So, we have decided to uphold the decision of 14 the property at 2601 South College Avenue as eligible for landmark designation, and this is according to 15 standard A, for event, and standard C, for design and construction, as well as upholding six out of the seven 16 exterior integrity, and for maintaining context. Thank you. 17 18 19 20 21 ATTACHMENT 8 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council April 3, 2018 City Council April 3, 2018 2601 South College, Spradley Barr Appeal Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation 2 Decision Under Appeal LPC upheld (6-0) previous decision of CDNS Director and LPC Chair that property is eligible for individual designation: • Property is eligible for individual landmark designation • Meets two standards of significance: • Standard A: Events • Standard C: Design/Construction • Preponderance of integrity to convey their significance • 6 of 7 aspects: Location, Design, Setting, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association 3 Assertions of Appeal • Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code. • Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 1, Sections 14-5 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) 4 Assertions of Appeal • Detailed analysis and conclusions of Autobee & Autobee, LLC as to the property’s noneligibility for designation as a local landmark contained in the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural inventory prepared by Autobee & Autobee, LLC. • Testimony of Kristen Autobee regarding Autobee & Autobee, LLC’s analysis and conclusions regarding the property’s noneligibility for designation as a local landmark. 5 Assertions of Appeal • Testimony of Todd Parker of Brinkman Development, Appellant, regarding the property’s noneligibility for designation as a local landmark • Photographs of the property • Photographs of other automobile dealerships 6 2601 South College Avenue East Elevation, 2017 2601 S College 2601 S College 34 MR. MURRAY: I’ll second. 35 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay, something I would like to potentially see added to it is that we cannot 36 determine, at this time, that standard B is fulfilled because we do not have enough information, or we’re 37 basing our decision on the information that we have at hand on the Ghents. So, if we could apply that as 38 well? 39 MS. GENSMER: I’m okay with that. 40 CHAIR WALLACE: Okay. 41 MS. GENSMER: Kevin, as the seconder, are you okay? 42 MR. MURRAY: I’m okay with that. 33 you know, automobile things changed. I mean, you used to…if you go downtown, all the cars were 34 inside and you peeped in through little windows, and here you had them all out with big, shiny bright 35 lights outside. And had…I don’t know what…they must have just had a couple Cadillac…or 36 not…Lincolns, on the inside, or something. I don’t know what made it…put the two or three in the 37 showroom and then have all the rest outside. But, I’m sure there was a method to the madness. link into the attachment. CHAIR WALLACE: Great, thank you, Cassie. Does any member of the LPC have any disclosures regarding this item? MS. KRISTIN GENSMER: I was not present at the work session while this was being discussed; however, I have reviewed the audio recording of the discussion and…I suppose of the question period, I should say, and I am prepared to participate. MS. MOLLIE SIMPSON: I was also not here during the work session and did listen to the audio tape and are [sic] prepared as well. CHAIR WALLACE: Great, thank you Kristi and Mollie. Okay, so quickly to note, the LPC’s responsibilities tonight…we are not going to be considering the other two properties that were listed in the background of the section for the item…2627 South College Avenue and 132 West Thunderbird Road, because they were under 50 years of age. We are not going to be considering the economic impact and feasibility of retaining the property as being individually eligible. The LPC is also determining whether it will uphold the previous decision by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the LPC Chair, or to overturn it…to uphold or to overturn that decision. And the Commission is also looking at the eligibility of the property at 2602 South College based on the standards that are in accordance with Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. And, finally, this Commission 39 is not designating the property as a landmark. 40 Okay, so does staff have a report?     1IPUPTUBLFOPO/PWFNCFS CZ.FH %VOO5IFTFQIPUPTXFSFOPUBWBJMBCMFGPS UIFEFNPMJUJPOBMUFSBUJPOSFWJFX 3.g Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 2017-11-02 Carriage Steps (6371 : 2601 S COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY