Historic Preservation Commission Agenda March 15, 2021 6:30 Pm

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda March 15, 2021 6:30 pm

ELECTRONIC MEETING This meeting will be held electronically. Residents interested in listening to the meeting or making public comments can join in one of two ways: 1. You can call in to 1 253 215 8782, Webinar ID # 872 5467 1184. Passcode: 945590 2. You can log in via your computer. Please visit the City website here to link to the meeting: https://www.louisvilleco.gov/local- government/government/boards-commissions/historic-preservation- commission The Historic Preservation Commission will accommodate public comments during the meeting. Anyone may also email comments to the commission prior to the meeting at [email protected].

1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes – February 22, 2021 5. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda 6. Probable Cause Determination a. 928 La Farge Avenue 7. Probable Cause Determination a. 724-728 Main Street 8. Items from Staff a. Updates on Project List – Historic Structures Assessment 9. Updates from Commission Members 10. Discussion Items for Future Meetings 11. Adjourn

Citizen Information Persons with disabilities planning to attend the meeting who need sign language interpretation, translation services, assisted listening systems, Braille, taped material, or special transportation, should contact [email protected] or 303.335.4592. A forty-eight-hour notice is requested.

City of Louisville Department of Planning and Building Safety 749 Main Street, Louisville, CO 80027 303.335.4591 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.louisvilleco.gov 1 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Virtual Meeting 6:30 PM

Chair Haley called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.

Roll Call was taken and the following members were present:

Commission Members Present: Chair Lynda Haley Gary Dunlap Keith Keller Christine Burg

Commission Members Absent: Andrea Klemme

Staff Members Present: Lisa Ritchie, Senior Planner Rob Zuccaro, Planning Director Kim Bauer, Preservation Planner Amelia Brackett Hogstad, Planning Clerk

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Dunlap made a motion to approve the February 22, 2021 agenda. Seconded by Keller. Agenda approved by voice vote.

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

Dunlap made a motion to approve the January 25, 2021 minutes. Seconded by Keller. The minutes were approved as written by voice vote.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA

Leah Angstman, 1510 Madison Court, stated that she was the Historical Commission liaison and offered to answer questions and take notes if necessary.

NEW BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

701 Grant Avenue: A request to landmark 701 Grant Avenue and to approve an Alteration Certificate and Historic Preservation Fund Grant (Resolutions 1, 2, and 3, Series 2021).  Applicant: Cheryl and Paul Ehmen  Owners: Same  Staff: Rob Zuccaro

Zuccaro stated that the building was previously the Louisville First Baptist Church. The church was founded in 1898 and construction was completed in 1901. The church was open until 1971

City of Louisville Planning Department 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.ci.louisville.co.us 2 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 2 of 10 and then was converted to residential use. Zuccaro reviewed the landmark criteria, which staff found met the age requirement, represented architectural significance as a twentieth-century wood-framed vernacular building with significant features including the bell tower and decorative arches, had cultural significance as the First Baptist Church, and maintained physical integrity.

Zuccaro shared the Alteration Certificate proposal, which included a two-story addition behind the original structure and a detached garage. He shared that the application proposed removing the wraparound deck, which was not historic to the property. Zuccaro noted other proposed changes, including restoring and repairing the siding, replacing the windows with replicas, bumping out the north elevation, and adding skylights on the historic roof peak. Zuccaro noted that the applicant had submitted a narrative explaining why they wanted to use the replica windows as a replacement. He stated that the proposal would bring down the massing of the current addition with the new addition. Staff found that the restoration work was consistent with preserving the overall form and features of the building and that the building addition was visually compatible with and adequately differentiated from the historic structure. Zuccaro noted that the deterioration on the windows made them too poor to repair, which was why staff found that the replica windows were acceptable.

Zuccaro presented the grant request for $124,047.20, much of which would be spent on replica windows and structural issues. Zuccaro explained the “extraordinary circumstances” consideration, stating that the church building was larger than the average historic residence and that the floor required leveling and stabilizing, among other high-cost preservation elements.

Dunlap asked if corner lots were usually evaluated from the two street views.

Zuccaro replied that he thought Commissioner Dunlap was referring to the demolition reviews when mentioning the consideration of the street-facing façade. He explained that for landmark certificates, the entire historic structure needed to be considered.

Dunlap stated that he thought the Commission often looked at the front 10 feet or the street- facing side.

Zuccaro replied that those were the considerations for the preservation bonus, not the landmarking process. Any alterations on a potentially landmarked structure was significant.

Haley added that the Commission paid extra attention to the street-facing façade but reviewed the whole structure.

Dunlap stated that it was a pretty detailed packet and stated that he was surprised that the windows were so expensive, but he assumed that they were also insulating the windows.

Zuccaro confirmed.

Dunlap stated that the insulated windows were a bone of contention in general preservation efforts but he thought they were a good thing from an energy standpoint.

2 3 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 3 of 10

Stephen Barsch, 743 West 6th Avenue in Denver, stated that he was the designer and he explained that the existing addition occupied more footprint than the proposed addition and that there had been a lot of effort to reduce the footprint and maintain some outdoor living space.

Dunlap stated that he was sure the applicant had looked at the window costs but he wanted to make the point that insulating windows were probably a good thing for the energy use of the city.

Barsch stated that he thought there would be an effort to make these windows true replicas. He agreed that energy conservation needed to be a consideration.

Haley asked if they had looked into repairing the windows.

Barsch said that he thought the owners had but that the wood was dilapidated.

Haley stated that it might be good for the Commission to know the difference between repairing and replicating windows and adding energy efficiency.

Dunlap asked about the Public Works letter regarding the driveway.

Zuccaro replied that the driveway was intended to be an alley-access and by policy the City limits driveway cuts onto Pine Street. Any time a property had access to an alley and did not have historic access to Pine the policy was to promote alley access.

Barsch added that there was a five-foot landscape strip between the garage and Pine Street.

Dunlap noted that it was a paved alley which was uncommon for Old Town.

Haley asked for public comments. Seeing none, she opened discussion. She stated that she thought landmarking was obvious based on the criteria. Haley asked for further discussion on landmark eligibility. Seeing none, she asked for comments about the alteration certificate.

Dunlap stated that the combination of stucco finish and the setbacks differentiated the new section. He asked if the stucco would be the same color as the original structure.

Barsch stated that they might be slightly different shades but they would be complementary and not contrasting.

Haley said that color was not a major aspect of differentiation because it could be changed easily.

Haley stated that she thought it was reasonable to demolish the existing addition. She asked for the date the addition had been built.

Zuccaro stated that he thought it was 1946.

Barsch stated that there were several additions including some in the 1970s.

3 4 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 4 of 10

Haley observed that age-wise the addition was eligible for landmarking, but that it was not a strong contributing addition. She thought the new addition was sensitive and was smaller in length and the wraparound to the north side was less intrusive. She asked the Commission for comments on the north side and the window-to-door change. She noted that once the addition was added the north door would be the only door to the addition.

Barsch confirmed.

Haley asked if the door-to-floor-area ratio was up to Code.

Zuccaro stated that he did not know if there were any such ratios for residences.

Barsch added that there was a door that came a lot closer to the north property line, but there was a door going onto the deck that had egress. He stated that there was no need for another egress.

Haley stated that generally doors and windows should not be interchanged, so she was looking for a reason to possibly add a door.

Dunlap stated that he thought they were fortunate to have someone put in the preservation effort for this church that the Commission was interested in saving. The minor change on the north side he did not see as a big drawback to the proposal.

Burg asked about the skylight location.

Barsch stated that the skylight was over the open two-story stairwell and it harkened back to pitched factory light windows. He shared that they were trying to do more of an architectural way of bringing light into he stairwell as opposed to just adding skylights. He stated that they had a cleaner look and appeared more like a roof light rather than a skylight with a dome.

Haley asked if there would be much of a distinction between the skylight and the roof.

Barsch replied that he did not think the windows would show up much.

Haley replied that it was not ideal but the skylights could be removed in the future, meaning that it was not a major change to the structure.

Barsch stated that they were keeping the roof framing and that the lights would be more of a surface application.

Haley stated that the door in the corner needed to have historic reasoning to have due diligence because it went against some of the Commission’s general practice. She stated that because it was on the north side of the building and because it was sensitive she thought it was within the guidelines.

Burg said that if the door were on the south side it would be more drastic, but as long as the south side was maintained, having the door on the north side was more palatable.

Haley added that taking off some of the decking would balance it out.

4 5 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 5 of 10

Dunlap asked if there was a problem with the lot coverage and if it still met the City guidelines.

Zuccaro replied that they had done a Zoning Standards review and the proposal met FAR and lot coverage standards with the landmark bonus.

Regarding the grant, Haley said that the Commission knew that this would be an expensive project and the windows and other pieces of the project made this cost more than the typical residential property.

Barsch shared that underneath the wraparound decks there was basement space with foundations that needed to be filled in. He added that the existing floor also needed basement work and commented that, overall, there was a lot of foundation work to be done.

Dunlap asked about the floor of the sanctuary.

Barsch responded that there were some joists but they had been hacked up quite a bit. He stated that they would save what they could, but there was a lot of structural damage to the existing lumber.

Haley stated that this was one of the prominent, distinct homes in Louisville, making it something that the community would want to invest in preserving.

Dunlap moved to approve Resolution 1, Series 2021. Burg and Keller seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Burg moved to approve Resolution 2, Series 2021. Keller seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Dunlap moved to approve Resolution 3, Series 2021. Keller seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

541 Jefferson Avenue: A request to approve an Alteration Certificate and a Preservation and Restoration Grant in the amount of $35,000 for the property at 541 Jefferson Avenue.  Applicant: Andy Johnson, DAJ Design  Owners: 541 Jefferson LLC  Staff: Kim Bauer, Preservation Planner

Bauer reminded the Commission that 541 Jefferson had been landmarked in November 2020 and there had been an Alteration Certificate at that time, as well, which was for the original structure. This certificate request was for the new addition. Bauer explained that the proposal added a two-story residence to the rear of the structure and removed the existing addition. She noted that the alteration would not have any large effects on the integrity of the original structure. Bauer stated that staff believed that the historic structure was not negatively affected since the addition was set back from the original portion and that there would not be historic elements removed. She described the amount requested and the work to be covered, which included drainage and grading, siding, restoring and replacing the trim and work on the windows and doors. She summarized that staff recommended approval of the alteration certificate and the grant request.

5 6 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 6 of 10

Dunlap noted that the Commission had previously cited concerns with the structure, but had thought it was a good idea to move forward even if it was a stretch to match with the Department of the Interior standards. Dunlap asked if the design proposed tonight was different from the landmark design.

Bauer addressed changes to the structure, replying that the current stucco was installed in 1997 and therefore was not historic. She stated that the stucco would be repaired and restored where it remained. Bauer addressed the stucco on the addition, noting that it was new stucco, which was preferred according to the standards because it was not trying to look like the historic portion. It allowed the differentiation to be clear.

Dunlap explained that the plans that were considered for the landmark were not the same as what was being presented today.

Bauer replied that the alteration was only for the back piece but she stated that there was an alteration for the front part under the landmark, which had already been approved by the Commission in November.

Andy Johnson of DAJ Design, 922A Main Street in Louisville, described the different sections of the house and when they were built. He showed pictures of the original wood lap siding, which they planned to restore. He stated that they were proposing to remove a portion of the building in the rear and replace it with a one-story, some new foundation, and a new addition in the mid- point of the site. He stated that they had pushed back the addition on the 125-foot site as much as possible, which allowed people walking down the sidewalk to see the corner of the original house with a recess and setback to the new addition. He noted that where the original siding existed they were going to show it. He described the landscaping plan, which would create outdoor rooms rather than lawn space because it was a small area. Johnson showed the gabled roof form that would connect the historic building to the new building. He showed the perspective view from Jefferson Avenue, noting that the addition was differentiated by form, materials, and window openings, and noted that the addition had a background feel. It was two stories, so it would be visible, but it kept the historic building forward front.

Haley asked about the metal roof on the original building.

Johnson stated that the Commission had discussed the roof in the last meeting and that it was an alteration of the existing bay window, which was not historic, and the metal roof was one of the ways of differentiating the changed portion of the historic structure.

Haley stated that she remembered thinking of the right side of the original building as the more historic one.

Johnson agreed and stated that the historic siding was on the right side, as well. He noted that the midcentury addition had a shiplap siding, and some of that would be wrapped around to the front.

Haley asked her fellow commissioners for comments on the alteration certificate.

6 7 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 7 of 10

Dunlap stated that it seemed appropriate and the biggest hurdles had been in the approval process in November. He noted that the addition was a better addition than some of the other proposals that the Commission had seen.

Haley stated that the pedestrian perspective was helpful to give an idea of how it would feel on the street. She thought that the connector being recessed was a great way to distinguish the addition and not feel as bulky. She thought it was helpful and sensitive.

Dunlap stated that the Commission struggled with accommodating the large houses that families want these days while still making the additions compatible with the historic structures and he thought this did a decent job.

Keller stated that he thought it was an ingenious design and he liked the greenery and the glass.

Haley asked the Commission to discuss the grant request, stating that it was within the budget of the grant and addressed the issues that the Commission had discussed in November.

Keller stated he thought it was reasonable.

Dunlap moved and Keller seconded approval of the Alteration Certificate. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Burg moved to approve the grant request. Dunlap seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

637 Lincoln Avenue: A request to find probable cause for a landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 637 Lincoln Avenue.  Applicant: Barbara and Peter Hamlington  Owners: Same  Staff: Kim Bauer, Preservation Planner

Bauer shared that the building was approximately 121 years old and exemplified the folk Victorian style and that its Tuscan columns and decorative shingling set it apart. She shared the social significance of the house, which had been owned by a prominent business owner and later by a mayor of Louisville. The structure maintained a high level of structural integrity. Staff recommended a finding of probable cause for 637 Lincoln Avenue.

Dunlap asked about widow’s walks in Louisville and if they had a functional purpose.

Bauer stated that there were other widow’s walks in the area. She did not think it served any particular purpose other than for design.

Andy Johnson, 922A Main, stated that he was happy to present this building and that he thought it was a slam dunk. He stated that 625 Lincoln was the same owner and he was proud of the preservation project there. Johnson shared that 637 was a fabulous home and that the outside shell and the interior had a lot of good things going on. He noted that there had been a widow’s walk on 625 historically that they had recreated from a picture, but that they were not common

7 8 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 8 of 10 in Louisville. He stated that it was neat that the two homes, which had so many similarities, got to be under the same ownership again and going through the preservation process.

Haley stated that the structure met all the criteria for probable cause. She invited additional comments from the Commission.

Burg made a motion to find probable cause. Dunlap seconded. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

ITEMS FROM STAFF & UPDATES FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS

Bauer shared that a subcommittee had approved an Alteration Certificate granted for 1016 Grant Avenue.

Dunlap asked if anyone attended the Saving Places conference.

No one attended. Commissioner Burg stated that she would be interesting in attending next year.

Dunlap stated that he liked the working groups where you discussed the issues with people from other towns.

DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR MARCH 15, 2021 & FUTURE MEETINGS

Haley noted that Director Zuccaro had put together a list of the HPC projects and that Planner Bauer would take over that process.

Zuccaro asked if the Commission would be able to prioritize the list of projects.

Haley stated that she thought the Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) item could be knocked off quickly and effectively. She stated that the conservation easement discussion would be longer but was also a priority since the Commission had already started making decisions on easements.

Zuccaro stated that he thought that the Grant, Residential Grant Amounts, and Extraordinary Circumstances discussions were all covered under the funding resolution and so could be put together under a single discussion item.

Haley stated that staff could use discretion to select which order for those three items overall based on how long the discussion might go.

Zuccaro stated that commissioners had been working with staff on the item, “Landmark and Reviewed-but-demolished Properties Online List.”

Haley stated that a subcommittee could start the discussion on what form the list could take.

Dunlap stated that there were a couple of different parts of it. One was getting the information, which they could use help with, and the other was the legal implications of what we show to the public, which was a separate issue that needed to go through staff and the City Attorney.

8 9 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 9 of 10

Zuccaro stated that he understood there to be a desire to better catalog and list actual landmarks in addition to reviewing non-landmarked but priority properties. He asked if the Commission was still interested in that.

Dunlap replied that he thought that the landmark priorities should not be published beyond the surveys.

Zuccaro replied that the Open Space board had a list of desired land but they did not make quasi-judicial decisions about them later on so staff would have to check with the City Attorney on the process. He stated that if the Commission thought it was important to do staff could look at the legal limits.

Dunlap replied that he thought it was more of a long-term thing. The more immediate was that the Commission was not quite sure what had been landmarked. General discussion on where to find information on landmarked structures.

Dunlap said that the HSA update was probably an easier one but the conservation easement one was probably pretty big. He asked if the historic survey projects required any input from the commission members.

Zuccaro replied that there was no input but there would be a final presentation by PaleoWest.

Haley asked if PaleoWest had finished the survey and about scheduling the presentation.

Zuccaro replied that staff had reviewed the first 50 and the second 50 were under review right now. Bridget Bacon at the Museum was making comments on the second batch. He estimated that it would be done in the next one-three months. Once those were done staff would schedule the presentation for the Commission.

Bauer noted that the final presentation was built into the contract and it would be scheduled at the Commission’s convenience.

Haley stated that Preservation Month was in May and the Commission had not done anything in 2020 so it would be great to do something this year. Haley stated that the subcommittee could meet and figure out the priorities. Dunlap said he would send an email to cover what he knows about the outreach subcommittee.

Dunlap stated that conservation easement and extraordinary circumstances might need a separate meeting.

Zuccaro stated that the grant amounts, grant, and extraordinary circumstances discussions could be tied together.

Haley stated that they could start discussions during the regular schedule and then schedule other meetings if needed.

Bauer stated that she could fill in the project table and present it to the Commission to give the project list a little more structure.

9 10 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 22 February 2021 Page 10 of 10

Haley asked if there were items that did not make it on this list.

Dunlap suggested a discussion of the budget and annual revenue.

Zuccaro explained that the budget combined overhead and a grant budget which was somewhere around $250,000 for grants, with a separate item for assessments at $20 or $30,000. If applicants were successful with more grants, the City could easily exceed the grant dispersal estimate and the budget number would go up. Zuccaro stated that staff could put together a report with trends over time and estimated that revenue was $700,000 a year right now. He added that the Fund shared the revenue with the Museum.

Bauer said the Fund was close to $3 million.

Adjourn Keller motioned to adjourn and Dunlap seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Meeting adjourned around 8:40 PM.

10 11 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report March 15, 2021

ITEM: 928 La Farge Probable Cause Determination

APPLICANT: Andy Johnson 922A Main Street Louisville, Colorado 80027

OWNER: JoAnna Alidu 928 La Farge Avenue Louisville, Colorado 80027

PROJECT INFORMATION: ADDRESS: 928 La Farge Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 8-9, Block 3 Jefferson Place DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: c 1890

REQUEST: A request to find probable cause for a landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 928 La Farge Avenue.

South Street

La Farge Avenue La Farge

12 SUMMARY: The applicant requests a finding of probable cause for landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 928 La Farge. Under Resolution No. 2, Series 2014, a property may be eligible for reimbursement for a historic structure assessment (HSA) from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) if the Historic Preservation Commission finds “probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for landmarking under the criteria in section 15.36.050 of the Louisville Municipal Code.” Further, “a finding of probable cause under this Section is solely for the purposes of action on the pre-landmarking building assessment grant request, and such finding shall not be binding upon the HPC, City Council or other party to a landmarking hearing.”

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: Information from Bridget Bacon, Louisville Historical Museum

Antonio and Libra Porto acquired the propertied directly from Jefferson Place developer Charles Welch, recording the warranty deed in 1897. The building is located on the 1893 Sanborn map. This house appears in the correct location on the 1893, 1900, and 1908 Sanborn maps (although the north side of the house is not shown on any of these three maps), and on the 1909 Drumm’s Wall Map. The Boulder County Assessor card from 1948 gives 1905 as the date of construction, but this would have been a date estimated long after the fact, and contradicts the other date from the County of 1890. The house clearly appears to have been on this site by 1893 at the latest. Based on the foregoing evidence, the construction year is likely circa 1890.

The Porta family was certainly among the first Italian families to settle in Louisville. Antonio Porta is listed in the 1892 Louisville directory as already being a Louisville resident. Antonio Porta (1852-1931) and Libra Porta (1852-1937) immigrated to the U.S. in the 1880s. Antonio and Libra’s son, Henry, married Edith Zarini, daughter of Joseph and Virginia Zarini of 824 La Farge in Jefferson Place. Henry and Edith lived at 917 La Farge. Antonio Porta was a coal miner, while Libra Giorzelli Porta was a midwife who delivered babies in Louisville. Many members of the community called her “Zia,” which is Italian for “Aunt.”

During the period of 1939 to 1952, this home was owned by Fred Eberharter. He was the son of Louis and Martha Eberharter and grew up on La Farge in Jefferson Place. Paul Boyce (1906-1982) and Martha Boyce (1907-1982) owned 928 La Farge from 1952 until Paul Boyce’s death in 1988. The Boyces came to Louisville from Kansas in 1930 or the early 1930s. Paul Boyce was a coal miner who worked at the Centennial Mine, Hi-Way Mine, and Eagle Mine, then became a carpenter after the end of the coal mining era. Previous owners had found a miner’s lunch pail etched with the name of Paul Boyce in the home.

In 2009, this home was one of five historic homes on the Louisville Holiday Home Tour organized by the Louisville Historical Commission and Historical Museum. The property is located within the Jefferson Place subdivision, the first residential subdivision in Louisville.

928 La Farge Avenue, west elevation – Current photo

928 La Farge Avenue, southwest and northwest elevations – Current Photos

928 La Farge Avenue, east elevation – Current photo

928 La Farge Avenue – c. 1950 photo

ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY: 928 La Farge faces west on La Farge Avenue and was constructed circa 1890. The original house is a one-story, wood frame, vernacular folk gable-front and wing home with Victorian detailing. The building footprint is an irregular plan, showcased by the cross-gabled roof. This house exhibits modest spindlework porch detailing on the front porch. Currently, there is decorative fish scale shingles in the front gable end as well. Windows on the original house are replacement 1/1 single hung white aluminum sash with white aluminum surrounds and storm/screen sash. City permit records indicate that the two-story addition in the rear of the original house was done in the mid-1990s.The second story addition has large windows facing west on the second floor. On the north side, there are three windows with arched transoms. On the west and south, there are small sections of three glass blocks. On the south side, there is a large pair of single hung windows with arched transoms.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR LISTING AS LOCAL LANDMARK: Under Resolution No. 2, Series 2014, a property may be eligible for reimbursement for a historic structure assessment (HSA) from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) if the Historic Preservation Commission finds “probable cause to believe the building may be

16 eligible for landmarking under the criteria in Louisville Municipal Code 15.36.050.” Further, “a finding of probable cause under this Section is solely for the purposes of action on the pre-landmarking building assessment grant request, and such finding shall not be binding upon the HPC, City Council or other party to a landmarking hearing.”

Staff has found probable cause to believe this application complies with the following criteria:

CRITERIA FINDINGS Landmarks must be at The principal structure at 928 La Farge Avenue was least 50 years old constructed circa 1890, making it approximately 131 years old.

Staff finds the age of the structure meets the criteria.

Landmarks must meet Architectural Significance - Exemplifies specific one or more of the criteria elements of an architectural style or period. for architectural, social or  The historic portion of 928 La Farge is a late geographic/environmental 19th century one story, wood-framed house. It significance has an irregular floor plan with a cross-gabled roof, and some Victorian style detailing on the front porch. The two-story addition to the property does affect the architectural local landmark criteria.

Staff finds the style and integrity of the structure do not have probable cause to meet the criteria for architectural significance in its current condition due to the significant addition added in the rear.

(However, if the owner is interested in landmarking the property, restoration and alternation work to distinguish the original, historic structure from the addition at the rear could be explored as a potential condition of meeting architectural significance criteria.)

Social Significance - Exemplifies cultural, political, economic or social heritage of the community.  The original developer of the Jefferson Place subdivision sold it to the Porto family who then lived here for nearly 5 decades. As Italian immigrants, they also exemplify the cultural and social heritage of the community.  Both Antonio Porto and Paul Boyce worked as coal miners, a line of work with deep historic

17 ties to the Louisville and its development as a city. Staff finds that the structure exemplifies the cultural and social heritage of the community and there is probable cause to meet the criterion for social significance.

Landmarks should meet  Physical Integrity - Shows character, interest or value one or more criteria for as part of the development, heritage or cultural physical integrity characteristics of the community, region, state, or nation.

 There are a number of other homes on the same block of La Farge that are currently local landmarks. The property is also located in the Jefferson Place subdivision, which is Louisville’s first residential subdivision.

 Remains in its original location, has the same historic context after having been moved, or was moved more than 50 years ago.  The structure at 928 La Farge Avenue is found in its original location.

Overall staff finds probable cause that the structure meets the criteria for physical integrity.

PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN: The Preservation Master Plan was adopted in 2015 and includes goals and objectives for the historic preservation program moving forward. A finding of probable cause would meet the following goals and objectives:

Goal #3: Encourage voluntary preservation of significant archaeological, historical, and architectural resources Objective 3.3 - Encourage voluntary designation of eligible resources Objective 3.4 - Promote alternatives to demolition of historic buildings

Goal #5: Continue leadership in preservation incentives and enhance customer service Objective 5.1 - Promote availability of Historic Preservation Fund grants and other incentives

HISTORIC CONTEXT REPORT: The City completed a residential historic context report (Stories in Places: Putting Louisville’s Residential Development in Context) in 2018 that includes a list of

18 recommended and priority properties for preservation. The property at 928 La Farge Avenue is not included in the list of priority properties.

FISCAL IMPACT: The finding of probable cause allows for a grant of up to $4,000 for a Historic Structure Assessment from the Historic Preservation Fund. The current balance of the Historic Preservation Fund is approximately $2.9 million.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC finds there is probable cause for landmarking 928 La Farge Avenue under the criteria in section 15.36.050 of the LMC, making the properties eligible for the cost of a historic structure assessment. The current maximum amount available for an HSA is $4,000. Staff recommends the HPC approve a grant not to exceed $4,000 to reimburse the costs of a historic structure assessment for 928 La Farge Avenue.

ATTACHMENTS:  Application  928 La Farge Social History (Architectural Inventory Form 5BL.918)

Department of Planning and Building Safety 749 Main Street  Louisville CO 80027  303.335.4592  www.louisvilleco.gov

ELECTRONIC HISTORIC PRESERVATION HEARING REQUEST CASE NO:______

PROPERTY INFORMATION TYPE(S) OF APPLICATION

Address: ______Probable Cause/Historic Structure Assessment ______Landmark Designation Year of Construction: ______Historic Preservation Fund Grant

Legal Description: ______Historic Preservation Fund Loan Landmark Alteration Certificate ______Demolition Review Landmark Name and Resolution (if applicable): Other: ______

APPLICANT INFORMATION I hereby request the public hearing(s) on this application be scheduled to be conducted by Electronic Participation in Name: ______accordance with the attached Resolution No. 30, Series 2020, as adopted by the City Council on April 7, 2020, if such Company: ______hearing(s) can be scheduled during a time period when in- person meetings are not being held due to a health epidemic Address: ______or pandemic. I acknowledge that holding a quasi-judicial hearing by Electronic Participation may present certain legal ______risks and involves an area of legal uncertainty, and that having this application heard at a meeting held by Electronic Telephone: ______Participation is optional and undertaken at my own risk. I also understand that in-person meetings are preferred for quasi- Email: ______judicial hearings, and that even if electronic hearing(s) are scheduled, this application will be heard at an in-person meeting if in-person meetings have resumed by the scheduled hearing date(s).

OWNER INFORMATION SIGNATURES AND DATES

Name: ______Applicant Name Company: ______

Address: ______Applicant Signature Date ______Telephone: ______Owner Name

Email: ______Owner Signature Date

20 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only)

Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District

I. IDENTIFICATION

1. Resource number: 5BL918 2. Temporary resource number: 157508404002 3. County: Boulder 4. City: Louisville 5. Historic building name: Porta/Eberharter/Boyce House 6. Current building name: Karpel House. 7. Building address: 928 La Farge Avenue, Louisville, CO 80027. This house has been known by the following other addresses under Louisville’s old address system: 441 La Farge (1916 to the 1920s), 419 La Farge (1926), and 445 La Farge (1928 through the 1930s). Under Louisville’s current address system, it is believed to have occasionally gone by the address of 924 La Farge.

8. Owner name and address: Ian and Yevett Karpel, 928 La Farge Avenue, Louisville, CO 80027.

II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6 Township 1S Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NW ¼ of SE ¼ of section 8 10. UTM reference NAD 83 Zone 1 3 ; 488629 mE 4425473 mN 11. USGS quad name: Louisville, Colorado

Year: 1965 revised 1994 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 8,9 Block 3 Addition: Jefferson Place Year of Addition: 1880 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The surveyed property is bounded on the west by La Farge Avenue, on the east by an alley, and on the north and south by property lines.

III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 60 x Width 40 16. Number of stories: Two 17. Primary external wall material(s): Vinyl

1 21 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

18. Roof configuration: Cross gable 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt roof

20. Special features: Fence, porch, garage, glass block 21. General architectural description: The house consists of an original one-story wood frame house with a two- story addition to the east. The building faces west to LaFarge Avenue. It is irregularly-shaped in plan. The roof is cross-gabled with gray asphalt shingles and boxed eaves. The exterior is clad with light yellow vinyl siding with a lap profile. Gable siding is white vinyl of a fish scale profile. The foundation is concrete. The front entry has a nearly full-width porch with a shallowly sloped hip roof supported on replacement turned wood posts painted white. The porch has a stained wood deck. The front door is a natural wood 4-panel door with no storm or screen door. The south side of the one-story portion has a secondary entrance with a white aluminum storm/screen door. The east end of the one-story portion has a shed roof with wood lattice. Windows on the original house are replacement 1/1 single hung white aluminum sash with white aluminum surrounds and storm/screen sash. The replacement windows appear to be in the original openings, including a tall, narrow sash in the front gable. Some windows on the south side of the original house have décorative wood head trim over the siding. The north side of the one-story portion has a shed-roofed projecting bay with one single-hung window with décorative head trim. Above the shed roof, in the second-story addition, there is a large arched fixed window. The second story addition has large windows facing west on the second floor. On the north side, there are three windows with arched transoms. On the west and south, there are small sections of three glass blocks. On the south side, there is a large pair of single hung windows with arched transoms.

22. Architectural style/building type: Other style: wood frame cross gable

23. Landscaping or special setting features: Jefferson Place Subdivision is a historic residential neighborhood adjacent to downtown Louisville. The subdivision is laid out on a standard urban grid of narrow, deep lots with rear alleys. Houses are built to a fairly consistent setback line along the streets with small front lawns, deep rear yards and mature landscaping. Small, carefully maintained single-family residences predominate. Most of the houses are wood framed, one or one and one-half stories in height, featuring white or light-colored horizontal wood or steel siding, gabled or hipped asphalt shingled roofs and front porches. While many of the houses have been modified over the years, most of the historic character-defining features have been preserved. 928 La Farge Avenue is consistent with these patterns and, as viewed from La Farge, blends well with the scale and character of the neighborhood. The large two-story addition is located behind the historic one-story house and thus is less obtrusive than it might otherwise be. The house is set close to the sidewalk, with a shallow, landscaped front yard. The back yard is enclosed with 6-foot wood privacy fencing. There is a concrete parking slab north of the garage at the alley.

24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: There is a one-car garage with yellow vinyl siding, a gable roof covered with gray asphalt shingles, a white paneled metal overhead garage door, and one white metal panel door on the south side. North of the garage is a concrete slab and a basketball hoop.

IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1890 Actual: Source of information: Boulder County Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: NA 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: NA 28. Original owner: Antonio Porta Source of information: Warranty deed 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions):

2 22 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

The original part of the house was built around 1890. Siding was initially replaced in 1975, according to building permits, but it appears to have been replaced twice. The current owners, the Karpels, were told that the current living room is the oldest part of the house, and that the dining room was added later. They were also told that the house was enlarged at some point by connecting it with a small dwelling that was behind the house. The two-story addition was built in 1995, with interior finished completed by the current owners after 2000. They also repaired the front porch, including the replacement posts. The garage was replaced in 2003.

30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s):

V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Domestic, Single Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): N/A 33. Current use(s): Domestic, Single Dwelling 34. Site type(s): Urban residence 35. Historical background: This building is part of Jefferson Place, the first residential subdivision in Louisville. 928 La Farge was the home of the Antonio and Libra Porta family for at least 49 years. Libra Porta was a midwife who delivered many babies in Louisville, particularly those from Italian families. A neighbor and relative of the Porta family has stated that this is a home where Saint Francesca Xavier Cabrini (“Mother Cabrini”) stayed when she would come to Louisville.

Antonio Porta acquired this property directly from Jefferson Place developr Charles Welch, with the warranty deed recorded in 1897. It is possible that Porta purchased the property even earlier, as it has been found that documents were not always recorded immediately. Also, the 1893 Sanborn map shows that there was already a house on this site by that time, and the online Boulder County Assessor records give the year of construction as 1890. Libra Porta’s 1937 obituary states that the family moved to Louisville in 1890. The Porta family was certainly among the first Italian families to settle in Louisville. Antonio Porta is listed in the 1892 Louisville directory as already being a Louisville resident.

This house appears in the correct location on the 1893, 1900, and 1908 Sanborn maps (although the north side of the house is not shown on any of these three maps), and on the 1909 Drumm’s Wall Map. The Boulder County Assessor card from 1948 gives 1905 as the date of construction, but this would have been a date estimated long after the fact, and contradicts the other date from the County of 1890. The house clearly appears to have been on this site by 1893 at the latest. Based on the foregoing evidence, the construction year is likely circa 1890.

Antonio Porta (1852-1931) and Libra Porta (1852-1937) immigrated to the U.S. in the 1880s. (Information on where they came from in Italy could not be located.) They came first to Marshall, a nearby coal mining community, as did a number of other Italians who settled in Louisville. They had eight children, of whom four survived to adulthood: John G., John L., Joe, and Henry. The oldest of these four was born in Italy in 1880, while the others were born in Colorado after 1890.

Antonio and Libra’s son, Henry, married Edith Zarini, daughter of Joseph and Virginia Zarini of 824 La Farge (5BL7992) in Jefferson Place. Henry and Edith lived at 917 La Farge (5BL7998). John L. Porta had a pool room in the 800 block of Main Street in the 1920s and was married to Katie Mossoni of Louisville. Joe Porta served in World War I, married Vivian Leach, was a City Trustee, and lived at 1101 La Farge (5BL916). Information about John G. Porta could not be located for this report. Relatives of the Porta family tended to live very close by, many of them across the street on the west side of the 900 block of La Farge. Libra’s brother, Peter Giorzelli, also lived nearby at 1000 La Farge (5BL8471).

Many current area residents of the Louisville area are descended from the Antonio and Libra Porta family.

Antonio Porta was a coal miner, while Libra Giorzelli Porta was a midwife who delivered babies in Louisville. Many members of the community called her “Zia,” which is Italian for “Aunt.” The following photo shows Antonio and Libra Porta:

3 23 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

Photo credit: Louisville Times, 8/17/1978

Census records and Louisville directories accurately place the Porta family in this location.

Multiple sources in Louisville have stated that Mother Cabrini (1850-1917), who first came to Denver in 1902, would visit Louisville to collect money for her mission in Denver. As she was known to speak very eloquently about the plight of Italian coal miners in Colorado, this is quite believable. This is the home in which Mother Cabrini stayed, according to neighbor and Porta relative Stella Giorzelli, who lived just two doors to the north at 1000 La Farge (5BL8471). Also, 928 La Farge is located less than a block from the site of Louisville’s original Catholic Church at the southwest corner of La Farge and Walnut (5BL7994).

A 1985 Historic Building Inventory Record for this building states that it was a boarding house for unmarried miners. This was not confirmed through the research done in 2012. However, the building does have many exterior doors, suggesting that it could have served this purpose at some time.

During the period of 1939 to 1952, this home was owned by Fred Eberharter. He was the son of Louis and Martha Eberharter and grew up on La Farge in Jefferson Place. He also owned several properties on this block, Block 3, of Jefferson Place, and lived at 801 Walnut (5BL8028, no longer extant) during the 1950s.

Paul Boyce (1906-1982) and Martha Boyce (1907-1982) owned 928 La Farge from 1952 until Paul Boyce’s death in 1988. (It is believed that they rented 936 La Farge 5BL8002, then called 934 La Farge, in the 1940s, according to Louisville directories.) They also resided here at 928 La Farge while they owned it. The Boyces came to Louisville from Kansas in 1930 or the early 1930s. Paul Boyce was a coal miner who worked at the Centennial Mine, Hi-Way Mine, and Eagle Mine, then became a carpenter after the end of the coal mining era. According to his obituary, he was a member of the United Mine Workers and the Louisville Rod & Gun Club. Paul and Martha’s children included Paul Jr., Shirley, and Viola. The current owners found a miner’s lunch pail etched with the name of Paul Boyce in the home.

A widowed mother, Mary Zado, and her son are also remembered as having been residents, renting for a time. Supporting this, the 1946 Louisville directory shows her as living at 924 La Farge (believed to be 928) at the same time that Paul and Martha Boyce lived at 934 La Farge (believed to be today’s 936).

In 2009, this home was one of five historic homes on the Louisville Holiday Home Tour organized by the Louisville Historical Commission and Historical Museum. The current owners, Ian and Yevett Karpel, provided the following information at that time. They stated that the oldest part of the house consists of what is now the living room, with the

4 24 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

dining room added later. They have been told that at some point, the house may have been enlarged by being connected with a small dwelling that was behind the house. The large addition was put onto the back of the house in 1995. The current owners purchased the property in 2000. Ian notes that “[w]e liked the house because the addition is behind the original miner’s cottage, and therefore the house still fits within the original character of Louisville. We also liked the fact that it wasn’t completed so that we could put our own mark on it. In the interior, we simply tried to make the new part fit with the old.” According to the Karpels, parts of the interior that are original are the pine floor in the dining room and the beadboard in the living room, dining room, and kitchen.

When Ian and Yevett Karpel purchased the house, the interior of the addition was not completed. As Ian Karpel wrote, “We did the trimwork and beadboard; remodeled the bathrooms; repaired the front porch; added a window and window seat in the dining room; added a freestanding stove in the living room; put in a new garage; replaced the old boiler with a high-efficiency model; and finished the basement.” A close friend of the owners, Rich Aiello of Aiello- Built Construction in Fort Collins, did the interior remodel, including the window seat, and he built the garage.

This house has been known by the following other addresses under Louisville’s old address system: 441 La Farge (1916 to the 1920s), 419 La Farge (1926), and 445 La Farge (1928 through the 1930s). Under Louisville’s current address system, it is believed to have occasionally gone by the address of 924 La Farge.

36. Sources of information: Boulder County “Real Estate Appraisal Card – Urban Master,” on file at the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History in Boulder, Colorado.

Boulder County Clerk & Recorder’s Office and Assessor’s Office public records, accessed through http://recorder.bouldercounty.org.

Directories of Louisville residents and businesses on file at the Louisville Historical Museum.

Census records and other records accessed through www.ancestry.com .

Drumm’s Wall Map of Louisville, Colorado, 1909.

Sanborn Insurance Maps for Louisville, Colorado, 1893, 1900, and 1908.

Green Mountain Cemetery Index to Interment Books, 1904-1925, Boulder Genealogical Society, 2006.

Louisville Times Centennial Edition, August 17, 1978.

Archival materials on file at the Louisville Historical Museum.

Fiore, Edna. “Mother Cabrini’s Legacy in North Denver.” Denver Catholic Register, Nov. 7, 2001.

Interviews conducted by Museum Coordinator Bridget Bacon: June Giorzelli Enrietto, 2007 and Sept. 3, 2009; Diane Marino, 2009; William Buffo, Aug. 20, 2009.

Information provided by owners Ian and Yevett Karpel, by email to Bridget Bacon dated Nov. 13, 2009, and in interviews, Nov. 2009.

VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: NA Designating authority: NA 37A. Applicable Local Landmark Criteria for Historic Landmarks: ___ A. Architectural. (1) Exemplifies specific elements of an architectural style or period.

5 25 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

(2) Example of the work of an architect or builder who is recognized for expertise nationally, statewide, regionally, or locally. (3) Demonstrates superior craftsmanship or high artistic value. (4) Represents an innovation in construction, materials or design (5) Style particularly associated with the Louisville area. (6) Represents a built environment of a group of people in an era of history that is culturally significant to Louisville. (7) Pattern or grouping of elements representing at least one of the above criteria. (8) Significant historic remodel. __X_ B. Social.

(1) Site of historic event that had an effect upon society. (2) Exemplifies cultural, political, economic or social heritage of the community. (3) Association with a notable person or the work of a notable person.

___ C. Geographic/environmental

(1) Enhances sense of identity of the community. (2) An established and familiar natural setting or visual feature that is culturally significant to the history of Louisville.

____ Does not meet any of the above local criteria.

Local Field Eligibility Assessment: Although the property lacks sufficient integrity and significance to be eligible to the National or State Registers, it is worthy of nomination as a local landmark due to its long association with the locally-prominent Italian immigrant mining family, the Portas.

37B. Applicable State Register of Historic Properties Criteria:

___ A. The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to history.

___ B. The property is connected with persons significant in history.

___ C. The property has distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction or artisan.

___ D. The property has geographic importance.

___ E. The property contains the possibility of important discoveries related to prehistory or history.

_X__ Does not meet any of the above State Register criteria.

State Register Field Eligibility Assessment: Not eligible

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

6 26 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance (National Register): NA

40. Period of significance: NA 41. Level of significance: NA National State Local 42. Statement of significance: This house is associated with the historic development of Louisville as one of the early homes in Louisville’s first residential subdivision, Jefferson Place. It is significant for its long association with the locally prominent Porta family, an Italian immigrant coal-mining family.

43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The property has integrity of location, workmanship and association. Integrity of setting, design and feeling are compromised by the large 2-story addition. Integrity of design is also compromised by replacement windows. Integrity of materials is compromised by replacement siding and replacement windows.

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 X No _____

Historic District Potential: Jefferson Place is eligible as a State Register and local historic district. There is potential for a National Register historic district. This property is non-contributing due to compromised integrity.

Discuss: This building is being recorded as part of a 2010-2011 intensive-level historical and architectural survey of Jefferson Place, Louisville’s first residential subdivision, platted in 1880. The purpose of the survey is to determine if there is potential for National Register, State Register or local historic districts. Jefferson Place is eligible as a State Register historic district under Criterion A, Ethnic Heritage, European, for its association with European immigrants who first lived here and whose descendants continued to live here for over fifty years. The period of significance for the State Register historic district is 1881 – 1980. Jefferson Place is potentially eligible as a National Register historic district under Criterion A, Ethnic Heritage, European. However it needs data to determine dates of some modifications, and to more definitely establish the significant impacts of various European ethnic groups on the local culture of Louisville. The period of significance of a National Register district is 1881 – 1963. Jefferson Place is eligible as a local Louisville historic district under local Criterion B, Social, as it exemplifies the cultural and social heritage of the community.

European immigrant families flocked to Colorado coal mining communities, including Louisville, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in search of economic opportunities they could not find in their own countries. Louisville’s Welch Coal Mine, along with other mines in the area, recruited skilled workers from western Europe. In the early years before 1900, most of the miners who lived in Jefferson Place came from English-speaking countries.

Immigrants from England brought a strong tradition and expertise in coal mining. The English are widely credited with developing the techniques of coal mining that were used locally, and they taught these techniques to other miners. The British mining culture was instilled in the early Colorado coal mines. English immigrants also brought expertise in other necessary skills such as blacksmithing and chain forging.

Later Jefferson Place residents arrived from Italy, France, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia, among other places. The Italians eventually became the largest single ethnic group in Jefferson Place and in Louisville as a whole. About one-third of the houses in Jefferson Place were owned and occupied by Italian immigrants. Italian immigrants left their mark on Louisville in the food and beverage industries. To the present day, downtown Louisville is known throughout the Front Range for its tradition of Italian restaurants. The 7 27 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

impacts of the heritage and customs of the other European ethnic groups could be significant, but are not well documented and need further investigation.

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 The property is not within an existing National Register district.

VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: 5BL918_928LaFarge_01 through 5BL918_928LaFarge_06. Digital images filed at: City of Louisville, Planning Department 48. Report title: Historical and Architectural Survey of Jefferson Place Subdivision, Louisville, Colorado 49. Date(s): 2013 50. Recorder(s): Kathy and Leonard Lingo, Avenue L Architects, and Bridget Bacon, City of Louisville 51. Organization: Avenue L Architects 52. Address: 3457 Ringsby Court Suite 317, Denver, CO 80216 53. Phone number(s): (303) 290-9930

NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395

8 28 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

9 29 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

10 30 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

5BL918_928LaFarge_01 west

5BL918_928LaFarge_02 southwest

11 31 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

5BL918_928LaFarge_03 northwest

5BL918_928LaFarge_04 east

12 32 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

5BL918_928LaFarge_05 south

5BL918_928LaFarge_06 garage southeast

13 33 Resource Number: 5BL 918 Temporary Resource Number: 157508404002

928 La Farge. Louisville Historical Museum, 2008.008.064.

928 La Farge. Boulder County Real Estate Appraisal card, 1950.

14 34 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report March 15, 2021

ITEM: 724-728 Main Street Probable Cause Determination

APPLICANT: Andy Johnson 922A Main Street Louisville, CO 80027

OWNER: Jay Kalinski 2425 Canyon Blvd, Ste. 110 Boulder, CO 80302

PROJECT INFORMATION: ADDRESS: 724-728 Main Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 10, Block 3, Original Louisville DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: c. 1885

REQUEST: A request to find probable cause for a landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 724-728 Main Street.

LA FARGE AVENUE

SUMMARY: The applicant requests a finding of probable cause for landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 724-728 Main Street. Under Resolution No. 2, Series 2014, a property may be eligible for reimbursement for a historic structure

35 assessment (HSA) from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) if the Historic Preservation Commission finds “probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for landmarking under the criteria in section 15.36.050 of the Louisville Municipal Code.” Further, “a finding of probable cause under this Section is solely for the purposes of action on the pre-landmarking building assessment grant request, and such finding shall not be binding upon the HPC, City Council or other party to a landmarking hearing.”

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: Information from Bridget Bacon, Louisville Historical Museum

Evidence shows that the buildings were constructed in circa 1880-1890. There is evidence for one to come to the conclusion either that this is one building or that it is two buildings. The two structures, which have coexisted since the late 1800s, have never been owned separately, but have always had the same owner. Although this property has two addresses, the Boulder County Assessor’s Office views this as one property with one address (724 Main) and one improvement on it, as shown in the County’s online property records (but the County Assessor did prepare an Assessor card separately for each building in 1948).

A map of Louisville made in 1880-81 shows “N. Brett” living at this location, with the name handwritten in. Jennie’s Brett’s husband, Newton Brett, was a carpenter. The 1880 federal census also shows them to be living in Louisville in this vicinity of Main Street. Due to this evidence, it is believed that the buildings, or at least one of them, could have been constructed by around 1880, and possibly were constructed by Newton Brett himself, as he was a carpenter. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to determine which building was constructed first, but both certainly existed by 1893, when that year’s Sanborn map shows them both.

The two buildings have always had two different addresses starting with the 1916 directory in which numerical addresses first appear for Louisville. The historical survey done in 2000 treated it as one property, with one architectural form for both buildings, but described it as being “historically comprised of two separate buildings.”

Among the many uses that have existed at these addresses, the 1908 Sanborn map shows the building on the south side of Lot 10 (724 Main) was still a dwelling, and the building on the north side of Lot 10 (728 Main) was for “Billiards & Bowling Alley,” seen below.

36 For about thirty-five years of Louisville history, the building at 728 Main was the site of the Twin Light Tavern, an extremely popular Main Street bar with food, a dance floor, a juke box, and sometimes live music that had its heyday during World War II and the period afterwards, while the building at 724 Main served as a men’s barbershop for sixty-eight years. The dance floor of the Twin Light Tavern suffered a fire in 1976 that was attributed to arson, and it is believed that for that reason, the far rear of the building is now gone.

The barbershop was a place where men talked business and politics, and sometimes got elected to public office – including when barbershop owner Herm Fauson himself was elected mayor of Louisville. The buildings, being located just steps from Louisville’s major intersections of Main & Pine and Main & Spruce, were in a prime location and historically have had a number of prominent Louisville residents associated with them as owners or as business operators, including (among others) Charles A. Clark, Roy Austin, Lawrence J. Mossoni, Paul Domenico and Guy Domenico (these last three being members of some of Louisville’s Italian families), and Herman Fauson. Many of the men associated with this property also worked as coal miners in the Louisville area at some point in their lives.

724-728 Main Street, aerial photo, c. 1930

724-728 Main Street, west elevation – Current Photo

724-728 Main Street, east elevation – Current Photo

724-728 Main Street, south elevation (left) and detail (right) – Current Photos

ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY: 724-728 Main Street is a double-storefront commercial building, historically comprised of two separate buildings. The one-story wood frame buildings rest on concrete foundations, and have stuccoed exterior walls. Each of the two buildings has a front gable roof. For both buildings, the gable ends are hidden behind tall parapet walls, with distinctive stepped gables which rise well above the roof lines on the facade (west elevation). These parapets also serve to speak to the Art Deco style of the buildings, giving them a vertical emphasis – a common, characterizing feature to the style. In the early part of the 20th century, the Art Deco style was popular across the country, and it is clear that when these two structures were remodeled around that time period, they gave a vernacular touch of the Art Deco to the front elevations. The windows at 728 Main Street feature wooden kickplate areas, with painted recessed panels, typical of storefront commercial designs at the turn of the previous century.

39 Further, “a finding of probable cause under this Section is solely for the purposes of action on the pre-landmarking building assessment grant request, and such finding shall not be binding upon the HPC, City Council or other party to a landmarking hearing.”

Staff has found probable cause to believe this application complies with the following criteria:

CRITERIA FINDINGS Landmarks must be at The principal structure at 724-728 Main Street were least 50 years old constructed circa 1890, making it approximately 131 years old.

Staff finds the age of the structure meets the criteria for age.

Landmarks must meet Architectural Significance - Represents a built one or more of the criteria environment of a group of people in an era of history for architectural, social or that is culturally significant to Louisville. geographic/environmental  The two commercial buildings at 724-728 Main significance Street were modified many times over the years, but have kept an Art Deco appearance since the first few decades of the 20th century. It is typical of other commercial structures built in Louisville during the 1890s and early 20th century.

Staff finds the style and integrity of the structure has probable cause to meet the criteria for architectural significance.

Social Significance - Exemplifies cultural, political, economic or social heritage of the community.  The many businesses that have operated at 724-728 have played important roles in the cultural heritage of the community, included the Twin Light Tavern and Herm’s Barbershop which was operated by Herman Fauson, Louisville’s mayor from 1986-1992.  The sustained early commercial development at this building also had direct ties to Louisville’s coal mining industry with many patrons involved in Louisville’s mining heritage.

Staff finds that the structure exemplifies the cultural and social heritage of the community and there is probable cause to meet the criterion for

40 social significance.

Landmarks should meet Physical Integrity: one or more criteria for Shows character, interest or value as part of the physical integrity development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the community, region, state, or nation.  Although this building has undergone changes to its façade, and exterior wall surfaces, it has not had any additions within the past fifty years. Most crucially, it has retained its false front commercial feeling and association and has retained good historic integrity.

Retains original design features, materials and/or character.  The stucco on the exterior of the property is not original, however it does appear to have been added more than 50 years ago and has acquired historical significance.

Remains in its original location, has the same historic context after having been moved, or was moved more than 50 years ago.  The structures at 724-728 Main Street are found in their original location.

Overall staff finds probable cause that the structure meets the criteria for physical integrity.

Goal #5: Continue leadership in preservation incentives and enhance customer service Objective 5.1 - Promote availability of Historic Preservation Fund grants and other incentives

41 HISTORIC CONTEXT REPORT: The City completed a commercial historic context report (Stories in Places: Putting Louisville’s Commercial Development in Context) in 2018 that includes a list of recommended and priority properties for preservation. The property at 724-728 Main Street is included in the list of properties recommended for landmarking.

FISCAL IMPACT: The finding of probable cause allows for a grant of up to $9,000 for a Historic Structure Assessment from the Historic Preservation Fund. The current balance of the Historic Preservation Fund is approximately $2.9 million.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC finds there is probable cause for landmarking 724-728 Main Street under the criteria in section 15.36.050 of the LMC, making the properties eligible for the cost of a historic structure assessment. The current maximum amount available for a commercial HSA is $9,000. Staff recommends the HPC approve a grant not to exceed $9,000 to reimburse the costs of a historic structure assessment for 724- 728 Main Street.

ATTACHMENTS:  Application  724-728 Main Street Social History Report

Department of Planning and Building Safety 749 Main Street  Louisville CO 80027  303.335.4592  www.louisvilleco.gov

ELECTRONIC HISTORIC PRESERVATION HEARING REQUEST CASE NO:______

PROPERTY INFORMATION TYPE(S) OF APPLICATION

Address: ______Probable Cause/Historic Structure Assessment ______Landmark Designation Year of Construction: ______Historic Preservation Fund Grant

Legal Description: ______Historic Preservation Fund Loan Landmark Alteration Certificate ______Demolition Review Landmark Name and Resolution (if applicable): Other: ______

OWNER INFORMATION SIGNATURES AND DATES

Name: ______Applicant Name Company: ______

Address: ______Applicant Signature Date ______Telephone: ______Owner Name

Email: ______Owner Signature Date

43 Louisville Historical Museum June 2012

724 / 728 Main Street History

Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 3, Original Louisville

Year of Construction: circa 1880-1890 (see discussion below)

Architect/Builder: unknown

Previous addresses used to refer to this property (under Louisville’s old address system):

For 724 Main: 217 Main; 219 Main; 221 Main; 225 Main; also 714 Main (on the 1948 County Assessor card)

For 728 Main: 221 Main; 223 Main; 225 Main; 229 Main; also 718 Main (on the 1948 County Assessor card)

The two buildings did not both have the address of 221 or 225 Main at the same time.

Summary:

Evidence shows that the buildings were constructed in circa 1880-1890.

There is evidence for one to come to the conclusion either that this is one building or that it is two buildings. The two structures, which have coexisted since the late 1800s, have never been owned separately, but have always had the same owner. Although this property has two addresses, the Boulder County Assessor’s Office views this as one property with one address (724 Main) and one improvement on it, as shown in the County’s online property records (but the County Assessor did prepare an Assessor card separately for each building in 1948). The two buildings have always had two different addresses starting with the 1916 directory in which numerical addresses first appear for Louisville. The historical survey done in 2000 treated it as one property, with one architectural form for both buildings, but described it as being “historically comprised of two separate buildings.”

For about thirty-five years of Louisville history, the building at 728 Main was the site of the Twin Light Tavern, an extremely popular Main Street bar with food, a dance floor, a juke box, and sometimes live music that had its heyday during World War II and the period afterwards, while the building at 724 Main served as a men’s barbershop for sixty-eight years. The barbershop was a place where men talked

44 business and politics, and sometimes got elected to public office – including when barbershop owner Herm Fauson himself was elected mayor of Louisville.

The buildings, being located just steps from Louisville’s major intersections of Main & Pine and Main & Spruce, were in a prime location and historically have had a number of prominent Louisville residents associated with them as owners or as business operators, including (among others) Charles A. Clark, Roy Austin, Lawrence J. Mossoni, Paul Domenico and Guy Domenico (these last three being members of some of Louisville’s Italian families), and Herman Fauson. Many of the men associated with this property also worked as coal miners in the Louisville area at some point in their lives.

Earliest Ownership; Date of Construction

Louis Nawatny founded and platted the original downtown part of Louisville in 1878. Nawatny worked for Charles C. Welch, the prominent Coloradan who started the first coal mine in the area and is believed to have played an even larger role in the establishment of Louisville than Nawatny.

In 1880, Nawatny sold Lot 10, Block 3 to Van Darrow, who was the brother-in-law of Charles Welch and who was a Louisville businessman. Darrow sold the property later in 1880 to Jennie Brett. (The 2000 inventory record for this property, which indicated that William and Robert Austin were the original owners, is strongly believed to be in error.)

Due to this evidence, it is believed that the buildings, or at least one of them, could have been constructed by around 1880, and possibly were constructed by Newton Brett himself, as he was a carpenter. The 2000 survey record for this property noted the evidence from the 1893 Sanborn map and concluded that the buildings were constructed in circa 1890 (not in 1900, which is the date given by the County that is considered to be a ball park estimate arrived at in 1948). The evidence of the Brett ownership and the Brett residence at this location in 1880 has not been previously considered and would suggest that the buildings, or one of them, may have been built as early as circa 1880. For the foregoing reasons, the date of construction for these buildings is believed to be circa 1880-1890. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to determine which building was constructed first. (Both definitely existed by 1893.)

In 1882, Jennie Brett sold the property to George Carpenter, and Lizzie Carpenter also became an owner.

In 1885, the Carpenters sold this lot to William Cowdrey. At this point, probably due to different spellings of names in the online County records, the identities of the owners for the years of 1885 to 1890 are unclear with respect to this property.

45 By 1890, A.M. Campbell had become the owner, and this person sold it that year to Abner C. Goodhue; Abner’s wife, Clara Waynick Goodhue, also became a legal owner of it. Abner Goodhue (1832-1912) was a prominent Louisville area pioneer and farmer just south of Louisville. His wife, Clara Goodhue (1867- 1940), whom he married in 1887, was the niece of the next owner, Charles A. Clark, and it is possible that the Goodhues purchased it for Charles A. Clark, who was coming to Louisville to live. Clara Goodhue’s obituary from 1940 states that “After coming to Louisville, Mrs. Goodhue lived with an uncle, Charley Clark, who owned a grocery where the Twin Light now stands. They had one of the first telephone exchanges here.”

In 1892, Charles A. Clark purchased this property, and it was owned and occupied by him until his death in 1902 (and by his family until 1903). Today, the name of Charles A. Clark is mostly forgotten in Louisville history, but for ten years from 1892 to 1902, he was a very experienced and prominent town leader in Louisville as well as being an “enterprising merchant,” as he was described in the 1898 book “Portrait & Biographical Record of Denver and Vicinity Colorado.”

Born in Kentucky in 1834, Clark came to Colorado in 1859 at the time of the Colorado Rush. One history of Jefferson County describes him as having arrived from Kentucky as one of the twelve founders of Golden, Colorado in 1859. He had a cattle ranch of 360 acres in Jefferson County starting in the 1860s and was elected sheriff of Jefferson County. He served in the Colorado state legislature in the 1880s. His wife, Sabrina, passed away before he came to Louisville. They had two sons, Harry and Frank. The 1898 biography stated that “The success that has met his efforts is the result of his energy, business judgment and determination of will, qualities that almost invariably bring their possessor a large share of financial success.” The biography further stated that he conducted business “upon an honest and reliable basis that has won him many patrons and friends.”

Upon coming to Louisville by 1892, Charles A. Clark opened a real estate office at what is today 728 Main and was appointed justice of the peace. Boulder County newspaper articles from the 1890s made reference to his role as justice of the peace, particularly when people accused of crimes were brought before him. Directories show that he also made loans and sold insurance from this office. All evidence points to Clark living next door to his office, at what is today 724 Main.

The following photo of the Honorable Charles A. Clark appeared in the 1898 “Portrait & Biographical Record of Denver and Vicinity Colorado”:

This small excerpt from the 1893 Sanborn fire insurance map shows that at that time, the building on the south side of Lot 10 (724 Main) was a dwelling (as indicated by the “D”), and the building on the north side of Lot 10 (728 Main) was an office (as indicated by “Off”):

The use of the property shown on the 1893 Sanborn map is consistent with what is known of Charles A. Clark and his usage of the property as the owner.

Charles A. Clark also owned property on the site of Clarkson (believed to have been located east of Louisville and south of Lafayette), where he had a creamery and cheese factory. Directories show that in the late 1890s, he began to operate a grocery store in the building at 728 Main in addition to his real estate and insurance business.

This small excerpt from the 1900 Sanborn map shows that at that time, the building on the south side of Lot 10 (724 Main) was still a dwelling, and the building on the north side of Lot 10 (728 Main) was a store (as indicated by the “S”):

This use of the property shown on the 1900 Sanborn map is also consistent with owner Charles A. Clark’s business activities of the time. It is believed that he was continuing to use the south building as his home, since the map shows that it was still a dwelling, and that he was using the north building as a store.

In 1903, Thomas Thompson purchased Lot 10 (Charles A. Clark having died in 1902), and his wife, Ann, soon joined him as an owner. During their ownership, Thomas Thompson and Ann Thompson made the building on the north side of Lot 10 (728 Main) into a billiard hall. It was they who in 1919 sold the parcel to Lawrence J. Mossoni.

Thomas Thompson was born in England in 1856, while Ann was born in England in 1843. The 1900 census records show Thomas Thompson to have been the proprietor of a “Temperance Hall Pool Room”, and the 1904 directory refers to Thompson’s business as a “Temperance Hall.” This relates to the fact that Main Street businesses were not allowed to serve alcohol at that time, and in fact, it was not the only “temperance hall” on Main Street. Records indicate that by 1911, they had added at least one bowling alley; there would eventually be twin bowling alleys that extended all the way to the alley to the east of the building. Records indicate that the operation side was taken over by Walter Dugan later in the 1910s. The 1916 directory shows Walter Dugan to have been operating a billiard hall at what is today 728 Main, while the Thompsons continued to reside at what is now 724 Main, and perhaps help oversee the property, which they owned, from their residency there.

The following photo, while it doesn’t offer a good view of the buildings in question located farther up the street on the right, does give a good impression of what this block of Main Street looked like in circa 1905-1910:

This small excerpt from the 1908 Sanborn map shows that at that time, the building on the south side of Lot 10 (724 Main) was still a dwelling, and the building on the north side of Lot 10 (728 Main) was for “Billiards & Bowling Alley,” which is consistent with the usage of the property indicated in other records:

As this map excerpt shows, the bowling alley extended the building all the way to the alley to the east.

(The 1909 Drumm’s Wall Map of Louisville, which was completed just one year after the 1908 Sanborn map, for unknown reasons shows only the building on the south side of the lot. Faint erasures on the map where the north building would have been indicated suggest that perhaps the map is incomplete with respect to this property. Other evidence satisfactorily shows that the long bowling alley existed at this location both immediately before 1909 and immediately after 1909, so it would most certainly have also been there in 1909.)

The following photo shows the property in about 1915, at the time when it was likely owned by the Thompsons. It appears that the building on the north says “Pool Hall & Bowling Alley” on the front. The building at 724 Main has always been slightly shorter in height than the building at 728 Main.

The following photo is also from 1915 and shows the buildings in the center of this cropped picture showing the funeral procession for the slain town marshal, Victor Helburg.

This photo from around 1912 was printed in a local newspaper in 1942:

Ownership by Lawrence J. Mossoni and Family, 1919-1970

Lawrence J. Mossoni purchased this property in 1919, and he and members of his family would end up owning it for over fifty years, until 1970. (The records indicate that his wife, Marie, may have become a co-owner at some point, also.)

Lawrence Mossoni was born in Italy in 1889 and came to Marshall, Colorado in 1901. His 1983 obituary stated that he worked as a coal miner in Boulder County for twenty years. In 1913, he married Marie Zarini of Louisville. He “also owned and operated a variety of Louisville businesses for nearly 50 years until his retirement in 1973.” As one long-time Louisville resident has said, “L.J. owned a little bit of everything in Louisville.” Besides owning this particular property for decades, he was in business with Michael Colacci, the founder of the Blue Parrot, at 701 Main; he had a hardware store at 813 Main; he was involved with Front Street properties; and he was on the board of directors of the Louisville- Lafayette Coal Co. that was incorporated in 1930. His family home was also in the core downtown, at 836 Main Street. An Italian immigrant with little formal education, he certainly achieved success in business in Louisville.

The following photo from 1978 shows Lawrence J. Mossoni when he was in his late 80s (an earlier photo could not be located):

51 With respect to his ownership of this parcel in particular, Mossoni was primarily the owner and not the operator of the businesses occupying the building, except for some years when he ran the business at 728 Main. When he purchased the property in 1919, 728 Main was already a billiard hall and bowling alley. An article in the October 7, 1920 Louisville Times stated that “Lawrence Mossoni has been working on his bowling alleys and put them in excellent condition for the fall and winter season, and offers a prize of $1 for any man bowling the score of 200 for the first time. . . . Jimmie (Shorty) James has accepted a position with Lawrence Mossoni in the pool hall as a soda slinger.” Historical records show that at the beginning, Mossoni operated the pool hall with John L. Porta.

An unofficial transcript of an oral history interview that Lawrence Mossoni gave in 1975 gives insight into the early years of his ownership of the billiard hall and bowling alleys. Discussing the fact that Louisville’s economy and the mining conditions and pay began to improve in about 1920, he said that by that time, he was already a business man and “had bought the only pool hall and bowling alley in town that was doing good, where the Twin Light Tavern is now.” He told of how before there were automatic pin setters, setting the pins for men to bowl was hard work. He added a soda fountain and four tables. Then he decided to sell the bowling alleys, the hard wood of which were taken up piece by piece and removed to Fort Lupton. Mossoni referred to there being a lot of smoke in the pool hall and suffering from a possible ulcer, so he arranged for Roy Austin to take over the pool hall business, which happened between 1923 and 1926. Mossoni moved on to other business ventures in Louisville, while retaining ownership of Lot 10.

Roy Austin had been born just across the street at 717 Main in Louisville in 1896 and lived there until he died in 1985. Along the way, he was involved in local affairs in many ways, including working at banks in both Louisville and Lafayette and operating the pool hall at 728 Main. He also served for over twenty years as treasurer for the Town of Louisville. He was a veteran of World War I.

The following photo of Roy Austin shows him in the 1930s in front of his house at 717 Main:

Roy Austin’s pool hall business was included as one of twenty-two Louisville businesses on the movie curtain made for the Rex Theatre in circa 1927-28:

With respect to 724 Main during this period, Lawrence Mossoni brought in his wife’s brother, Peter Zarina, to have a barber shop in the building starting in 1920. Peter Zarina (1896-1992) grew up at 824 La Farge and stated in a 1988 oral history interview (available for listening online through Boulder’s Carnegie Branch Library for Local History) that he started working towards being a barber while he was still in high school. His barber shop at 724 Main was called “Pete’s Place.” He stated that there was a door through to the pool hall next door at 728 Main, so that he got business from “all the gamblers” as well as from “all the athletes.” He also cut women’s hair and stated in the oral history interview that he cut the hair of all nineteen teachers in Louisville at the time. Pete Zarina stopped being a barber in this location in about 1928.

Next, barber Bob Woody started Woody’s Barber Shop, at 724 Main in about 1928. His business continued to 1962, a period of thirty-four years. Bob Woody was from Georgia and attended barber college in Denver. By 1917, he was in Louisville, where he married a local girl, Helen Sirokman that year.

In Woody’s Barber Shop, there were two barber chairs, both located on the right side as one walked in. Bob Woody’s clientele included miners and, starting in the 1950s, men who worked at Rocky Flats. Woody gave both haircuts and shaves. A shower in the back was sometimes used by miners. By the time he retired in 1962, he was cutting the hair of third and fourth generation customers. It is remembered that the shop was a local gathering place for men where a number of people got elected to public office.

The other barber shop operated during this period was Tesone’s. Fiori Tesone and Bob Woody, the only barbers in town, would regularly give haircuts to each other, though they were business competitors.

Records show that Lawrence J. Mossoni took over the business at 728 Main from Roy Austin in the period of 1933-1935. It is believed that it was by then that the façades of the buildings were changed to the current façades. However, as no photos showing the buildings in the 1920s could be located, it is possible that the facades were changed as early as the 1920s. Until more photos and relevant information can be found, the estimate for the current façades is circa 1920-1935.

It was also in 1933-1935 that Lawrence J. Mossoni started the Twin Light Tavern at 728 Main. This development may have come about due to the end of Prohibition and the apparent fact that alcohol could now be sold on Main Street, not just on Front Street. The last listing for Roy Austin’s operation of

53 the pool hall was 1933. The name Twin Light first appears in 1935 in connection with Mossoni (though it could have existed earlier, but there is no directory for 1934). By 1936, Mossoni had again stepped back from the management of the business, and it was taken over by Henry J. Rusher.

The following aerial photo was taken in the 1930s and shows these buildings with their current façades:

Stories about the Twin Light Tavern told by Louisville residents point towards its heyday having been during World War II and the period afterwards. More than one resident has said that it was “the place to be.” During the 1940s, its clientele included locals (both men and women), servicemen home on leave, University of Colorado male students enrolled in a World War II Navy training program, regular CU students, and others. It should also be remembered that this was a time when it was legal to buy and sell alcohol in Louisville, but not in many of the communities around Louisville. With regularity, fights broke out at the Twin Light, which for some people made for even more entertainment.

Bob Enrietto, who was in the service in the 1940s, has recalled a type of drink that was popular at the Twin Light Tavern, a “depth charge.” A depth charge was a kind of boilermaker that involved dropping a shot glass of whiskey into a glass of beer. Its name is a World War II reference.

Another Louisville resident has recalled that when rationing was initiated during World War II and beer was in short supply, the bars and taverns in Louisville (such as the Twin Light and the Blue Parrot) would cooperatively take turns at having beer available.

The following photos show this stretch of the 700 block of Main Street with the Twin Light Tavern in the background during the World War II era:

The following advertisement for the Twin Light Tavern is from a 1945 Louisville directory and shows the food that was served there at the time. Similarly, the 1946 directory shows that the tavern served “Mixed Drinks, Spaghetti and Meat Balls and Tobacco of All Kinds.”

55 In 1948, the following photo and ground layout image were supplied on the County Assessor card for “718” Main Street, which is a reference to 728 Main:

Similarly, in 1948, the following photo and ground layout image were supplied on the County Assessor card for “714” Main Street, which is a reference to 724 Main:

Beginning in the early to mid 1940s, the operators of the Twin Light were brothers Guy Domenico (1909- 1948) and Paul Domenico (1902-1973). Paul Domenico continued to operate the tavern after Guy’s death until about 1969. To most residents, the Twin Light is synonymous with the management of the business by the Domenicos.

A number of Louisville residents worked at the Twin Light Tavern in one capacity or another. Emilio “Millie” and Edith Fiorelli worked there as bartender and waitress in 1940. David D. French managed it in 1940, and Clifford Thompson was involved in running it in the early 1940s. During the management by Paul and Guy Domenico, it was Frances Beranek Domenico (the wife of Paul Domenico) who ran the kitchen. Her sisters, Rose Beranek (Martella) and Rose Beranek (Schoser) also worked in the kitchen. A relative remembers hearing that a lot of soups were made at the Twin Light, and that many bachelor miners would come there to eat after work or would take soup home in their miners’ lunch pails, in an early version of take-out. Louisville resident Nellie Lombardi Inama has also been remembered as having

57 worked at the Twin Light. Owner Lawrence Mossoni’s son, Norman Mossoni, worked at the Twin Light in the late 1940s.

The Twin Light Tavern had an exterior light on each side of the façade of the building, which tied in with the name “Twin Light.”

Locals recall that upon entering the Twin Light, one would see the bar with several bar stools on the right side and booths on the left side. Going towards the back, one would encounter a kitchen and pool table, and the dance floor toward the rear, where the bowling alley used to be. More booths lined one side of the dance floor. A small stage at the back was for live bands to perform on. John Negri, now over ninety years old, is one who remembers playing clarinet in a band at the Twin Light when he was a young man.

The dance floor suffered a fire in 1976 that was attributed to arson, and it is believed that for that reason, the far rear of the building is now gone.

Some Louisville residents recall that there was a mural in the Twin Light Tavern on the interior north wall that had been painted in the early 1950s. It has been described as showing a large rainbow trout with a rainbow around it. There is a difference of opinion as to who painted it, with the names Sydney Jaramillo and the itinerant painter, Cheyenne, both mentioned as being the possible artist.

Ray Domenico, the son of Guy Domenico and the nephew and stepson of Paul Domenico, today has a motorcycle business in Broomfield, Colorado called Twin Light Performance, so named after the Twin Light Tavern. He also has the old Twin Light Tavern sign, which he keeps on the premises of his current business.

Later Ownership

In 1970, Lawrence and Marie Mossoni’s daughter and son, Virginia Carnival and Norman Mossoni, sold this property to Ernesto and Domenica Sozio. They owned it for two years, selling it in 1972 to Umberto and Vera Toscano. Marcia Peacock acquired it in 1974 and owned it briefly before the Toscanos became the owners again.

In 1976, the Toscanos sold it to Herman Fauson. Fauson operated a barbershop, Herm’s Barber Shop, on the property at 724 Main, starting in 1962. Records show that he owned 724 and 728 Main for twelve years, until 1988, and had his barbershop there for twenty-six years in all. Herman Fauson, born in 1929, came to Louisville from southern Illinois with his family in 1934. He was mayor of Louisville from 1986 to 1992.

Records indicate that in or around 1977, while Herm Fauson continued to have his barber shop at 724 Main, the Twin Light Tavern closed and was replaced at 728 Main by Rae’s New & Near New Shop, which became Lou’s Near New & Oldies, according to directories.

The following photo (actually, two photos that were connected together) shows the property in 1978:

From 1982 to 1987, 728 Main was occupied by such businesses as Rautenstrauss & Joss, attorneys (later Rautenstrauss, Joss & Midgley, attorneys); Gardner & Co., Inc.; Varra Insurance Agency operated by Wayne Varra; TriCity Insurance; and Drafting Specialty. It appears from directories that these businesses left the premises when Herm Fauson sold the property in 1988.

In 1988, Edward and Cheri Ruskus purchased the property. They owned 724 and 728 Main for eleven years, until 1999. During their ownership, many small businesses were located on the property. The business of Cheri Ruskus that was located on the property was Business Answers, Inc. Its purpose was to provide supporting services for small businesses that included an answering service, including on 800 lines; fax services; small office space; private meeting rooms; photocopiers; and desktop publishing. Specific businesses listed in Louisville directories as being located on the property during the ownership by Edward and Cheri Ruskus were: Business Answers; Thermo Automation; McKinley Market Service, Indentatronics, later Inside Edge Marketing; Colorado Hosts, a travel service; JPC Financial; Nashua Corp (labeling equipment); Source Products Group; and Sunbelt Realty.

In 1999, Henry and Carol Argue purchased this parcel, and the property was the location for the business of Hank’s Model Trains. Available information shows that in 2000, 728 Main was the location of the Gateway Healing Center, and 724 Main was the location of Hank’s Model Trains. Later, Hank’s moved to 728 Main and 724 Main was rented out, being used for such businesses as the Cat’s Meow, a gift shop, which opened in 2003. Hank Argue had worked as an aerospace engineer at Ball Corp. and had run a model train shop out of his basement starting in 1977. He sold Lionel trains as well as models made by other companies, and his store became Boulder County’s only exclusively model train store.

The following photo shows the property in 1999:

The following photo from the 2000 survey shows the property in 2000:

In 2011, the current owner, S & B LLC, acquired this parcel. 724 Main is currently the location for The Book Cellar bookstore.

Survey Description and Statement of Significance

One prior inventory record is available for this property; it was completed in 2000. Although much more historical information is available and accessible for this property now than was available in 2000 (and has been discussed in this report), the 2000 survey is instructive for its description of the property and statement of significance.

60 The 2000 survey that was completed on this property stated that “724 / 728 Main is a double-storefront commercial building, historically comprised of two separate buildings. The one-story wood frame buildings rest on concrete foundations, and have stuccoed exterior walls. . . . Each of the two buildings has a front gable roof, with grey asphalt shingles. The gable ends are hidden behind tall parapet walls, with distinctive stepped gables which rise well above the roof lines on the façade (west elevation).”

The 2000 survey stated in its Statement of Significance that “This property is historically significant, relative to National Register Criterion A, for its association with early sustained commercial development in Louisville, in support of the area’s coal mining industry. The building is architecturally significant for its distinctive false front façade, and as a representative [of] late 19th Century / early 20th Century commercial building. The building’s significance in these regards is probably not to the extent that would qualify it for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places, however, it is eligible as a contributing resource within a potential downtown Louisville Historic District.”

With respect to an “assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance,” the 2000 survey stated that “Although this building has undergone changes to its façade, and exterior wall surfaces, it has not had any additions within the past fifty years. It is unreasonable to expect the facades of commercial buildings to remain the same as new businesses come and go. For this reason a greater latitude in assessing integrity should be applied.”

The 2000 survey stated the period of significance to be circa 1890 to 1950.

The preceding research is based on a review of relevant and available online County property records, census records, oral history interviews, Louisville directories, and Louisville Historical Museum maps, files, obituary records, and historical photographs from the collection of the Louisville Historical Museum.

61 Department of Planning and Building Safety

749 Main Street  Louisville CO 80027  303.335.4592  www.louisvilleco.gov

MEMORANDUM

To: Historic Preservation Commission Members From: Department of Planning and Building Safety Subject: Staff Updates Date: March 15, 2021

Landmark Updates

None

Alteration Certificate Updates

501 South Street  The subcommittee released a permit for a tear off and re-roof at this property. The shingles replaced were not original. Rationale: the proposed materials are similar to the original, and that the roof replacement will help preserve the structure.

Demolition Updates

541 Main Street  The subcommittee released a permit to demolish a detached garage. The date of the garage was unknown, but likely constructed after the original house and before 1948. Rationale: because the garage is detached from the main house, its removal would not have a detrimental impact on the chances of the main structure being landmarked, if the owner chose to do so at a later date.

Upcoming Schedule

April 19th – Historic Preservation Commission, Virtual Meeting on Zoom, 6:30 pm

62 Department of Planning and Building Safety

749 Main Street  Louisville CO 80027  303.335.4592  www.louisvilleco.gov

MEMORANDUM

To: Historic Preservation Commission Members

From: Department of Planning and Building Safety

Subject: HPC Projects Priority List – Historic Structure Assessment Update

Date: March 15, 2021

Summary

At the January 25, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting there were a number of project items that the Commission discussed, requesting further research or updates from staff. One of the items in question was the Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) and its process and requirements. The minutes from the January 25th meeting include some of the following questions:

 What are the HSA standards and should they be updated?  What are the city’s requirements for an HSA?  Who can complete and HSA? Should or can this be updated?

Updates

In reviewing the Historic Structure Assessment informational packet (attached as Appendix 1) that is given out to residents, staff confirmed that the requirements for the City’s report are identical to the State’s Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s standards for their HSAs.

The process for an HSA project overall has been included in the information sheet as well. It was updated in 2019 to keep up with the changes in grant amounts, and staff recently made some additional updates for clarification in 2021. Below is the most updated list, pulled from the informational packet:

63 PROCESS

1. Property owner completes an application for the HSA grant and forwards it to the Preservation Planner for review. 2. Staff will schedule the probable cause hearing before the HPC and notify the applicant of the date and time. The applicant should plan to attend the HPC meeting. 3. If probable cause for landmarking the property is found, the property owner coordinates with a Preservation Planner to conduct the HSA (outline provided by the Preservation Planner after approval). 4. Prior to signing a contract with the preservation professional, the property owner should submit the contract/price estimate to the City for approval. 5. Professional will conduct the HSA per the provided Scope of Work. 6. Submit draft HSA to Preservation Planner for review to ensure minimum standards of Scope of Work met. If any revisions are required, the Preservation Planner will provide comments on the document. 7. The completed HSA is provided to property owner by professional, and then forwarded to the City for final acceptance. 8. Property owner provides the W9 Tax Form, and HSA Invoice (paid) to the Preservation Planner for reimbursement. 9. Property owner meets with Preservation Planner to discuss next steps.

Because the standards and requirements as requested by the City are as detailed as the State’s Historic Preservation Office, staff feels confident our requirements bore forth detailed HSA reports for our review and grant guidance.

At the January HPC meeting, there were also questions about our consultants list, if there were preferred consultants, and who exactly was qualified to perform the work required of the HSA. In response to this, staff added a new page to the Historic Structure Assessment informational packet titled “Historic Structure Assessment Consultants List”. That information is the following:

REQUIREMENTS

To help in the process of selecting your HSA consultant, the City of Louisville has put together a non-exhaustive list for you to start your research and selection process. Please note, this list is not complete and does not represent an endorsement, recommendation, or assumption of responsibility for the work of any consultant. You may select someone not on the provided list, however, there are certain requirements for the consultant in which you choose. The City of Louisville follows the information below. The Historic Structure Assessment must be prepared by an architect or a structural engineer working under the direct guidance of an architect. Please consider the following when deciding who will prepare the HSA:

64  Architect, and structural engineer if applicable, must be licensed in the state of Colorado.  Architect must be the primary consultant on the project.  Architect, and structural engineer if applicable, must be able to interpret and apply The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. (staff will review all submitted work and recommendations to ensure they follow the Standards) Other professionals including engineers, archaeologists, historic preservation consultants, contractors, historians and cost estimators may also be members of the assessment team. History Colorado also keeps a directory of Historic Preservation Contractors on their website, which you can find here: https://www.historycolorado.org/historic-preservation-contractors. This list is for various preservation-related projects, so be sure to find those who do HSA work when searching this directory. The above professional requirements for the consultant is also directly related to the requirements set forth by the State’s Historic Preservation Office. As such, staff believes that our current requirements would result in detail work that is more than adequate in meeting the needs of the report requirements. As you can see, there is also mention of the need for the consultant to be able to “…interpret and apply The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.”

Staff is requesting feedback on the changes noted above for the Historic Structures Assessment packet. This will help confirm if the information provided is clear for residents and meeting the wishes of the Commission.