Historic Preservation Commission Agenda May 17, 2021 5:30 Pm

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda May 17, 2021 5:30 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 # 895 1035 2332. Passcode: 945590 2) You can log in via your computer. Please visit the City’s website here to link to the meeting: https://www.louisvilleco.gov/local- government/government/boards- commissions/historic-preservation- commission

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TRAINING

I. Open Government Training with City Attorney

City of Louisville Department of Planning and Building Safety 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.louisvilleco.gov

Historic Preservation Commission Agenda May 17, 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 # 895 1035 2332. 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 – April 19, 2021 5. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda 6. Probable Cause Determination a. 612 Grant Avenue 7. Probable Cause Determination a. 829 Lincoln Avenue 8. Items from Staff a. Staff Update memo b. HPC Project Table Update c. Bingo Card 9. Updates from Commission Members a. Update from the Historical Commission meeting 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

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 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 Andrea Klemme

Commission Members Absent: None.

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Dunlap made a motion to approve the April 19, 2021 agenda. Seconded by Klemme. The agenda was approved unanimously by voice vote.

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

Klemme made a motion to approve the March 15, 2021 minutes. Seconded by Burg. The minutes were approved unanimously as written by voice vote.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA

Leah Angstman, Historical Commission Liaison, announced her presence and offered to answer any questions.

NEW BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

950 Spruce Street and 725 Front Street Recommendation Request: A request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Special Review Use (SRU) for Use Group No. 5, Multi-Unit Dwellings; and a Final Plat to consolidate lots.  Applicant: Erik Hartronft, Hartronft and Associates  Owners: Split Mountain Commercial 4 LLC  Staff: Rob Zuccaro

City of Louisville Planning Department 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.ci.louisville.co.us Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 2 of 11

Zuccaro described development proposal and requested that the Commission review the application from a historical context perspective, specifically regarding the third-story element, building materials, and the Design Guidelines. The building itself was not eligible for landmarking and had been converted and remodeled multiple times since it was built in 1984.

Dunlap asked about the language in C3.3, asking for clarification that C3.3 specified two stories and the request was for three stories.

Zuccaro confirmed and added that it was nuanced because staff was asking whether the building presented as a two- or a three-story façade. He stated that the overall building height was 36 feet, which was shorter than most three-story buildings, and that there were composite panel elements that mimicked a lower building height, while at the same time from the northeast the view was clearly of three stories. There were elements that were trying to meet the intent of the language. He added a correction from the staff report that the library was actually 34-36 feet tall, not 32 feet as was stated.

Dunlap asked for background on the building that was proposed behind the Huckleberry but had never been built.

Zuccaro replied that the original plan for that structure was for it to be a commercial building with a third story and a taller height. He noted that it had been designed by the same architect. The revised plan for the building had effectively removed the third story.

Klemme asked about the height of the office building across the street.

Zuccaro replied that it was about 34 feet high.

Erik Hartronft of Hartronft Associates, architect for the plan, stated that few people had attempted to put residential in the downtown area. He noted that there was a lot of empty office space downtown and that residential buildings were important to support local businesses. He explained that the current zoning prohibited residential use without an SRU, but he noted that residential was a historic use and it would be important to maintain it for sustainability and nightlife. He described the design and intent of the proposed building.

Klemme asked about the white color on the building materials.

Hartronft replied that the white was to give some relief to the streetscape and to demarcate that it was a different type of use.

Klemme asked how far back the deck was.

Hartronft replied that it was seven-feet back from the property line.

Klemme asked about the commercial space and the codes that were involved and asked about the mixed-use request.

Hartronft replied that they were adding residential and the only way to do that was through the SRU, which made the development mixed-use because they were keeping commercial use on the first floor.

2 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 3 of 11

Klemme asked what would be involved if someone wanted to buy an apartment and sell in the commercial space below.

Hartronft replied that he felt that commercial was already approved downtown so they didn’t have to do anything for that.

Zuccaro added that if the SRU were approved and something happened to convert or end the residential space then it would no longer be allowed to be a residential use by the Code. He thought it was unlikely that you would get an SRU approved for residential use and then it wouldn’t get used as residential. He noted that there was a live/work concept in the Code and it was likely that if you wanted to have a commercial storefront you could do that and you wouldn’t lose the residential use.

Haley asked about the setbacks.

Hartronft replied that the first floor and the second- and third-story decks were at the property line and the third-floor building was set back. The wall line of the second and third floors was set back seven feet.

Burg asked whether the horizontal siding change on the first floor in the rendering was the siding shift.

Hartronft confirmed.

Klemme asked if the Fischer building was being added to between the existing and new building and asked about the connecting material.

Hartronft replied that the material would blend in with the Fischer building stucco and that it was not composite. He added that there was an alley walkway between the buildings where you could walk back to the parking area. Some of the residents in the Fischer building would enter through the alley. He noted that the decks were actually front porches for the residences. Otherwise, the Fischer building wasn’t really changing.

Haley asked for public comment. Seeing none, she opened discussion.

Dunlap, Chair Haley, and Director Zuccaro discussed the role of the Commission in the review process and how to make a motion on the item.

Dunlap stated that it was a thoughtful design overall and asked about the parking requirements.

Zuccaro replied that downtown there was an assumption that there would be more multi-modal and shared-use transportation and that parking got reviewed on the SRU and the PUD, which staff was addressing with the applicant.

Haley shared her thoughts on the proposed height, noting that the application could have proposed a higher building, but also that two-story commercial buildings were the most represented in downtown Louisville and therefore were the standard context. She thought the proposed height was fine but questioned whether a three-story residential building was

3 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 4 of 11 representative of downtown. She stated that while there had been historically mixed-use downtown, the use was not up to the Commission. She acknowledged that there were some three-story commercial buildings and some residential buildings downtown, but they didn’t overlap.

Burg noted that Front Street was not as historic as Main Street and represented an eclectic mix of time periods. She thought the proposal was trying to work within the design handbook while offering something that people would want to live in.

Dunlap stated that it was a thoughtful use. He asked if the top of the barbershop was residential.

Zuccaro replied that it was not proposed as residential.

Klemme asked if the little green house to the south was residential or commercial.

Zuccaro replied that that part of the block was definitely commercial and might have some residential.

General discussion on the varied uses on the block.

Klemme stated that her gut reaction was that she was more concerned about the height than the stories. She thought that it met mass and scale of what’s going on around it minus one or two buildings. Klemme discussed the height, stating that it was a thoughtful design that they tried to push back a bit with thoughtful use of colors and materials to not make a giant mass. That said, she agreed with Chair Haley’s point about three-story residential with what are you opening the door to with three-story residential.

Klemme stated that she was more concerned about the height than the stories. The application met mass and scale of the surrounding area and represented a thoughtful design using colors and materials to avoid making a giant mass. That said, she agreed with Chair Haley’s point that a three-story residential building could open the door to similar developments in the future.

Haley added that the third story alone, regardless of use, was a little more obvious. Visually there is something different between three stories and two stories even though it was the same height. Three stories was a busier design, though she had no problem with the design of the building. She stated that she did not have a strong opinion either way.

Klemme wondered what the setback requirements could be if the proposal were for commercial use only.

Zuccaro replied that there was some specificity in the handbook, which stated in C6 that the third floor should be setback substantially from the sidewalk edge such that the building will appear to be two stories in height as seen from across the street. So the concept was more about the street view. Zuccaro replied that it could be considered as a two-story building due to its height or due to its massing.

Keller stated that he thought it was not about two- versus three-story, it was more about the relative height. If it was no taller than the buildings around it, it would not be an eyesore. He

4 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 5 of 11 thought that the design was pleasing visually and thought mixed-use would bring vitality downtown. It fit within the guidelines even if it did not meet the exact letter.

Dunlap stated that he thought it was a nice design and that the height was in line. His only reservation was about someone pushing the limits in the future regarding the number of stories. As long as the City’s guidelines remain the same they could always have this conversation on any future properties.

Haley wondered if the design met the guidelines about the street view.

Keller clarified that he thought the guidelines meant that it appeared as a two-story not that it was a two story.

Zuccaro clarified that the design had a visible third story. He noted that the street view of two- story appearance was a “should” statement. It was a specific standard that didn’t have to be met but it required interpretation because there was no set checklist for the guidelines.

Haley stated that the building across the street had more openings on the third story, which might affect the appearance of a second or third story. She generally discussed the appearance of the second and third stories of the proposed building versus what was across the street.

Klemme stated that other western towns had big mixed-use buildings and this building would have that feel. She wasn’t super bothered that it was three-story residential but she was cognizant that it was a slippery slope.

Burg stated that she thought mixed-use was historical and noted that commercial real estate might not be used in the near future. She thought it was done well even if it was potentially establishing a precedent that the Commission didn’t want.

Haley replied that she did not have an issue with the design. She wondered if the third story deck made it more obvious that it was a third story. She noted that it was a newer area of downtown and that it wasn’t a historic area, it really was about the two-story versus three-story for her. She noted that the new development on the other side of the tracks had three stories and wondered if they wanted to bring that look into the downtown space.

Dunlap agreed that precedent may be an issue but as long as the City’s guidelines remain the same then the City could always have this discussion on any future property. He thought the design brought a lot of advantages.

Dunlap moved to find that the proposal was consistent with the downtown design handbook standards regarding historic and traditional context.

Klemme added that she would say that it was consistent with the intent of the downtown handbook standards but it was not consistent with the letter of the standards.

Dunlap restated and moved to find that it was in the spirit of compliance with the guidelines. He noted that staff could draft the formal language. Burg seconded.

5 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 6 of 11

Zuccaro clarified that the minutes would stand for the Planning Commission and Council as there would be no formal resolution, and he thought it would be clear what the intent was from Commissioner Dunlap’s motion.

Motion passed 4-1. Chair Haley voted nay.

ITEMS FROM STAFF

Discussion/Direction: Historic Structure Assessments (HSA) Requirements

Bauer shared her research on different grants and guidelines in other cities. She did not find any cities that had a similar grant process but many municipal guidelines pointed to the state grant and guidelines. Bauer shared that like the state standards, Louisville did not require a structural engineer, though structural engineers were allowed. She noted that the state offered a funding amount of up to $10,000 for assessments with an additional amount of up to $5,000 for consultants. Bauer noted that the state programs covered larger-scale properties including large buildings or ranches. Bauer summarized that the City was generally in line with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) office.

Haley asked if the SHPO grant was for commercial or residential.

Bauer replied that it could be either, but the additional $5,000 required applicants to show that there was a structural issue.

Haley observed that that grant amount was much more than the $4,000 that Louisville offered, relating it to the conversation from March about whether it was reasonable that professionals were charging the full amount to the City. She noted that the state did not require a structural engineer and were also offering more money without that requirement, maybe the Fund was fine.

Dunlap stated that when there was an application for extraordinary circumstances, a structural engineer could be required. He stated that he liked the language from Denver – “Consult a structural engineer with historic building experience if a building shows evidence of structural issues, such as cracks in brick, building movement, etc.” Dunlap thought it might be good to make the engineer optional but called for if the architect saw structural issues coming. He noted that adding a structural engineer a few years ago cost an additional $600 or $1000 and wouldn’t blow the total amount out of the water.

Haley liked the requirement for a draft submitted before the final assessment in case there were things that needed clarification and suggested adding some type of verbage that applicants may be required to get a structural engineer. She observed that requiring the draft may alleviate the requirement for the structural engineer and staff could guide applicants as to whether they might need an engineer on their assessments.

Bauer summarized that Commissioner Dunlap was suggesting having the information about structural engineers in the information packet and Chair Haley was asking staff to keep an eye out for structural issues, to alert applicants overall that structural issues were something to look out for and that sometimes structural engineers were required.

6 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 7 of 11

Klemme stated that most homeowners would have a good sense if they were dealing with drainage and foundation issues and those always end up in these extraordinary circumstances cases. She stated that the Commission had also discussed getting better numbers on the cost of addressing structural issues identified at the assessment stage. She added that it didn’t make sense that everyone was charging the same amount if only some assessments employed structural engineers. Responding to the $10,000 amount from the state, she was picturing working on huge buildings like high schools.

Haley asked if the $10,000 amount was for large project and she asked how SHPO decided how much each structure got since they probably didn’t give $10,000 to everyone.

Bauer stated that SHPO did ask for a scope of work (SOW) and that could be the point at which the applicant says they’ve seen cracks in the foundation and they know they need a structural engineer. Bauer stated that she could look into incorporating that into the application process in an effort to be sensitive to not being overly burdensome but also provide some sort of vetting process.

Zuccaro asked if the Commission wanted to require a proposal from the architect that they want to hire. He noted that most of the time the applicant will have hired an architect already but it could be added to the process. He noted that a few people might not do the process who can’t tolerate jumping through that hoop.

Haley stated that some people who were doing probable cause were not necessarily planning to do work on their houses.

Zuccaro agreed and added that it might offer a crack in the door to learn more about the program.

Dunlap noted that some people landmarked because their families were long-time Louisville residents and not all of those cases involved work on the structures.

Haley stated that if there were people who wanted to landmark their structures and nothing else they did not have to go through the assessment process.

Bauer noted that the probable cause was required either way but the applicant did not have to elect to do the assessment if they only wanted to landmark.

Klemme summarized that the debate was about whether the application would have an additional section about submitting a SOW from an architect, which would include information about needing a structural engineer for the assessment.

Zuccaro added that you’d be proposing a specific amount for the assessment in that application.

Klemme noted that applicants were required to tell the Commission what they were going to spend the money on ahead of time in the other grant situations.

Zuccaro replied that when the City paid out the money for other grants they got a receipt for $10,000 that said “foundation work,” for example, and noted that staff wasn’t comparing that amount to other foundation projects.

7 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 8 of 11

Klemme stated that she did not think it was asking too much to have a number for proposed work in the assessment.

Dunlap stated that this could happen during the SOW.

Haley summarized ideas for the revised application process:

1. Proposal from your architect for a SOW regarding what the architect and/or structural engineer will look at in the assessment 2. Staff reviewing draft of assessment

Klemme clarified that the revised application process was for the roles of the architect and the structural engineer in the assessment process.

Zuccaro noted that the assessment instructions already contained a required SOW for the assessment itself. He suggested that the new SOW could include a request to describe who the assessor was hiring as sub-consultants.

Bauer confirmed that the assessment requirements did include a scope for the report.

Haley clarified that the new SOW would cover the money that the contractors were planning to charge the client for the assessment and that the draft of the assessment would be the time at which staff would check the scope of work for the assessment itself.

Dunlap added that it may be helpful simply to let people know that a structural engineer was one of their options for the assessment, and that you may or may not need the full amount based on what your assessment involves.

Klemme noted that these additions would help navigate extraordinary circumstances regarding structural issues down the line.

Bauer summarized that she would add clearer language in the information packet about having a structural engineer work on the assessment; make sure that the draft review process is stated as a requirement; and add the requirement for an SOW for the assessment funds. She suggested that this last item could take the form of a box on the application where the applicant could share any knowledge of structural issues that they may encounter in the assessment, and that if the applicant was simply landmarking they would not have to fill out that section. She added that she would bring a draft SOW for the Commission to review.

Discussion/Direction: Coloring Book Bauer summarized the status of the coloring book.

Haley noted that there may be a partnership opportunity with the Museum and that the museum foundation could sell the book as a fundraising effort.

Bauer replied that she had discussed the project with the Museum Coordinator.

8 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 9 of 11

Haley noted that the Commission could fund the production of the coloring book and then she asked if the Museum could legally use it.

Dunlap stated that they wanted the coloring book to explain what the program offers, which he thought precluded having someone else put their name on it and produce it. He noted that the old days of the preservation program were driven by people with little houses excited to landmark and then it slowed down and now the program had captured the interest of some of the wealthy developers but they were no longer reaching those Old Town residents. If they did it in partnership with someone else it would be a necessary part of whatever they produced.

Klemme stated that however it was done, the City owned the drawings.

Haley agreed that ownership would allow the City to use the drawings in any capacity.

Angstman noted that the Commission could talk to the Foundation about a fundraising partnership. She added that she was a publisher and could help if needed.

Klemme wondered if there were any artists who would be willing to volunteer and suggested having a different artist for each drawing.

Dunlap stated that he was worried about taking away the idea that somebody generated. He shared some cost estimates: 10 drawings for $5,000; plus $1,000 for publishing, $2,000 for pdf creation and miscellaneous expenses; and $1,000 for 300 copies, totaling about $9,000 for 300 copies at about $30 a copy, which was expensive but within budget. He noted that a cooperative agreement could be used. Staff hadn’t been too excited about that idea previously but Dunlap observed that Council had made some cooperative agreements.

Haley asked if they would own the images for that amount.

Dunlap confirmed but noted it was tricky.

Angstman said that it should not cost that much to make a pdf and print them. She offered to do that part and asked how many pages the book would be.

Dunlap estimated that there would be about 18 pages total.

Zuccaro noted that staff had put a line in for $15,000. Council would have to approve that in June. That doesn’t mean we have to spend that but it was up to the Commission whether they wanted to buy the drawings, publish the book, etc. He noted that they may want to budget more than what Commissioner Dunlap laid out to ensure a high quality of image. He discussed the bid process and offered to answer questions about that process.

Klemme asked about the length of the process.

Zuccaro replied that it didn’t take long and if it was below $10,000 staff could contact three different qualified individuals and hire them based on cost and qualifications. Over $10,000 you had to do a more formal bid but either of those processes could take a month or two once we decide to do it.

9 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 10 of 11

Klemme asked if there was more leeway in the less formal case.

Zuccaro replied the Commission or staff could contact people they thought were qualified to get the proposals. He noted that they didn’t have to go with the cheapest bid if they have a good reason to pick another proposal.

Klemme asked if everyone agreed that $10,000 was a reasonable amount. She thought all of the images should be of landmarked structures. She thought it would be more interesting to have a mix of building styles.

Burg added that they should include one of the agricultural locations.

Haley replied that there may not be any agricultural landmarks.

Bauer stated she could bring some examples for the content.

Haley stated her preference for option 3 in the staff memo and take it one step at a time and change it any point.

Dunlap liked the idea of the red barn and stated that the emphasis should be on landmarks but they could include some crowd-pleasers. He thought looking at the historic contexts would be a good resource for more candidates.

Angstman shared the idea of using an old picture of a historic mine even if it wasn’t around anymore.

Bauer stated that she would bring a list of 10-25 options so the commissioners would have a few choices. She asked if the group liked option 3 as presented in the memo. General confirmation.

Angstman noted that the Commission could do a print-on-demand option as opposed to printing in bulk and adjust the page numbers along the way, versus ordering in bulk and being stuck with a single product. She offered to help that process.

Dunlap asked if they had to wait until June to get the budget line amendment approved by Council.

Bauer replied that it would be nice to wait to solidify the call for artists.

Zuccaro added that staff could submit a contract to Council before the amendment approval process.

Dunlap realized that June wasn’t that far away.

Angstman stated that the artwork could also be made with a program that transformed photographs into line drawings if they didn’t want to pay an artist. She noted that there were also people who would turn images into line drawings for much cheaper than an artist’s rendering. Angstman shared that she could also do that process on Photoshop.

10 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 11 of 11

Haley noted that if it were really a fundraising project then it would be more cost effective to be less expensive.

Updates There were no demolition or landmark updates. The subcommittee released a permit for 1131 Jefferson to replace the porch stairs.

Bauer asked if the commissioners would be able to meet an hour earlier on May 17th.

General confirmation.

Bauer and the Commission discussed the upcoming museum program, Lenses on Louisville, which would be happening Saturday, May 8th and Saturday, May 22nd.

UPDATES FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS

Burg stated that she went to the Historical Commission meeting and she offered to update the Commission at the next meeting. She shared that the Museum would be reopening with limited hours in May. The update was postponed for next meeting.

Dunlap asked about the project at Main and South Street and asked if the building at that location was demolished and rebuilt.

Zuccaro replied that there were structural issues with the building so it got approved for a demolition and rebuilt in the same form. The review probably took place in 2013 or 2014. He stated that in retrospect it probably should have gone through subcommittee if not additional review before the demolition.

Adjourn Dunlap motioned to adjourn and Keller seconded. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Meeting adjourned around 9:31PM.

11 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report May 17, 2021

ITEM: 612 Grant Avenue Probable Cause Determination

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

OWNER: Rand Singleton & Andrea Maciejewski 612 Grant Avenue Louisville, CO 80027

PROJECT INFORMATION: ADDRESS: 612 Grant Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 & S ½ Lot 7, Block 12, Pleasant Hill Addition DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: c. 1905-1909

REQUEST: A request to find probable cause to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 612 Grant Avenue.

Pine Street

LA FARGE AVENUE FARGE LA

Grant Avenue

SUMMARY: The applicant requests a finding of probable cause for landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 612 Grant Avenue. Under Resolution No. 17, Series 2019, 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.”

The property was approved as a Local Landmark by Resolution No. 24, Series 2012. At that time that enabling resolution in place made available up to $900 in funds to get a Historic Structure Assessment. Staff has looked through historic City files and there is no indication these funds were ever spent, nor is there a Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) on file for this address. Therefore, under the current enabling resolution, Resolution No. 17, Series 2019, this property now has up to $4,000 available to perform an HSA, should it be approved. Section 7(d) of Resolution No. 17, Series 2019 states the following:

“Owners of properties landmarked prior to City Council Resolution 2 Series 2014 who have not received grant funds for a structural assessment and are eligible to receive preservation grant funds through the resolutions in effect at the time of their landmarking approval may request building assessment grants in an amount up to $4,000 for residential properties and $9,000 for commercial properties. Such grants shall be used solely to offset a portion or all of the cost of conducting the building assessment.”

The current enabling Resolution No. 17, Series 2019 requires that a structural assessment is completed prior to the application for grant funds, or prior to applying for landmarking. This enacted process comes with the 2019 update, and so some properties have already gone through the Landmarking process that may not have an HSA, such as the subject property. Funds may only be received if no HSA exists for the property. If an older HSA has already been completed, they would not be eligible to apply for new funds for an additional assessment.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: Information from Bridget Bacon, Louisville Historical Museum

Evidence shows that the buildings were constructed in circa 1905-1909. Boulder County gives 1910 as the date of construction, but the County dates are sometimes in error. This house is shown in the correct location on the 1909 Drumm’s Wall Map of Louisville, so it appears to have been built by 1909.

The earliest known owner of the property is Gasper Hibler, who was the owner from 1905-1937. Gasper Hibler was born in Slovakia, and his wife, Mary, was born in Colorado of Slovak parents. Gasper came to the United States in 1898 at the age of 18. The name on the passenger list at the time of his immigration was “Gazpar Hiblyar.” Census Records indicate that they had about five children.

In 1937, Anthony and Mary Poydock purchased this house, though from city directories, it appears their primary residence was in another location. The Poydock family was associated with other homes in this part of Louisville, particularly as Anthony’s parents lived nearby at 617 Jefferson. In 1947, the Poydocks sold 612 Grant to Alvin and Anna Hinton, who sold it the same year to Henry and Mary Vanderstraten. Henry and Mary were both born in France and came to the United States in 1922 with their young daughter. A photo of the house taken by the Boulder County Assessor in 1948, during the Vanderstraten ownership, appears below:

612 Grant Avenue, Assessor photo, c. 1948

In 1950, Carrie Di Francia purchased 612 Grant. It would come to be associated with the Di Francia family for forty years, until 1990.

Carrie Di Francia was born in Walsenburg, Colorado in 1901 and grew up in nearby Superior as one of nine children of Angelo and Maria Bucci Di Francia. Angelo and Maria had emigrated from Italy separately in the 1890s and married in Colorado. Angelo operated the East End Saloon in Superior and worked as a coal miner. He died in 1924.

For several years, both Carrie Di Francia and her sister, Ann Romano, shared ownership of this house. Ann Romano lived nearby at 600 Jefferson with her husband, Carmen. Carmen and Ann Romano operated the Rex Movie Theater at 817 Main Street in Louisville from 1945 to 1972.

612 Grant Avenue, west elevation – Current Photo

612 Grant Avenue, west and south elevation – Current Photo

612 Grant Avenue, Landmark plaque and siding detail – Current Photo

ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY: The house at 612 Grant Avenue is a wood framed single story Folk Victorian house with a gable front and wing footprint. The original horizontal wood lap siding remains throughout the majority of the house, including the 1930s addition as noted below. The new shingling is present on what appears to be the area of a front porch that was closed sometime after 1948, as the porch is listed as open on the 1948 County Assessor record for the property.

Additionally, according the materials submitted with the 2012 landmarking application, the following has been restored, or altered:  The north dormers were added between 1980 and 1990.  Shed roof addition for a kitchen was added in the 1930s.  Small addition, for a mechanical room, was added on the north side of the house.

Some new windows exist, including a half moon shaped window in the gable end of the south side elevation as well as one new window on the north elevation as well. Most window openings appear to be historic, even if some windows have altered over time. At the time of the 2012 Landmarking, it was noted that the front door appeared to be original, as well.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR LISTING AS LOCAL LANDMARK: Under Resolution No. 17, Series 2019, 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.”

The property at 612 Grant is already a Landmark. For the purposes of this report, staff will reiterate the Landmark findings to show that this property complies with the following criteria:

CRITERIA FINDINGS Landmarks must be at The principal structure at 612 Grant Avenue was least 50 years old constructed circa 1905-1909, making it approximately 116 years old.

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

Landmarks must meet Architectural Significance – The site exemplifies one or more of the criteria specific elements of an architectural style or period. for architectural, social or  The one story residential building located 612 geographic/environmental Grant has been modified over the years, significance including the shed dormer addition on the north side of the roof. Overall, it has kept its Folk Victorian style, particularly including the decorative shingling exhibit in the front gable. Vernacular homes such as this one are readily present throughout Louisville and speak to the heritage of many community members over time, including some of the past residents of this very home which include both immigrants and coal miners.

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 Hibler family and the Di Francia family, in total, owned the house for 72 years. During Mr. Hibler’s ownership, the house was likely used as a rental for local miners in the Acme Mine.  The potential connection with coal miners, potentially from the Acme Mine specifically, and ties to the Rex Theater, make this house socially significant.

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: 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, including the addition of a shed dormer in between the 1980s and 1990s and a shed style addition in the 1930s, the overall character of the house strongly remains. The architectural style speaks to the cultural characteristics of Louisville as well, with similar bungalows built for mine workers and other early residents seen across the City.

Retains original design features, materials and/or character.  Original lapped wood horizontal siding remains on the majority of the structure and the decorative detailing in the front facing gable continues to speak to the Victorian vernacular style it was built as in the early 1900s.

Remains in its original location, has the same historic context after having been moved, or was moved more than 50 years ago.  The house at 612 Grant 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 commercial historic context report (Stories in Places: Putting Louisville’s Residential Development in Context) in 2018 that includes a list of recommended and priority properties for preservation. The property at 612 Grant Avenue is not listed there, but is included in Table A.1, “Sampled Houses Included in Analysis”.

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 612 Grant 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 a residential 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 612 Grant Avenue.

ATTACHMENTS:  Application  612 Grant Avenue Social History

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: ______612 GRANT AVE X 季 Probable Cause/Historic Structure Assessment ______季 Landmark Designation Year of Construction: ______CIRCA 1910 季 Historic Preservation Fund Grant Legal Description: ______季 Historic Preservation Fund Loan 季 Landmark Alteration Certificate ______LOT 8 & S 1/2 LOT 7 BLK 12 PLEASANT HILL 季 Demolition Review Landmark Name and Resolution (if applicable): 季 Other: ______HIBLER HOUSE

APPLICANT INFORMATION I hereby request the public hearing(s) on this application be scheduled to be conducted by Electronic Participation in Name: ______ANDY JOHNSON accordance with the attached Resolution No. 30, Series 2020, as adopted by the City Council on April 7, 2020, if such Company: ______DAJ DESIGN hearing(s) can be scheduled during a time period when in- person meetings are not being held due to a health epidemic Address: ______922A MAIN STREET, LOUISVILLE 80027 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: ______303-527-1100 Participation is optional and undertaken at my own risk. I also understand that in-person meetings are preferred for quasi- Email: [email protected] 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 ANDY JOHNSON Name: ______RAND SINGLETON & ANDREA MACIEJEWSKI Applicant Name Company: ______04/20/2021 612 GRANT AVE, LOUISVILLE 80027 Address: ______Applicant Signature Date ______RAND SINGLETON Telephone: ______713-446-4054 Owner Name [email protected] Email: [email protected] 04/20/2021 Owner Signature Date Louisville Historical Museum December 2011

612 Grant Avenue History

Legal Description: All of Lot 8 and south ½ of Lot 7, Block 12, Pleasant Hill Addition

Year of Construction: circa 1905-1909. Boulder County gives 1910 as the date of construction, but the ŽƵŶƚǇĚĂƚĞƐĂƌĞƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͘dŚŝƐŚŽƵƐĞŝƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞϭϵϬϵƌƵŵŵ͛Ɛ Wall Map of Louisville, so it appears to have been built by 1909.

Architect/Builder: Unknown

Previous address used to refer to this property: Possibly 109 Grant. It is believed that this address was used for 612 Grant ĚƵƌŝŶŐ>ŽƵŝƐǀŝůůĞ͛ƐŽůĚŶƵŵďĞƌŝŶŐƐǇƐƚĞŵ͕ǁŚich changed in the late 1930s.

Summary: The families that owned this house for the longest periods were the Hibler family and the Di Francia family. The families that lived in this particular house represent the diversity of the different nationalities that settled in Louisville.

Earliest Owner: Gasper Hibler, Owner 1905-1937

The subdivision in which this house is located, Pleasant Hill Addition, was platted in 1894. It was developed by Orrin Welch, the half brother of Charles C. Welch, who played a prominent role in the founding of Louisville.

Boulder County property records show that Gasper Hibler purchased this property from Orrin Welch in 1905. Although Hibler was to own the property for 32 years, it is not known whether he actually lived in the house at any point.

Census records for 1910, 1920, and 1930 show that Gasper Hibler lived in Elbert County in Colorado, then in El Paso County. It is very likely that he rented out this house while he worked as a farmer in ƚŚŽƐĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘,ŝƐĨŝƌƐƚŶĂŵĞŝƐƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐŐŝǀĞŶĂƐ͞ĂƐƉĞƌ͟Žƌ͞:ĂƐƉĞƌ͟ŝŶƚŚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ͕and ŚŝƐƐƵƌŶĂŵĞŝƐƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐŐŝǀĞŶĂƐ͞,ŝďůĂƌ͟Žƌ͞,ŝďůǇĞƌ͘͟

Gasper Hibler was born in Slovakia, and his wife, Mary, was born in Colorado of Slovak parents. Gasper came to the US in 1898 at the age of 18. The name on the passenger list at the time of his immigration ǁĂƐ͞'ĂǌƉĂƌ,ŝďůǇĂƌ͘͟Census records indicate that they had about five children.

Property records show the owners of buildings, but not any tenants, so the identities of all of the people who rented from Hibler and lived in the house at 612 Grant could not be located. In addition, shifting addresses on Grant Ave. make it difficult to use Louisville directories to track the identities of residents of the houses on this block. However, a 1935 directory of Louisville residents appears to show that Roman and Flora Montana were residents of this house along with their young children Annie, Rachael, and John. They had previously resided at the Monarch Mine camp at the time of the 1930 census. Those census records show that Roman and Flora Montana were both born in Colorado. There is some suggestion in the records that the name may have originally been Montano. The address of the Montana home in 1935 was 109 Grant. This is believed to have bĞĞŶƚŽĚĂǇ͛ƐϲϭϮ'ƌĂŶƚďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ fact that the owners and residents to the north were the Arrimbide family at 125 Grant (now 614 Grant), while the owners and residents to the south were the Dahl family at 103 Grant (now 600 Grant).

In general, it is believed that there was a market for rental homes in Louisville during the ownership by Gasper Hibler due to the many miners of different nationalities who came to Louisville in search of work. For those with families, a town setting offered schools and other amenities that were not available if one lived in a house at a mine camp. Also, the Acme Mine, which was in operation from 1888 to 1928 at the intersection of Roosevelt and Hutchinson, was located only about 500 feet away from 612 Grant.

Anthony and Mary Poydock, Owners 1937 - 1947

In 1937, Anthony and Mary Poydock purchased this house. However, directories indicate that they lived elsewhere in Louisville, so they may have rented out the house to someone else. The Poydock family was associated with other homes in this part of Louisville, particularly ĂƐŶƚŚŽŶǇ͛ƐƉĂƌĞŶƚƐůŝǀĞĚnearby at 617 Jefferson and that is also where Anthony and Mary Poydock came to live. The Poydock family was of Slovak heritage, while Mary Poydock was Italian, her maiden name being DiGiacomo.

Alvin and Anna Hinton; Henry and Mary Vanderstraten, Owners 1947 ʹ 1950

In 1947, the Poydocks sold 612 Grant to Alvin and Anna Hinton, who sold it the same year to Henry and Mary Vanderstraten.

Henry and Mary Vanderstraten were both born in France and came to the US in 1922 with their young daughter. They were from Henin-Lietard in the north of France. They came directly to Louisville. Henry Vanderstraten worked as a coal miner, and they had more children after coming to Louisville.

A photo of the house taken by the Boulder County Assessor in 1948, during the Vanderstraten ownership, appears here:

The layout of the house from the 1948 County Assessor card for 612 Grant appears here:

In 1949, Henry Vanderstraten died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of just 53. The following year, his wife, Mary, sold 612 Grant.

Di Francia Ownership, 1950-1990

In 1950, Carrie Di Francia purchased 612 Grant. It would come to be associated with the Di Francia family for forty years, until 1990.

The name Di Francia is given in several different ways in the historical records, including as ͞ŝ&ƌĂŶĐŝĂ͕͟ ͞Ğ&ƌĂŶĐŝĂ,͟ĂŶĚ͞&ƌĂŶĐŝĞ͘͟

The Louisville directory for 1951 shows that some of the first Di Francia family members to live at 612 'ƌĂŶƚǁĞƌĞĂƌƌŝĞ͛ƐďƌŽƚŚĞƌ͕EŝĐŚŽůĂƐ͕ŚŝƐǁŝĨĞ͕/ƌĞŶĞ͕and their children, Marie, Raymond, and Ronald.

Directories show that in 1953, 1955, and 1956͕ĂƌƌŝĞ͛ƐǁŝĚŽǁĞĚŵŽƚŚĞƌ͕Maria Di Francia, lived with Carrie at 612 Grant. Maria had been born in about 1879, so was in her seventies when she lived in this house. Maria Di Francia died in 1957.

For several years, both Carrie Di Francia and her sister, Ann Romano, shared ownership of this house. Ann Romano lived nearby at 600 Jefferson with her husband, Carmen. Carmen and Ann Romano operated the Rex movie theater at 817 Main Street in Louisville from 1945 to 1972.

In 1990, Ann Di Francia Romano sold 612 Grant and it left the ownership of the Di Francia family. Carrie Di Francia died in 1995 at the age of 93. Ann Romano died in 1999 at the age of 91.

Owners of 612 Grant since 1990 have included Cynthia Bargman, Mary Gilreath, and Krista Batterson and Daniel Bellis. The current owner, John Griffin, purchased the house in 2007.

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.

Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report May 17, 2021

ITEM: 829 Lincoln Probable Cause Determination

APPLICANT: Diane Marino 829 Lincoln Avenue Louisville, Colorado 80027

OWNER: Same

PROJECT INFORMATION: ADDRESS: 829 Lincoln Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3, 4, 5 Block 4 of the Pleasant Hill Subdivision DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: c 1900

REQUEST: A request to find probable cause for a landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 829 Lincoln Avenue.

Walnut Street

Lincoln Avenue Lincoln

SUMMARY: The applicant requests a finding of probable cause for landmark designation to allow for funding of a historic structure assessment for 829 Lincoln Avenue. Under Resolution No. 17, Series 2019, 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: The Boulder County Assessor’s estimates that 829 Lincoln Avenue was built c. 1900. The subdivision in which this house is located, the Pleasant Hill Addition, was platted in 1894. The subdivision was developed in the name of Orrin Welch, the half-brother of Charles C. Welch. Charles Welch was the person most responsible for the establishment of Louisville in 1878 after he established the first coal mine in this area in 1877.

It is believed that John Balent built the home, though because Balent and his family were shown on the 1900 federal census to live at 815 LaFarge, either the house is older than the Boulder County assessment, or they only constructed the home in order to rent it to others. Balent had immigrated to the United States in the 1880s and came to Louisville in the 1890s, became a prominent local saloon owner. His saloon was on Front Street at what is today the site of the corner of the Louisville Public Library. In 1906, Balent purchased Louisville’s baseball park located at the intersection of South Street and Courtesy Road (Highway 42). Today, it is at the same location and is called Miners Field. Balent became very involved as a sponsor and supporter of baseball teams, and the park was even referred to in the minutes of the Louisville Town Board as “Balent’s Base Ball Park.”

John Balent’s Baseball team – LHM 2009.063.002

In 1940-1941, the grandparents of the current owner purchased the home, Peter and Ellanora (Beranek) Ross. The Ross family had moved to Louisville c. 1900. Betty Ross Marino and Donald Ross, children of Pete and Ellanora Ross, grew up on Harper Street in the Little Italy area of Louisville during the Great Depression.

Little Italy was located between the railroad tracks to the west and East Street, now Route 42, to the east. Its east-west streets were Harper and Griffith, with the cross streets being Front, Cannon, and East. The 1909 wall map of Louisville at the Museum (see photo) shows about twenty homes in the area of Little Italy, and about the same number of homes continued to make up the neighborhood for several decades to follow.

Members of the Ross family have owned the home since this purchase c. 1940, with its current owner, Diane Marino, living there for 38 years.

829 Lincoln Avenue, east and north elevations – 2013 Survey photo

829 Lincoln Avenue, south elevation – Current photo

829 Lincoln – LHM 2009.063.008 – c. 1926-1927 photo

ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY: 829 Lincoln Avenue faces east on Lincoln Avenue and was constructed circa 1900. The original house is a one-story, wood frame, vernacular folk home with Victorian detailing, which has been covered with what appears to be asbestos siding circa the 1950s. The primary street frontage exhibits one main front-gable with a smaller, front-gable projecting off the front. It appears the original gabled dormer on the south side of the house has remained. A number of the original windows have also been removed, with some window openings altered. A number of original window openings remain, as does the general form and feel of the home as it has not had any major additions that have greatly affected the mass or design of the home.

In the 1948 Assessor’s card, the photo included still shows the original porch as detailed in the historic photo above. The porch was altered circa the 1950s or 1960s to look how it does today. However, that porch has also retained its general footprint and foundation height, even as the turned columns and other porch detailing have been removed. The home’s foundation appears to be original, and can also be seen in the historic photo included above. Historic siding details, foundation details, and porch details, can also been seen in the number of photos submitted with the application and included below:

829 Lincoln Avenue - Historic Photos of exterior and family

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

CRITERIA FINDINGS Landmarks must be at 829 Lincoln Avenue was constructed circa 1900, least 50 years old making it approximately 121 years old. Given the style of the home, there is a potential it could have been constructed in the 1890s.

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 geographic/environmental And significance Style particularly associated with the Louisville area.

 829 Lincoln is a late 19th century/early 20th one story, wood-framed house. Vernacular homes such as this one are readily present throughout Louisville and speak to the heritage of many community members over time, including some of the past residents of this very home which include many generations and ties to Little Italy. While there have been a number of aesthetic changes over the years, they have not significant altered the historic significance of the home.

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.

 As a family with ties with moving to Louisville in the early 1900s and the Little Italy neighborhood, as well as one family’s lineage and ownership carried for nearly 80 years total exemplifies the cultural and social heritage of the community.  With the association with John Balent as the builder, and sources labeling this the Balent house, the property also has ties to one of Louisville’s prominent saloon operators as well as the City’s baseball 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 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.

 The house is located in the Pleasant Hill Subdivision which was first platted by the founder of the Louisville area’s first mine, Charles Welch. While there have been some physical alterations over the years, the house retains many of the seven aspects of integrity including, location, setting, design, feeling, and association.

 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 829 Lincoln Avenue is found in its 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

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 recommended and priority properties for preservation. The property at 829 Lincoln Avenue is not listed there, but is included in Table A.1, “Sampled Houses Included in Analysis”.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC finds there is probable cause for landmarking 829 Lincoln 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 829 Lincoln Avenue.

ATTACHMENTS:  Application  829 Lincoln Avenue Social History

OAHP Site #: Reconnaissance Survey for 829 Lincoln OAHP Form #1417 DRAFT 12/2012

COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Official eligibility determination Historical and Architectural Reconnaissance (OAHP use only) Date Initials This form is intended for use in survey projects undertaken for preservation planning purposes and it is NOT to be used for Section 106 compliance projects. It provides a basic descriptive record of a single Determined Eligible- NR building, structure, object, or site. Please use the #1417b Ancillary form to document additional resources Determined Eligible- SR Needs Data on a single site. This form may provide enough information to assess architectural significance and/or to Eligible District - Contributing identify other potential areas of historical significance. Full evaluations of historical significance require additional property-specific research beyond the scope of this form and typically require completion of the OAHP Historical / Architectural Properties: Intensive Level / Evaluation form (OAHP form # 1403). For guidance on completing this form and required accompanying documentation, please refer to the instructions, available online at http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/survey-inventory-forms

IDENTIFICATION 1. Property name:______829 Lincoln ______Current 2. Resource classification: ______Building 3. Ownership: ______Private

LOCATION 4. Street address: ______829 Lincoln 5. Municipality:______Louisville vicinity______6. County:______Boulder 7. USGS Quad:______year: ______7.5’______8. Parcel number: ______9. Parcel information: Lot(s): ______Block: ______Addition: ______10. Acreage: ______actual estimated 11. PLSS information: Principal Meridian Township Range _____¼ of ¼ of ¼ of ¼ of section ______12. Location Coordinates: UTM reference: Zone______;mE______;mN______NAD 1927 NAD 1983 or Lat/Long: Latitude______;39.978358 Longitude______-105.137109 WGS84 Other______

DESCRIPTION 13. Construction features (forms, materials):

Stories Style/Type Foundation Walls

1.00 NO STYLE Not visible from public way Terra cotta

Windows Roof Chimney Porch

Fixed, Louver Gabled roof - Front gabled Interior-slope Partial width

Optional: additional description (plan/footprint, dimensions, character-defining and decorative elements of exterior and interior; alterations, additions, etc.):

14. Landscape (important features of the immediate environment): Sidewalk ______OAHP Site #:

HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS (based on visual observations and/or review of secondary sources):

15. Historic function/use:______DOMESTIC Current function/use (if different):______DOMESTIC

Estimated 16. Date of Construction: ______(include source):______

17. Other Significant Dates, if any:______

18. Associated NR Areas of Significance: ______

19. Associated Historic Context(s), if known:______

20. Retains integrity of: ______

21. Notes:

22. Sources: SKETCH PLAN include approximate scale ¿ N FIELD ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: To be completed by surveyor

RECORDING INFORMATION

Survey date:______7/9/2013 21:21:45

Surveyed by:______Varma

Project sponsor: City of Louisville, History Colorado Photograph Log: State Historical Fund History from Diane Marino

Information on John Balent

Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OAHP1405 Cultural Resource Re-evaluation Form Rev. 9/98

1. Resource Number: 5BL 7988 2. Temp. Resource Number: 157508414010

2A. Address: 815 La Farge Avenue, Louisville, CO 80027 Previous address prior to 1939: 316 La Farge. Louisville addresses were changed in 1939. LaFarge is sometimes spelled La Farge.

3. Attachments 4. Official determination (check as many as apply) (OAHP USE ONLY) X Photographs Determined Eligible X Site sketch map Determined Not Eligible X U.S.G.S. map photocopy Need Data Other Nominated Other Listed Contributing to N.R. District Not Contributing to N.R. Dist

5. Resource Name: Historic name: Litavec/Balent House, Jasko House, Perna House. Current Name: Westerberg House. 6. Purpose of this current site visit (check as many as apply) Site is within a current project area X Resurvey X Update of previous site form(s) Surface collection Testing to determine eligibility Excavation Other Describe This property is within the Jefferson Place Subdivision in Louisville, which is being evaluated for historic district potential in 2010 – 2012. This resurvey is part of the historic district evaluation process.

7. Previous Recordings: Architectural Inventory Form 2000, as part of “Old Town” Louisville Historical Building Survey by Carl McWilliams of Cultural Resource Historians.

8. Changes or Additions to Previous Descriptions:

Changes to Architectural Description: The house is 1-story, not 1-1/2 story. The roofing consists of light gray asphalt shingles. There is no skylight. The hipped-roof west addition is connected to the original house by a breezeway with louvered doors.

Construction History: The addition to the west side of the house was constructed in 1997. The house was re-sided in 1983 and the garage was built in 1984.

Landscape or special setting description: 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

1 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

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.

815 La Farge Avenue is consistent with these patterns and blends well with the scale and character of the neighborhood. This narrow, mid-block lot has a shallow grassy front yard and narrow grassy side yards. The rear yard contains the garage with adjacent concrete drive, wood deck and stone patio.

9. Changes in Condition: None. 10. Changes to Location or Size Information: None. 11. Changes in Ownership: Same ownership as 2000 inventory form. 12. Other Changes, Additions, or Observations: Further research has yielded new information about the history of 815 La Farge.

This house was associated with members of an early Slovak family in Louisville, the Litavec/Balent family, who owned this property and lived here, as well as with the Jasko family, also Slovak, and the Italian Perna family. John Jasko, was an early owner of Lots 1 through 5 of Block 5 of Jefferson Place, which translate to the addresses of 801 (5BL852), 805 (5BL7984), 809 (5BL7986), 815, and 817 La Farge (5BL7989). John Jasko’s twin, Joseph Jasko, later in time owned this house (815 La Farge) and also 817 La Farge.

Andrew Litavec purchased this lot (Lot 4) from John Jasko in 1893 and it became the Litavec family residence. As noted in the 2000 historical survey written about this house, the Boulder County Assessor records indicate that it was built in 1905, but the 1893 Sanborn map for Louisville shows that the original part of the house was constructed prior to 1893. The 2000 historical survey therefore concluded that the date of construction was circa 1885. The house also appears on the Sanborn maps for 1900 and 1908, and on the 1909 Drumm’s Wall Map of Louisville.

Andrew Litavec (born 1851) emigrated from Slovakia in 1878 and Susie Litavec (born 1858) emigrated in 1883, according to the 1900 federal census. The surname “Litavec” is spelled in several different ways in the historical records, including as “Latavecz” and “Letavecz” (but, according to the family, was always pronounced with the emphasis on the second syllable).

In 1897, Annie Litavec (1881-1970) married John Novak Balent (1867-1949), another Slovak who had settled in Louisville. The 1900 federal census shows this family apparently living at 815 La Farge, with other known La Farge neighbors listed as living nearby. The 815 La Farge household consisted of John and Annie Balent and their son, Johnnie, and Annie’s parents, Andrew and Susie “Latavecz.” At the time, both John Balent and his father-in-law worked as coal miners.

The 1904 directory for Louisville similarly shows John and Annie Balent, and Andrew and Susie Litavec, living on La Farge between Spruce and Walnut, which is an accurate description of the location of 815 La Farge.

John Balent (pronounced with the emphasis on the second syllable), who had immigrated to the US in the 1880s and came to Louisville in the 1890s, became a prominent local saloon owner. His saloon was on Front Street at what is today the site of the corner of the Louisville Public Library. In 1906, Balent purchased Louisville’s baseball park located at the intersection of South Street and Courtesy Road (Highway 42). Today, it is at the same location and is called Miners Field. Balent became very involved as a sponsor and supporter of baseball teams, and the park was even referred to in the minutes of the Louisville Town Board as “Balent’s Base Ball Park.”

In 1906, Andrew Litavec sold 815 La Farge to Joseph Jasko and moved with his family to Weld County, where he began to farm. In Louisville, John and Annie Balent moved to 829 Lincoln. It is believed that when Prohibition began in Colorado in 1916, the Balents left their saloon and baseball park businesses in Louisville and followed Annie’s parents to the Greeley, Colorado area.

Joseph Jasko, also from Slovakia along with his wife, Mary, was the twin of the John Jasko who owned Lots 1 through 5 along this block. Just as the Litavec and Balent families became farmers, so did John Jasko when he sold

2 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

his home at 809 La Farge. Joseph Jasko acquired 817 La Farge in 1901 and acquired 815 La Farge (this home) in 1906.

Due to the fact that Joseph Jasko owned both of these houses, and because of shifting addresses over the years for the houses along this block of La Farge, it could not be determined exactly when the Jasko family may have lived in each house. However, evidence suggests that the Joseph and Mary Jasko family was living at 815 La Farge in 1916, when the address was 316 La Farge (and 809 La Farge was likely 312, 817 La Farge was likely 320, 821 La Farge was likely 324, and 825 La Farge was likely 332, at least for that particular year).

Joseph Jasko (1868-1942) and Mary Jasko (1868-1969) married in 1892 in Pueblo after Joseph had immigrated to the US in about 1886 and Mary came in about 1890. In 1900, they were living in Globeville, a community north of Denver in which many Eastern Europeans resided, and Joseph was working as a brick maker there. They moved to Louisville in the early 1900s. He worked as a coal miner. The 1910 census, which lists them as living on La Farge, shows that they had a son, Joe, who was born in 1902, and also had a Slovak boarder named John Sakaly who worked as a coal miner. The 1920 census shows the couple still living on La Farge and Joseph Sr. still working as a coal miner.

Guy and Rose Perna purchased 815 La Farge from Joseph Jasko Sr. in 1920. Guy Perna (1883-1979) had been born in Italy and is believed to have come to the US in the early 1900s. Rose Perna (birth and death dates not found) was his wife. This home was owned by the Perna family for 61 years, until 1981. However, in only one record from the 1920s to the 1960s were they listed as living in the 800 block of La Farge. In the 1921 directory, they were listed as living at 310 La Farge. (They were also listed in the 1920 census as living on Main Street in Louisville, before they purchased 815 La Farge, with young children William, Peter, and Albert.) It is possible that the house was rented out during part of their ownership, or that it was the residence of family members with a different last name.

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

Louisville, Colorado cemetery records, accessed at http://files.usgwarchives.org/co/boulder/cemeteries/louisville.txt

Sacred Heart of Mary (Boulder County, Colorado) cemetery records, accessed at http://www.findagrave.com

Bacon, Bridget. &The Story Behind Louisville%s Miners Field.' The Louisville Historian. Louisville Historical Museum and Commission, Louisville, Colorado, Fall 2009.

Archival materials on file at the Louisville Historical Museum.

Correspondence of September and October 2009 between Museum Coordinator Bridget Bacon and Ella Marie Hayes (granddaughter of John Balent and Annie Litavec Balent).

13. National Register Eligibility Assessment: Eligible Not eligible X Need data Explain: The property is not individually eligible to the National Register due to the large 1980 – 1990’s addition.

3 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

13A. Colorado State Register: Eligible X Not Eligible______

Explain: This property is eligible for the State Register under Criterion C for architecture as a good example of a Shotgun style house (period of significance 1885-1908 and 1980-1990 to include the additions). The property has a high degree of integrity of setting, location, design, workmanship, feeling and association. Although the siding has been replaced, it was replaced with wood siding of a profile similar to the original. Integrity of materials is thus somewhat compromised. The addition on the east side is not visible from the street with less effect on integrity of design.

13B. Louisville Local Landmark: Eligible X Not Eligible______Explain: This property is significant for Architecture as a good example of a Shotgun style house. The house is associated with the historic development of Louisville as one of the early homes in Louisville’s first residential subdivision, Jefferson Place. Although Jefferson Place was platted in 1880, little housing construction occurred until the early 1900s. This property is significant for its association with immigrant Slovak coal mining families who flocked to Colorado’s coal mining communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in search of economic opportunities they could not find in their own countries. The property is significant for its association with Louisville’s immigrant Slovak coal mining families, the Balent and Jasko families. John Balent in particular is locally significant as a prominent saloon owner and sponsor of baseball teams. He purchased Louisville's baseball park, now called Miner's Field. The property has a high degree of integrity of setting, location, design, workmanship, feeling and association. Although the siding has been replaced, it was replaced with wood siding of a profile similar to the original. Integrity of materials is thus somewhat compromised. The addition on the east side is not visible from the street with less effect on integrity of design.

13C. Historic District Potential: Jefferson Place is eligible as a State Register and local historic district. There is also National Register historic potential. The main house would be a contributing structure to a historic district. The garage would be non-contributing.

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 impacts of the heritage and customs of the other European ethnic groups could be significant, but are not well documented and need further investigation. 4 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

14. Management Recommendations: The property is worthy of individual nomination to the State Register as well as nomination as a Louisville Local Landmark.

15. Photograph Types and Numbers: 5BL7988_815LaFarge_01 through 5BL7988_815LaFarge_04.

16. Artifact and Field Documentation Storage Location: Electronic files of forms with embedded photos and maps at Colorado Historical Society. Electronic files of forms, and electronic files of photographs at City of Louisville, Colorado, Planning Department.

17. Report Title: Historical and Architectural Survey of Jefferson Place Subdivision, Louisville, Colorado 18. Recorder(s): Kathy and Leonard Lingo, and Bridget Bacon, City of Louisville 19. Date(s): 2013 20. Recorder Affiliation: Avenue L Architects, 3457 Ringsby Court Suite 317, Denver CO 80216 (303) 290-9930

Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 303-866-3395

5 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

6 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

7 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

2 4655*5.2 *-.

2 4655*5.2 *-/ 8 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

2 4655*5.2 *-0!

2 4655*5.2 *-1 ! 9 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

5.2 .63-%(.64-%$ #/--5$--5$-22$

5.2 .63-%$ #/--5$--5$-23$ 10 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

% $ #/--6$-30$--.$

#$ #/--6$-30$--/$ 11 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

# !#.564$ #/--6$-30$-.6$

"$ #/--6$-30$-/-$ 12 Resource Number: 5BL7988 Temporary Resource Number: 157508414010

5.2 $ " $.615$

5.2 $ " $.623$

13 Information on Ross family and Little Italy TThhee LLoouuiissvviillllee HHiissttoorriiaann Issue #75 $3XEOLFDWLRQRIWKH/RXLVYLOOH+LVWRULFDO&RPPLVVLRQDQG6RFLHW\ Summer 2007 7KH*DPHV:H3OD\HG&KLOGKRRGLQ/RXLVYLOOH·V/LWWOH,WDO\7KH*DPHV:H3OD\HG&KLOGKRRGLQ/RXLVYLOOH·V/LWWOH,WDO\ %\'LDQH0DULQR+LVWR%\'LDQH0DULQR+LVWRULULFDO&RPPLVVLRQ0HPEHUFDO&RPPLVVLRQ0HPEHUFDO&RPPLVVLRQ0HPEHU

etty Ross Marino and Donald Ross, children of Girls and boys roller-skated with skates that clamped B Pete and Ellanora Ross, grew up on Harper Street onto shoes. When Don received a bike for Christmas, it in the Little Italy area of Louisville during the Great was the only bike in Little Italy for some time and was Depression. They shared with Diane Marino, daughter shared with all. Betty said that they liked to ride on what of Betty and niece of Donald, what children in the today is Highway 42 when that road was dirt and saw neighborhood did to entertain themselves. very few cars (as compared with the thousands of today). In the fields and lots around Little Italy, the boys would Betty Ross Marino and Donald Ross regarded everyone dig caves and make tunnels through the weeds. Girls in the small neighborhood of Little Italy as family, made and "sold" mud pies. Betty remembers the children whether or not there was any actual family relationship. acting out the story of Snow White over and over after Neighbors on the block included the Carpenters, the movie came out in 1937. Milanos, Rizzis, Marnellis and Rapps. Family of Pete and Ella also lived in Little Italy. The children of the neighborhood played together on a daily basis, especially during the summer months. Parents, grandparents and friends sat out on their porches or stoops during the summer nights, sometimes lighting small fires to keep the insects at bay, while they watched the children play hide ‘n seek, hopscotch, or kick-the- can under the dimly lit streetlights.

The girls of the neighborhood might be found jumping rope, playing jacks or "keeping house" with their play dishes and dolls. Most girls had a buggy for their dolls and clothing for the dolls was hand-made. Betty remembers her set of play dishes and the precious handmade little kitchen cabinet with Mickey and Minnie Mouse on the front that she received as a present when Betty Ross Marino and Don Ross, sister and she was five years old. Betty also had a child-size metal brother, are seen here in 1934 when they were 8 ironing board, electric iron and a metal stove. On and 5 years old. The Ross family lived in Sundays, the girls cut out Tillie the Toiler paper dolls Louisville’s Little Italy. from the newspapers and Betty also had Shirley Temple paper dolls. Many families had pets and Corky, the dog, was the beloved pet of Don and Betty. Corky made a daily trip Homemade stilts, slingshots, marbles and mumblety peg to the home of Jim and Mary Ross, Don and Betty's were boy's games. During the summer months, boys grandparents, for a leftover treat of meat. Corky knew played baseball in the vacant lot next to the Ross house not to make the trip on Fridays, as the Rosses, who were with the one bat and ball in the neighborhood. Tag was Catholic, did not eat meat on Friday. As for other also played, including a game of tag that involved using animals in the neighborhood, Betty remembers that the a tennis ball. In this game, holes were dug for each kids were sometimes allowed to ride farmer's horses in person playing. One person threw the ball in the hole the field behind Little Italy. and that person then had to chase the others and try to hit them with the tennis ball. Continued on Page 2

Swimming was enjoyed, but not with the luxury of city Pulling pranks was one of the more popular occupations pools. The Hecla Lake was a site for swimming in of Don and friends. The frequent trains provided a good summer and ice-skating in winter. A more dangerous, opportunity to place penny nails on the tracks for the but popular swimming area for boys was "the rat hole," trains to squash. Don remembers tricking motorists in an irrigation ditch that ran from the top of South along South Boulder Road by taking a tire and wrapping Boulder Road and continued on to Lafayette. Betty is it in paper to make it look like a new tire. The boys still amazed no one was injured seriously or caught a would then attach a rope, bury the rope in the dirt of the disease from what was in that ditch. road and wait for a car to stop when they saw the "new" tire. When the driver got out, the boys would yank the Don remembers there were rattlesnakes and water dogs tire away. Another trick involved placing boys on each and other "critters" near "the rat hole," but that didn't side of South Boulder Road and waiting for a car to stop them from swimming where the ditch dropped, come by. The boys would pretend to be pulling up a creating a chute and a large pool area at the bottom. Don rope, which caused cars to slow down, thinking there learned to swim when his cousin Arthur Ohanion threw was actually a rope going up. There were times when him in and he had no choice but to swim or drown. irate drivers actually chased the boys who made good During one outing, Don's dog, Corky, was nearly use of Tovado's apple orchards (behind present day drowned when it tried to jump across the chute and was Fordyce Auto) to run and hide in. swept under. Luckily for Don, Corky surfaced and paddled safely to shore. When Little Italy kids joined the Other pranks included placing a potato in the police car's kids of Frenchtown for swimming, it was usually in Coal tailpipe, which would cause the car to quit, or trying to Creek where the railroad tracks cross it southeast of knock out streetlights with rocks. One of the biggest town. pranks was the tipping over of outhouses during Halloween, including some that were still occupied. Don’s and Betty’s dog Corky, One year, Louisville Police Chief "Ring" Dionigi came shown here, was a frequent into classrooms at Louisville High School to pull boys companion for their out of class and threatened to bar them from playing in adventures in and around the upcoming high school championship football game Little Italy. unless they returned all of the outhouses to their upright positions.

When Betty and Don speak of their childhood in Little During the fall and winter, indoor activities such as Italy, it is always with great love and affection for the Chinese checkers, consulting the Ouija board and families and children of that small community. They listening to the radio were enjoyed. Radio program both said that they never felt like they were deprived as favorites in the neighborhood included "Stella Dallas", children. There were always birthday cakes and "Fibber McGee and Molly," "Bob Hope," "Our Gal handmade presents, homemade ice cream (made with Sunday" and baseball games. It was not unusual for the canned milk and cranked out using the ice-cream radio reception to be disrupted, such as when someone freezer), trick or treating at Halloween with homemade on a nearby farm used their ham radio. Sledding on popcorn balls, apples, oranges and hard candy and a bag Highway 42 or on Grant Avenue "in town" was also a of treats at Christmas time. But, foremost, and most favorite activity. Betty and Don recall going to the importantly, was the gift of neighbors and relatives who movies on Sunday night (instead of church), and getting made up the family that was Little Italy. For Betty and in trouble with the nuns on Monday at St. Louis School. Don, this extended family enriched and defined their childhood experience. There were no organized sports such as Little League, so the boys of Little Italy faced off against the boys of Frenchtown. The big rival football game was held at either the Tovado or Franchini farm where the boys +LVWRULFDO0XVHXP+RXUVDQG+LVWRULFDO0XVHXP+RXUVDQG marked out a field. Don seemed to receive a cracked rib &RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ&RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ every summer during the game, requiring a visit to Dr. The current hours of the Louisville Historical Cassidy to get taped up, with the pulling off of the tape Museum are Wednesdays, Thursdays, and the first hurting more than the cracked rib. Little Italy held Saturday of the month from 10 to 3. Please call the boxing matches with contenders including Art Ohanion Museum at 303.665.9048 for the latest information and the Carpenter, Tovado, and Kasenga boys. on hours or to schedule a tour.

mining conditions or the union with miners from other :K:KHUHLV/RXLVYLOOH·V/LWWOH,WDO\"HUHLV/RXLVYLOOH·V/LWWOH,WDO\"HUHLV/RXLVYLOOH·V/LWWOH,WDO\" places if they were staying in their own neighborhoods and not quickly learning English. %\%\%ULGJHW%DFRQ0XVHXP&RRUGLQDWRU%ULGJHW%DFRQ0XVHXP&RRUGLQDWRU%ULGJHW%DFRQ0XVHXP&RRUGLQDWRU

Visitors to the Louisville Historical Museum and newer residents of Louisville sometimes express surprise to learn that during most of Louisville’s history when its population was just above or just below 2,000 residents, it had ethnic neighborhoods like one might find in large cities.

Frenchtown was on the south side of town in the vicinity of South Main Street, Rex, and Parkview and also encompassed the farms of French natives and their descendants that spread out from the southern edge of the town. The name of another neighborhood, Little Italy, suggests that it was the primary area where Italians lived, but in fact Italians made their homes not only in Little Italy but also throughout the rest of the town. In addition to Little Italy, another notable concentration of Italians (including those from northern Italy) lived in an area surrounding the intersection of South Street and La Farge Avenue. It is believed that there were other lesser known enclaves as well, such as one south of Miner’s The circled area on this map shows the houses Field where some Bulgarian families congregated. (shown as small black squares) that made up Little “Kimbertown” was just west of Roosevelt and was Italy in 1909. Other interesting aspects of this map settled by descendants of George Kimber, an immigrant are that South Boulder Road, at the top, is called from Cornwall. Wyman Street; just south of Wyman, there is a Frost Street that appears to never have been Little Italy was located between the railroad tracks to the developed; a railroad spur is shown going off the west and East Street, now Route 42, to the east. Its east- main line just north of Little Italy over to the Rex west streets were Harper and Griffith, with the cross No. 1 Mine to the east; and there were several streets being Front, Cannon, and East. The 1909 wall houses situated in a row on the east side of Main map of Louisville at the Museum (see photo) shows Street, called “Second” Street on this map. (This about twenty homes in the area of Little Italy, and about image was taken from the 1909 Drumm’s Wall the same number of homes continued to make up the Map of Louisville that hangs at the Historical neighborhood for several decades to follow. The Museum.) particularly high concentration of Italians in Little Italy and the separation of the neighborhood from the rest of the town due to the railroad tracks led to the formation of a close neighborhood and to cultural practices that endured for decades, such as winemaking using grapes ([KLELWRQ,WDOLDQVLQ'HQYHU+ROGV that were delivered directly into the neighborhood by 0HDQLQJIRU/RXLVYLOOH0HDQLQJIRU/RXLVYLOOH truck. %\%ULGJHW%DFRQ0XVHXP&RRUGLQDWRU%\%ULGJHW%DFRQ0XVHXP&RRUGLQDWRU%ULGJHW%DFRQ0XVHXP&RRUGLQDWRU The reasons for living with one’s countrymen are obvious. Families were close and their members wanted The Colorado History Museum in downtown Denver is to live near one another. And in a town made up of a currently showing an exhibit, The Italians of Denver, high proportion of immigrants, people could have which is both entertaining and informative and which neighbors who spoke the same language they did. extends beyond the Denver area to illustrate the lives and contributions of Italians in other parts of Colorado as The existence of different ethnic neighborhoods served well. This outstanding exhibit opened in April and is the purposes of the coal mine owners as well. New scheduled to continue well into 2008. workers arriving from Europe were less likely to discuss Continued on page 4

According to the exhibit’s notes, Italians made up almost fourteen percent of the state’s population in 1910. Many of these recent immigrants lived in colonies such as Louisville and worked in industries such as coal mining. The exhibit touches on many themes of Italian life in Colorado, including the role of the Catholic Church, Colorado’s use of Italian stonemasons, the practice of winemaking, and why peddling fruit and vegetables was a good choice of occupation for new Italian immigrants (it was familiar work, it required little investment, and it was potentially profitable).

Included in the exhibit is a photograph showing saloonkeeper Anthony Fabrizio in front of his saloon which was located on the west side of Front Street in Anthony Fabrizio, proprietor of the Fabrizio Louisville. The exhibit uses this particular photo to saloon, is identified as standing third from the right illustrate how saloons were important social centers for in this photo that is currently on display at the Italians. At Italian-run saloons, new Italian-speaking Colorado History Museum as part of the exhibit arrivals could get help with such things as finding jobs “The Italians of Denver.” See the accompanying and housing. article for more information about what is shown in the background of the photo. The photo of the Fabrizio saloon, which is also part of the collection of the Louisville Historical Museum, holds particular interest for Louisville residents because of what is shown in the photo’s background. The view is

(OOH&DEEDJH 'LDQH0DULQR For many families, there was also a need for daughters 9LUJLQLD&DUDQFL 'DQLHO0HOOLVK to work in the house starting at a young age. Such chores 5REHUW(QULHWWR 'RQDOG5RVV went far beyond what would be typically expected of 'DYLG)HUJXVRQ 3DWULFLD6HDGHU young people today.

'RQQD+DXVZDOG $OLQH6WHLQEDXJK Child labor laws brought an end to young boys working &ROOHHQ9DQGHQGULHVVFKH in the coal mines, but young people in Louisville for a

4 long time have been able to find odd jobs to do in order ,PDJHVRI&KLOGKRRGLQ/RXLVYLOOH to make a little money. Lois Goodhue According to today’s residents who grew up in the poses on her 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, work for boys included: porch with her • Cleaning out chicken coops or ash pits dog, Razzle, and a • Dusting the seats at the Rex Theatre (you’d get doll in the early to see the movies for free) 1920s. Her • Working in stores or filling stations family’s home is • Delivering groceries from one of the now called the neighborhood stores Austin-Niehoff House and it • Working on farms in the area contains the • Trapping muskrats in nearby lakes and selling offices of the them for their skins • Land Hunting pheasants or catching fish and selling Management them Department at • Driving the hearse for Henning Mortuary (this 717 Main Street. was for older boys) The porch pillar on the right of the photo looks much • Selling junk (after finding some first) the same today as it did then. • Cutting and watering lawns, or spading gardens • Working as a substitute for men when it was In this recently donated time to work their annual “male tax” (also called photo from 1918, a teenage “poll tax”) obligation to the town by doing such Edna Carveth stands in what work as cleaning out the curbs and gutters. This is believed to have been her paid about $.50 an hour, or about $3 a day. yard at Pine and Lincoln. In

Not surprisingly, girls didn’t have as many options as the background, one can see boys did when it came to jobs. However, some were the back of the building that possible, such as working in stores; housecleaning; used to be the Baptist babysitting; and working in restaurants, not only in Church at Pine and Grant. Louisville but also in Boulder.

Louisville’s close neighborhoods likely made it easier for young people to find out what odd jobs were available and who needed help, and for business owners and homeowners, there was usually a steady supply of young people eager to earn a little money.

In this photo dated 1925, Louisville young people are Brothers John and Richard Franchini seemed to be dressed in costumes for Halloween. The two boys on enjoying their ride in this photo. In 1930, which is the the right appear to be dressed as coal miners, as they date on the cart’s “license plate,” John would have are both wearing miner’s caps and one is carrying a been about 5 years old and Dick would have been shovel while the other is holding a miner’s lunch pail. about 3. (Sadly, both brothers passed away in 2006.)

+RZ+RZ+RZ:HOO'R

1. In the lead article of the last issue of The Louisville Historian, Harry Mayor described spending time by the “minney ditch” in Louisville as a child. What is a minney ditch?

2. The last working coal mines in Louisville were closing in the early 1950s. What facility that was built on the northwest side of Denver at about the same time gave work to Louisville’s population and boosted its economy?

3. This building at the northeast corner of Pine and Front Streets (see photo) was once one of Front Street’s many saloons. What brand of beer was associated with this saloon?

Answers appear on page 9. Historical Commission members Aline Steinbaugh, . Virginia Caranci, and Pat Seader made delicious pizzelles to hand out in front of the Historical Museum during June’s Taste of Louisville event.

7KH0XVHXP&RUQHU7KH0XVHXP&RUQHU0XVHXP&RUQHU %\%ULGJHW%DFRQ0XVHXP &RRUGLQDWRU Because of the date that the last issue of The Louisville Historian went to press, I was not able to acknowledge -HIIHUVRQ&RXQW\+LVWRULFDO6RFLHW\WR volunteer historical researcher Bill Cohen and his insightful April presentation on the 1936 Monarch Mine 3UHVHQW3URJUDP3UHVHQW3URJUDP Explosion. Due to exceptionally high interest by the The Jefferson County Historical Society is planning community, it was a standing-room-only event with the an entertaining and educational day on Saturday, best attendance yet for a Louisville Historical Society September 22nd with local authors of Front Range program. I would like to thank everyone in the audience history, to be held at the Mt. Vernon Country Club in for their patience with respect to the space constraints. Golden from 9:30 to 2:00. As Bill Cohen was speaking about and showing photos Ben Fogelberg and Steve Grinstead of the Colorado from the interesting lives of the eight local miners who Historical Society will speak about their book, Walking died, many members of their families could be seen in Into Colorado’s Past: 50 Front Range History Hikes. the audience. I know that I am not alone in hoping that a Mike Strunk will speak about his book, Portraits of book will emerge from Bill’s extensive research and Preservation, about old-time families in the mountains findings. west of Denver and how they have preserved their land and our western heritage. Debra Faulkner will speak In the last issue, I highlighted two antique postcards of about her biography, Touching Tomorrow: The Emily Louisville scenes from circa 1908 and 1909 that are in Griffith Story, her forthcoming biography of Mary Elitch the Museum’s collection. I am pleased to announce that Long, and a history book that she recently co-authored from a suggestion by volunteer Mary Kay Knorr, the with Thomas Noel, Colorado: An Illustrated History of Historical Commission is now selling framed posters, the Highest State. Please call 303.674.9639 for unframed posters, and postcards of these colorful reservations and more information. $35 per person images. Look for these at the Commission tables at includes author programs and luncheon. upcoming events such as the Labor Day Fall Festival.

The Museum recently received some visitors who Live” list that looked at towns and cities with reestablished connections to our city that had been lost. populations of 7,500 to 50,000. The press coverage Jan Touslee and her husband, Randy, visited from conveyed a good understanding of what makes Montrose, Colorado and wondered if the Museum had Louisville special, emphasizing as it did our historic information about the Louisville experiences of Jan’s downtown, sense of community, festivals, outdoor life, father, Dr. Walter Boyd, who many residents remember. and mining history. He had his home and medical offices at 641 Main Street, now the location of the dessert shop A Grande Finale, from about 1936 to 1942. In fact, Jan recognized the 0XVHXP:LVK/LVW0XVHXP:LVK/LVW0XVHXP:LVK/LVW decorative woodwork in the interior of A Grand Finale from an old photo showing her mother, Marion, sitting The Louisville Historical Museum would like to add to inside by that window. Dr. Boyd married Jan’s mother in its collection the items described below. If you would be 1941. He delivered many babies in Louisville and, willing to donate any of the described items, please call according to Jan, was sometimes asked to name them us at 303.665.9048. If you would prefer not to part with (perhaps including some of the readers of The Louisville an original photo, please contact us about whether it can Historian!). be scanned on our photo scanner. All donations to the museum, a non-profit institution, are tax deductible. Another recent visitor was Anthony Romeo and Thank you for your support! members of his family from the Denver area. Anthony’s - Centaurus High School Yearbooks: 1973 to 2000 father, Tony C.V. Romeo, built the family’s home in Louisville in the early 1900s out of blocks of stone that - Photographs of Louisville High School’s graduating he hauled from the Marshall area using a buckboard and classes: a mule. Located at the northwest corner of Pine and • All classes before 1937 except for 1909, 1915, Garfield, the home was one of the houses on the 2005 1921, 1923, and 1925 Holiday Home Tour and its exterior looks much the • The classes of 1954, 1955, 1958, 1960, 1961, same as it did when it was built. It was great to exchange 1962, and 1964 through 1971 information and photographs with the Romeo family. - Copies of the Louisville Times, or pages of it, dated Other recent visitors include Kelly McHugh of before 1942. (The Louisville Times was published Louisville’s McHugh family, visiting from Arizona, and beginning in 1913, but the paper has past issues going members of the DiPilla/DiGiacomo family who started back only to 1942.) off their family reunion with a tour of the Historical Museum. - Coal mine photos and ledgers

These recent visitors and others have been wonderful - An old wooden bench for use as part of the Summer Kitchen display resources for information, photographs, and artifacts related to Louisville’s history. They are a reminder of - Historic photos of homes and businesses in the old the extent to which the Museum often benefits very town part of Louisville (with or without people in the directly from visitors, not just the other way around. photos). Specific buildings need not be identified so long as the photos were taken in Louisville. The Historical Commission and I are sorry to announce that two of its members are leaving the Commission. New Requests:

Thank you to Bill Unrau and to Stuart Pritchard for all of Photos of the interior or exterior of Redman Hall; scenes their contributions over the years! Also, thank you so showing Louisville’s Little Italy or Frenchtown; and much to Mona Lee-Doersam, Mary Kay Knorr, Gail interiors and exteriors of Louisville’s saloons and pool Wetrogan, Bill Cohen, Bill Buffo, Betty Buffo, Duke halls. Damiana, Jean Morgan, and Artie Sabeti for their volunteer work on behalf of the Museum. Many thanks also go to the Boulder County Youth Corps, who worked in hot weather to install another phase of perennial landscaping at the Museum campus.

0HPRULDO'RQDWLRQV Last, to add to other recent national recognition of Donations have been made to the Museum in memory Louisville as a great place to live and raise a family, of: Money magazine has listed Louisville as third best over Tom Mayer (1951-2007) all and “Best in the West” on its annual “Best Places to

Donald Ross & Art Ohanion – World War I army

0XVHXP'RQDWLRQV0XVHXP'RQDWLRQV clothing of Louisville resident Arthur Ohanion

The Louisville Historical Museum has accessioned the ______following donations during the months of May through July. We sincerely appreciate these recent donations. -RLQWKH/RXLVYLOOH+LVWRULFDO6RFLHW\-RLQWKH/RXLVYLOOH+LVWRULFDO6RFLHW\

Virginia Caranci – photos showing the Jordinelli House Membership in the Louisville Historical Society is a and Summer Kitchen being moved to the Museum site in must for those interested in Louisville’s unique history 2001 and cultural character. Members receive the quarterly Louisville Historian and an invitation to the annual Robert Enrietto – slides of Louisville relating to its Historical Society Program. history; a book, Out of the Depths by Barron B. Beshoar about the Ludlow Massacre and coal mining in A yearly membership is only $15.00 for an individual Colorado; and an abstract of title showing the location of and $25.00 for a family. A yearly business sponsorship the Acme Mine buildings is $100.00.

Jean Morgan – photos of the champion magnolia tree at Visit our web site at the Caranci home on Main Street www.ci.louisville.co.us/museum.htm for a membership form or call the Museum at 303-665-9048. You may also Jan Touslee – scan of a photo of her mother, Marion write to us at Louisville Historical Museum, 749 Main Boyd, taken at 641 Main Street (location of the medical Street, Louisville, Colorado, 80027. Please make checks practice of her father, Dr. Walter Boyd) payable to the Louisville Historical Society. ______Monarch High School – yearbook for 2006-2007 3KRWRVRI/RXLVYLOOH·V6DORRQVDQG Jim Ensign – Knights of Pythias pin that belonged to 3RRO+DOOV%HLQJ3RRO+DOOV%HLQJ6RXJKW%HLQJ6RXJKW6RXJKW John T. Sidle of Louisville The Historical Museum is seeking historic photos of Verla Magruder – scan of a photo showing her working Louisville’s saloons and pool halls for an upcoming at Louisville’s telephone switchboard in 1949 exhibit. Both interior and exterior views are welcome.

Diane Marino – scans of photos of Betty Ross Marino In particular, any old photos of the building at 1006 Pine and Don Ross and Don’s dog, Corky (the photos appear Street that was Lackner’s Tavern, which was later in this issue) known as the Track Inn and Pine Street Junction and which is now Casa Alegre, would be greatly appreciated. Aline Steinbaugh – newspapers and artifacts relating to Steinbaugh’s Store, and booklets and materials on local Please contact the Historical Museum at 303.665.9048 if history you have photos to donate and to find out if the Museum already has them in its collection. For donors who would Rich Franchini – a muskrat trap, yard tools, and coal prefer not to give up original photos, copies would be mining tools used by his family welcome or the Museum photo scanner can be used to make copies. Virginia DiPilla Lane – binder containing photos and the family history of the DiPilla/DiGiacomo family, presented at the family’s reunion in June at the Museum

Anthony C. Romeo – scans of photos from the Romeo family that built the stone house at Pine and Garfield in the early 1900s (one of the photos, that of Edna Carveth on Pine Street, appears in this issue)

John Madonna – cash register from the Bugdust Pool Hall which he operated on Main Street from 1948 to 1953

$QVZHUV7R+RZ:HOO'R

1. A minney (or minnie) ditch is a ditch where JoBelle Fischer Orvis minnows are caught to be used for fishing. One Virginia Lane & the DiPilla Family

such ditch in Louisville that was used to catch minnows is the one that still runs north and west of Louisville Middle School, formerly Louisville High School. (Thank you to Historical Commission member Dave Ferguson for this information.)

2. Rocky Flats is the facility between Boulder and Golden where, beginning in 1952, workers made nuclear weapon parts. Many out-of–work coal miners and their family members found employment there as the coal mines were closing in the Louisville area at about the same time.

3. The brand of beer is Coors, as the building was

known as the Coors Saloon. It is believed to have been built circa 1890 and was a one-story building for most of its history. Purchased in 77KDQN

The Louisville Historian, Issue #75, Summer 2007

Louisville Historical Society 749 Main Street Louisville, CO 80027

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: May 13, 2021

Landmark Updates

None

Alteration Certificate Updates

500 Grant Avenue; x The subcommittee released a permit to replace a portion of the siding that exists on the original section of the house. Rationale: Alterations and many additions have been made previously and the proposed siding would not affect the ability of the home to be landmarked.

Demolition Updates

None

Referral Updates

950 Spruce: x The architect for 950 Spruce has made changes to the design for the elevations on the 950 Spruce project. Staff feels these better align with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Please see the attached images below for reference.

Upcoming Schedule

June 21st – Historic Preservation Commission, Virtual Meeting on Zoom, 6:30 pm Before After Before After Historic Preservation Project Update Table

Optional Project Item: Description: Assigned to: Last Date Updated: Comment:

Staff has been working on updating and clarifying the HSA process. After April’s meeting, staff was tasked with the following updates:

 Research options to help clarify the amount spent on HSA Historic Structure Staff will bring the projects (itemized receipts; Assessment Staff April’s HPC Meeting latest draft of the info proposal prior to, or at, Process packet in June. application) for more detailed review.  Make sure that the information packet that is supplied to residents and applicants is clear about the changes and additional information. Staff will provide a list of roughly 20 buildings that could be included in the Color Book. Choices will include Outreach – Coloring Staff will bring a list of buildings already Landmarked or on Book building Staff and Commission n/a potential options to the NRHP, or those that have deep choices June’s meeting connections to Louisville’s heritage (e.g. Agriculture or mining)

Staff sent out an email to request to Outreach – Coloring 3 responses as of the eight artists to request a quote of Staff April’s HPC Meeting Book artist quotes writing of this update their services for 10-15 illustrations.

Postcards were sent Provide an updated outreach mailer Outreach - out to Old Town to residents reminded them of the Staff Completed Postcards residents Tuesday, 2019 funding increases. May 11th

Comments were sent Will hold final Complete review of submitted Complete Historic to Paleo West in early presentation once all documents; Final Presentation by Staff and Consultant Survey Project April, waiting to hear forms and reports are Paleo West. back reviewed

The Louisville Historical Museum presents:

BINGO Scavenger Hunt Celebrate Historic Preservation Month by using the clues on the back of this page to find these historic buildings and examples of architectural forms in Louisville! When you find a structure or style place a sticker on its box. Fill five boxes in a row, column, or diagonal line and turn this sheet in for a small prize!

State Mercantile Bungalow Form 836 Main St Grain Elevator Ranch-Style

Exterior Shed 801 Grant Ave False-Front Buildings 824 Front St Detached Garage

Exterior Cellar Entrance 817 Main St 1001 Main St Townhome 641 Main St

Gabled Front Roof 700 Main St Pyramid Roof Austin-Niehoff House 1006 Pine St

ED DID IT Business Sign Split-Level 740 Front St Outhouse 628 La Farge Ave

You can collect your small prize at the Louisville Historical Museum on May 8 or 22 between 10 AM and 12 PM. Louisville Historical Museum 1001 Main Street, Louisville, CO, 80027. http://www.louisvilleco.gov/lensesonlouisville Scavenger Hunt Clues Architectural Forms Bungalow Form: In Louisville, you can identify this form by its smaller size, larger front porch with eaves, and, when built in the crafts- man style, iconic front porch pillars. Can you find an example of these family homes? Gabled Front Roof: These simple structures were popular turn-of-the-century working-class homes in Louisville and can be easily identified by the pitch of the roof that runs the length of the house, perpendicular to the front door. False-Front Buildings: Like many western towns, Louisville has several commercial structures with false fronts – large, flat facades at the front of a structure that extended beyond its true dimensions. Pyramid Roof: Another popular working class early twenty-century house style, you can identify these structures by their square sides and roof that forms a pyramid point in the center of the home. Ranch-Style: You won’t find many ranch-style homes in the older neighborhoods around downtown but can see examples of this post- war architectural style in the neighborhoods west of Community Park and south of Village Square Shopping Center. Split-Level: This style, popular in the 1970s, features three or more separate levels that are staggered and separated from each other by a flight or partial flight of stairs. Townhome: Although a recent addition to Louisville, these narrow, side-by-side, homes have become quite popular residential housing.

Outbuildings Detached Garage: Many of Louisville’s original homes did not have attached garages. Can you find a historic or modern home with a garage as a separate building? Exterior Cellar entrance: Some of the oldest homes in Louisville have basements that could only be entered from outside the home. Find one of these exterior cellar entrances. Exterior Shed: Louisville families in the past and present have used exterior sheds to store their belongings. Can you find an example of an historical or modern shed? Outhouse: People living in Louisville did not have indoor bathrooms until the 1950s! There are still a few outhouses on downtown properties that are left over from a time when the bathrooms in town were outside.

Historic Structures 641 Main St: Today this building houses a well-known bakery, but in the 1900s it was the home and office for four doctors who lived and worked here consecutively. 628 La Farge Ave: This building was moved two blocks to the west of its original location and is now a preschool. But it was once Louis- ville’s railroad depot. 700 Main St: Today, this structure has been merged with the building just north of it to create a popular restaurant located on Pine and Main Streets. It has also been a bank, post office, and flower shop. 740 Front St: This iconic structure houses one of the oldest bars in Colorado. 801 Grant Ave: Located on the west end of Memory Square Park, this iconic building was once a grade school. 817 Main St: This structure has been a public theater and a number of popular restaurants during its long life on Main Street. 824 Front St: The Steinbaugh family ran a blacksmith shop and then a hardware store near the site of this popular music venue. 836 Main St: Like several other downtown businesses, this popular coffee shop operates out of a historic structure that was once a private home. 1001 Main St: The main building of the Louisville Historical Museum was once an Italian grocery store. 1006 Pine St: Located on Pine Street next to the railroad tracks in downtown Louisville, this structure has been home to saloons and restaurants for more than a century. Austin-Niehoff House: This is the oldest residential structure in Louisville and today contains the offices of the City’s Parks and Recrea- tion Department. Ed Did It Sign: Ed Helmstead has painted many downtown Louisville businesses’ signs and often signed his creations “ED DID IT.” Can you find a sign that Ed did? Grain Elevator: This municipally landmarked building once held and sorted grain from local Louisville farms before that grain was load- ed onto rail cars and sent to mills in Denver. State Mercantile: For more than 100 years, this prominent commercial structure has been a downtown Louisville icon.