The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/20/2021 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPage 1 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Michael Bello Walter Dunn This meeting will be held Kurt Knierim remotely via Zoom Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison: Jim Rose Karen McWilliams Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting January 20, 2021 5:30 PM Landmark Preservation Commission AGENDA Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. This remote Landmark Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/94284162189. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 942 8416 2189. Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission for its consideration must be emailed to gschiager@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to gschiager@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. •CALL TO ORDER •ROLL CALL •AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items. Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA •CONSENT AGENDA 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2020. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. •CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ●Approval of Minutes ●Items of no perceived controversy ●Routine administrative actions Packet Pg. 2 Page 3 This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. •PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. •DISCUSSION AGENDA 2.REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. 3.THE QUARRY AT WATERMARK –DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed development at Shields and Hobbit Streets of 326 multi-family dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The site is undeveloped. The northeast portion of the site plan, containing three buildings, is within the historic influence area and subject to the design compatibility requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the land use code. The application is subject to a Type 2 Review, for which the decision maker will be the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: North Spring Creek Properties, LLC; Russ Lee, Ripley Design, Inc. 4. MAGNOLIA DWELLINGS – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 335 E Magnolia, a single-family residence, to construct a four-unit multifamily building. Development site is in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. The existing zoning is Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM), and the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Owner: 335 Magnolia LLC (Contact: Jordan Obermann); Applicant: Russell + Mills (Shelley LaMastra); alm2s (Ian Shuff) 5.359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER) – SUNSHADE ADDITION DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the addition of an upper patio enclosure on the northwest corner of the historic building at 359 Linden Street (Ginger and Baker). APPLICANT: Chris Aronson (VFLA); Jack and Ginger Graham (Owners) •OTHER BUSINESS •ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 1 Gretchen Schiager From:meg dunn <barefootmeg@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:54 PM To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Extending our virtual meeting period Hi Karen, Given our ongoing COVID‐19 “Safer at Home” recommendation from the State, I think it would be prudent for us to continue to hold meetings virtually for the foreseeable future. Why don’t we set June 2021 as a cut off point to revisit this, with the option to revisit the issue sooner if somehow a vaccine is found and quickly disseminated early next year, and the Safer at Home recommendation is lifted. I know that P&Z is holding a mixed meeting soon, so I think we should be open to that should the need arise. So, to summarize: Let’s plan to continue our virtual LPC meetings until June 2021 with the understanding that, should the need arise, we would be willing to consider an alternative option on a one‐off basis. Given that the members of the LPC seem to feel that our virtual meetings have been going well, I don’t foresee this happening. But I would like to be flexible should an applicant or appellant feel the need for an in‐person setting. Thanks! ‐ Meg Packet Pg. 4 Date: Roll Call Mike Bello Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Eizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Meg Dunn Vote x x x x x x x -x 8 present Consent: 1) December Minutes - approval Eizabeth Michell Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Jim Rose Mike Bello Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Meg Dunn Yes Yes -Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8-0 3) Quary by Watermark Dev Rev - recommend approval Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Jim Rose Mike Bello Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Eizabeth Michell Meg Dunn Yes -Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8-0 4) Magnolia Dwellings - Recommend denial Vacant Seat Jim Rose Mike Bello Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Eizabeth Michell Anne Nelsen Meg Dunn -No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 4-4 4) Magnolia Dwellings - Recommend approval Jim Rose Mike Bello Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Eizabeth Michell Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Meg Dunn Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes -No 4-4 4) Magnolia Dwellings - Continue to February Mike Bello Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Eizabeth Michell Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Jim Rose Meg Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes 8-0 5) Ginger and Baker Sunshade - recommend approval Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Eizabeth Michell Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Jim Rose Mike Bello Meg Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes Yes 8-0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 1/20/2021 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! Visitor Log [This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.] DATE: 1-20-21 Name Company Email, Address and/or Phone Reason for Attendance Russ Lee Ripley Design russ.lee@ripleydesigninc.com Item 3, applicant team Jessica Tuttle Watermark Apartments jtuttle@watermarkapartments.com Item 3, applicant team Steve Herron Watermark Apartments sherron@watermarkapartments.com Item 3, applicant team Colleen Hoffman - Wallenberg Drive Item 3, public comment Ann Hunt - - Item 3, public comment Ian Shuff alm2s Architects ishuff@alm2s.com Item 4, applicant team Craig Russell Russell + Mills crussell@russellmillsstudios.com Item 4, applicant team Jordan Oberman - jordan@forgeandbow.com Item 4, property owner Chris Aronson VFLA Chris@vfla.com Item 5, applicant team Jack Graham - jack@grahamoffices.com Item 5, property owner Ginger Graham - - Item 5, property owner Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 1/20/21 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC December 16, 2020 Hearing DISCUSSION AGENDA: 2. Staff Design Review Decisions Report 3. The Quarry by Watermark • Staff Report (Updated 1/20/21) • Staff Presentation (Updated 1/20/21) • Att 5 - Watermark Exterior Design Duplex Exhibits (Added 1/20/21) 4. Magnolia Dwellings • Staff Report (Updated 1/20/21) • Staff Presentation (Updated 1/20/21) 5. Ginger and Baker Sunshade • Staff Report (Updated 1/20/21) • Staff Presentation (Updated 1/20/21) EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 3 A New Applicant Slide 4 A Applicant Presentation 5 A Applicant Presentation CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Title: Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): Brief statement of interest: Date: Signature: REMOVAL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 Brad Yatabe Assistant City Attorney The Quarry at Watermark Project Development Plan, Landmark Preservation Commission review. I live in the Hill Pond on Spring Creek Subdivision that abuts the property where The Quarry at Watermark project is proposed. I believe that I have a personal interest in the project because I will experience a substantial detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Additionally, a number of my neighbors are communicating with City regarding the project and there is the potential for bias on my part that could affect my professional responsibilities. Jan. 14, 2021 Brad Yatabe Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 20, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2020 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC December 16, 2020 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 December 16, 2020 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was held Michael Bello remotely via Zoom Mollie Bredehoft Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Regular Meeting December 16, 2020 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. (**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.) •ROLL CALL PRESENT:Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Knierim, Michell,Murray, Nelsen,Wallace, Rose ABSENT:None STAFF:McWilliams,Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe,Schiager, Overton •AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 2 December 16, 2020 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the December 16, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed unanimously. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. Staff Report The Commission did not require a staff report, nor were there any questions or discussion. 3. 126 S. WHITCOMB ST: APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION ON DESIGN REVIEW (CONTINUANCE FROM OCTOBER 2020) DESCRIPTION: This item is a continuance from October’s Regular Meeting. The item is to consider the appeal of a staff design review decision for 126. S. Whitcomb Street. The applicant is proposing demolition of the historic 1932 garage and replacement with a new 1.5 story garage on its location. Staff denied the request on August 25, 2020, and the owner filed an appeal on August 26, 2020. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Landmark Preservation Commission. APPLICANT: Tara Gaffney (Property Owner) Mr. Murray recused himself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting the location of the property and discussing the proposed project to demolish the 1932 garage building and construct a new 1.5-story garage in the same location. He reminded the Commission of its role to determine the status of the garage and whether the project meets the Secretary of the Interior standards. He noted staff originally denied this project finding the garage was a contributing resource; therefore, demolition would not meet standards. Mr. Bertolini discussed the issues that led to the continuation of this item, including which secondary structures in the landmark district contributed to the history and significance of the district, which unfortunately was not made clear in the 2013 landmark district nomination. He stated staff engaged Mary Humstone of Humstone Consulting to provide a report on the topic. Mr. Bertolini noted other properties in the district have gone through garage demolition projects; however, those structures were not found to be contributing to the landmark district. Applicant Presentation Ms. Gaffney gave a brief presentation noting the pandemic is driving the desire for this space, which will ultimately be historical. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 3 December 16, 2020 Public Input None. Commission Questions Chair Dunn asked Mary Humstone, consultant, to comment on her report on this property, particularly related to how outbuildings contribute to the district. Ms. Humstone replied outbuildings contribute to the overall understanding of the properties, and garages specifically represent a large change in American society in the first part of the 21st century. She stated garages are an important piece of a district and should be considered along with primary residences. Mr. Rose asked Ms. Humstone about the dates of the house and the garage noting the garage was built during the depression era which tells a story of its own. Ms. Humstone agreed and noted there were few entire houses being built during the depression, just garages and additions. Commission Discussion Chair Dunn asked the Commission to weigh in on whether the garage is contributing. Mr. Rose stated that he believes the garage is a contributing structure to the Whitcomb District and the property and any effort to improve its overall architectural quality may be a mistake as it does speak to the time it was built. Ms. Wallace agreed and stated it is important to show the more vernacular style of the garage. Mr. Knierim concurred as well. Ms. Nelsen commented on the other garages that Ms. Humstone's report found to be contributing and stated it is important to stabilize the structure but opposed demolishing it or modifying it in any significant way. Chair Dunn asked whether the Commission needs to vote on whether the garage is a contributing resource to the District. Mr. Yatabe indicated the Commission should vote on it. Ms. Michell and Ms. Bredehoft agreed the garage is a contributing structure. Mr. Rose moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the garage structure at 126 South Whitcomb Street is determined to be a contributing resource to the Whitcomb Street Landmark District. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Bello dissenting. Commission Discussion Ms. Bredehoft requested additional information regarding the approved removal of another garage on the block. Mr. Bertolini replied the main house was found to be contributing despite the 1994 second story addition, but only insofar as it reflected the overall development patterns of the district; therefore, the demolition and replacement of the garage was deemed to not have a significant effect on the historic district. Karen McWilliams, Historic Planning Manager, noted the aforementioned property was not designated for architecture and both the main structure and garage had been significantly altered at the time of the district formation. Chair Dunn suggested reviewing each standard. Standard 1 Chair Dunn noted the property will retain its residential use. Ms. Bredehoft commented on the need for a new garage to meet setback standards whereas the existing garage does not, thereby affecting spatial relationships. Chair Dunn noted the demolition and reconstruction of the garage is not a minimal change. Mr. Bertolini clarified that staff looked at the whole property, not just the garage. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 4 December 16, 2020 Ms. Nelsen agreed the property will retain residential use; however, the proposed building would have additional uses. Standard 2 Chair Dunn commented on losing the distinctive material of the garage. Standard 3 Ms. Nelsen stated, contrary to staff's analysis, she believes the proposed garage seeks to mimic the house and does create a false sense of history. Mr. Knierim agreed the new structure would change the story and not exhibit the physical record of its time. Ms. Wallace agreed the proposed garage looks like a miniature version of the house and it therefore does not meet this standard. Mr. Rose agreed the proposed garage is more contemporary. Standard 4 Ms. Nelsen agreed with staff’s analysis that the garage is significant in its own right. Standard 5 Chair Dunn pointed out that demolition would not preserve distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques. Ms. Nelsen commented on the simplicity in materials and craftsmanship being valuable for the structure. Standard 6 No comments. Standard 7 & 8 Not applicable. Standard 9 Chair Dunn commented on the proposed garage creating a false sense of history as it is not differentiated enough from the style of the house. Standard 10 Chair Dunn stated destroying the garage would damage its integrity. Overall Comments: Ms. Nelsen stated the proposal does not meet the standards; therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness would not be warranted. She stated there may be other options that could help the applicant meet her needs. Commission Deliberation Ms. Wallace moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project, according to the standards outlined in Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the finding that it does not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed 8-0. [**Secretary’s note: Mr. Bello abstained which is counted as an affirmative vote, per Mr. Yatabe.]. Ms. Bredehoft suggested the possibility of adding on to the existing garage. Chair Dunn noted no construction could occur on top of the undergrounded ditch but stated there may be a possibility for a second garage or an addition to the rear of the house. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 5 December 16, 2020 Ms. Nelsen and Chair Dunn mentioned several possibilities that may help the applicant. Mr. Rose stated there is more potential for using the available land behind the garage without having a visual impact from the front of the property. He suggested not adding onto the rear of the house. Ms. Gaffney asked if there is an existing Certificate of Appropriateness for the existing plans to stabilize and provide a six-foot addition to the current garage. Mr. Bertolini replied those plans were developed with the design assistance grant for the previous owners and were not ever approved; however, that would be a much quicker approval process. He noted Ms. Gaffney would need a full construction set of drawings for submittal. Ms. Gaffney thanked the Commission members for their time and consideration. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break. Mr. Murray rejoined the meeting, and a roll call was taken upon reconvening to ensure all members were present.] Mr. Yatabe explained to the Commission members that an abstention is treated as an affirmative vote. Chair Dunn asked about the garage door being part of the record of the hearing. Mr. Yatabe replied it is part of the record; however, staff would be evaluating a new application should the applicant move forward with different plans. 4. 140 N MCKINLEY AVENUE (ROBERT AND ORPHA BUXTON HOUSE AND ATTACHED GARAGE) – REAR ADDITION – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition to the City Landmark at 140 N. McKinley Avenue, the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the LPC. APPLICANT: Casey Churchill and Shannon Altenhofen (Property Owners) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report stating this is a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition to the property at 140 North McKinley, which is a City landmark. He noted the Commission is being asked to review what the property owners have provided thus far and provide feedback to assist in the development of detailed plans that will follow preservation standards. He noted this project will come before the Commission seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the property and its 1998 landmark nomination and designation. He stated the proposed project is a rear addition to provide additional bedroom space and a finished basement. He noted the massing of the addition is completely behind the historic home and the addition is differentiated. He stated staff's initial analysis of the concept plans is that they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation noting the plans meet the four main criteria considered with additions to historic buildings: compatible, distinguishable, reversible, and subordinate. He noted that while the addition is fairly large for a house of this type, the design should be complimented. Mr. Bertolini stated he does not have a firm response from Zoning yet regarding the floor area requirements; however, it appears they should be compliant in looking at the Neighborhood Conservation District requirements as the basement space will not count against the floor area requirements. Applicant Presentation Mr. Churchill did not have a formal presentation but discussed his ownership history of the property and desire for the addition to make the space livable for his family. He discussed the reasons for the proposed design to ensure the integrity of the front structure is maintained. Public Input None. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 6 December 16, 2020 Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn asked if they have explored the possibility of digging out the crawl space. Mr. Churchill replied the expense of that was not feasible. Mr. Bello stated this is a reasonable approach that provides a minimal impact to the existing home. Mr. Rose commented on the need for delineation between the existing home and addition suggesting a change in siding width. Ms. Nelsen asked about the treatment of the exterior corners and how the interior corners would resolve with the new siding meeting the old. Mr. Murray also commented on the typical profiles of metal corners of this time and stated using the more standard straight corners could be a good way to differentiate the addition. Ms. Nelsen commented on the size of the addition and stated it is done in a way to minimize negative impacts. She stated a hip roof would help minimize the massing. Chair Dunn mentioned the state's preference that additions are not more than 33% of the size of the original house. She questioned whether allowing this large of an addition would prevent the owners from accessing state tax credits. Mr. Bertolini replied that while 33% is a general rule of thumb, there is no hard and fast size requirement, and the owners would still have access to tax credits and incentives, though most of the cost of this project would not qualify. Ms. Wallace stated she was concerned about the size of the addition and questioned whether the Commission would have considered the property to be eligible for historic designation if it came before them after having the addition. She expressed concern the addition may diminish the integrity of the property. Chair Dunn stated she is conflicted on the proposed size of the addition, though it is well hidden. She also questioned whether the Commission would landmark the property if it came before them with the addition. She commented on the tax credits being an asset that goes with the property and questioned whether this addition would remove that asset. Mr. Murray noted this addition has limited visual impact from the front of the property. He suggested the possibility of a hybrid situation in placing some of the square footage under the existing house to reduce the square footage on the first floor. Chair Dunn summarized the members' comments stating there is some concern about the addition size, but it is generally acceptable. She asked about the windows. Mr. Churchill replied the plan is to mimic the windows that are in the rest of the house. Chair Dunn stated the window openings seem similar to the house. Ms. Nelsen agreed the window openings look similar but are distinguishable. She stated the existing versus new is clear in the fenestration. Mr. Rose stated the wall penetrations are of the same scale though the new windows appear to be casement rather than double-hung. He supported keeping the overall scale and size of window openings similar to each other. Chair Dunn requested input as to whether the addition is adequately differentiated and screened from public views by non-vegetation features. Ms. Bredehoft stated she has no concerns about the visibility of the addition and commended the proposed design. Mr. Bello stated a hip roof would help with visibility. Ms. Nelsen stated the design is going in the right direction; however, the addition may be more visible from the front elevation roofline than the analysis makes it seem. She suggested there may be a way to improve the roofline by breaking up the roof forms. Chair Dunn requested input on egress windows. Ms. Nelsen stated it might be better not to see them from the front of the house. Chair Dunn commented on adding space under the house being the best solution for these types of situations. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 7 December 16, 2020 5. 711 PETERSON, THE W.E. BOYD RESIDENCE (ADDITION) – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to construct an addition to this contributing property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District (NCM Zone District). APPLICANT: Richard Sadowsk, Kim Dickson (owners); Kim Morton (design representative) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting the role of the Commission is to review the draft report, provide additional comments regarding how the project does or does not meet the standards, and what effects the project might have on the property's contributing status to the historic district. She provided information on the property's location and history and outlined the proposed project to add a main floor bedroom and bathroom allowing the owners to age in place. She stated the proposed design would demolish a section of the north wall and construct the new 223-square-foot addition on the north elevation. Additionally, a new gravel walk that would circumnavigate the north side of the addition is also being proposed. Ms. Bzdek outlined the Commission's questions from the work session, including a request for explanation about the decision-making process that led to siting the addition in this location, a fuller explanation of the design inspiration and its relationship to the original building, what alterations would be needed to accommodate the addition, more detail about the material dimensions, and whether the decorative shingling would remain in place. Applicant Presentation Ms. Morton, design representative, introduced herself and the property owners. Mr. Sadowske spoke to the Commission about his history with the property and his goals for the addition noting it would allow for him and his wife to age in place with a first story bedroom and bathroom. He discussed the reasons for locating the addition where it is proposed citing the view to the backyard and potential future garage access from the alley. He discussed the importance of alley access for the property. Ms. Morton provided further details about the proposed addition design. She noted the two-track drive does not continue the full length of the driveway to the garage. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray asked if the applicant has considered making the upstairs bedrooms accessible. Ms. Morton replied the staircase is quite small and steep and retrofitting that for a motorized chair would be difficult. She noted the existing bathroom is quite small and would be difficult for accessibility. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed cantilevered areas and how they relate to the existing house. Ms. Morton replied the goal was to minimize the addition and work within setback constraints. She stated the cantilever allows for a workable bathroom that keeps the large window intact. Ms. Nelsen asked if there is a precedent for cantilevers in the neighborhood. Ms. Morton replied the intent was to have it be something unique to mark the addition as being new. Mr. Murray mentioned the four categories of consideration for addition per the Secretary of Interior standards: compatibility, distinguishability, reversibility, and subordination. He stated the addition is subordinate and compatible and can be designed to be distinguishable but questioned whether it is reversible. Chair Dunn stated the size of the addition is quite small; however, it is highly visible from the front of the home and hides the garage so therefore may not be considered subordinate. She stated the location of the addition is her main concern. Mr. Murray agreed the addition blocking the garage is a problem with the design. Ms. Nelsen commented on the proposed cantilever being attention-drawing and not necessarily compatible with the existing house. Chair Dunn stated the vertical elements on either side of the cantilever portion are what stands out to her. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 8 December 16, 2020 Ms. Morton noted the garage will still be visible from the north and there will still be a visual connection between the proposed addition and the garage. She stated no one would be opposed to changing the siding material if suggested. Ms. Nelsen questioned whether continuing the architectural language of the house with the addition is the correct treatment. Ms. Bredehoft stated she would prefer the addition to have some unique treatment but be at the same level of craftsmanship as the house. Chair Dunn questioned whether the continuation of the horizontal line confuses the addition with being part of the original house. She suggested carrying it over in a more modern way. Ms. Morton concurred. Mr. Bello questioned whether this discussion is relevant given the addition may not be appropriate at all. Chair Dunn replied the Commission is responsible for sending a report to the SHPO as this is a National Register property. She stated the addition can still move forward even if the Commission does not feel it meets the Secretary of Interior standards. Mr. Murray stated the proposed addition would not negatively affect the contributing factor of this property. Ms. Bzdek clarified the role of the Commission stating it should provide some summary findings regarding the Secretary of Interior standards for any proposed work as well as a general comment regarding the property's contribution to the historic district. Ms. Morton clarified the addition would not be removing any existing materials. Chair Dunn stated a more simplified gable end would help differentiate the addition. Mr. Murray stated a hip roof could be more subordinate to the home's gable. Chair Dunn stated having an addition with a notably different roofline than the home would detract from the home's roofline feature. Ms. Nelsen agreed the gable is appropriate for the addition. Mr. Murray discussed the Secretary of Interior standards and related staff findings. Ms. Nelsen stated there may not be a better solution to keep the house functioning for its owners in terms of the addition's placement and general massing. Chair Dunn stated the proposed addition is done as sensitively as it can be in terms of standard 5. Mr. Knierim discussed the importance of differentiation in terms of standard 9. Mr. Rose commented on the lot and house being long and narrow and stated the addition being simpler and more clearly delineated could allow it to meet the standards. Commission members discussed the ways in which the project does not meet the standards. Chair Dunn stated any addition on the side of the home would not likely meet standards. She noted it will ultimately be up to the state to determine whether the home remains a contributing property to the district. Mr. Murray suggested adding a comment to the motion indicating the addition would not affect the overall integrity of the property and its contributing to the historic district. Ms. Nelsen and Ms. Bredehoft questioned whether that determination is appropriate. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alterations to the W.E. Boyd Residence at 711 Peterson Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that our findings shall be conveyed to the owner, and shall be filed for potential transmittal to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the property’s historic status. Ms. Nelsen seconded. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 9 December 16, 2020 Mr. Murray questioned whether the intent of the motion would make the property non-contributing. Chair Dunn replied that has not been the intent of similar motions in the past. Mr. Rose noted the applicants have indicated these plans are conceptual and suggested a clearer delineation between the existing home and the addition could allow the home to meet the standards and still contribute to the district. Ms. Nelsen agreed the project does have the potential to meet the standards; however, it does not as proposed, which is outlined in the motion. Mr. Bello and Chair Dunn noted the proposed addition would still block the garage. Chair Dunn stated voting on this letter does not suggest the applicants could not return with a different design; however, it would still allow them to move forward. The motion passed 8-1, with Mr. Rose dissenting. Chair Dunn requested staff arrange for someone from the state to come to a future work session to discuss this process in more detail. 6. CITY OF FORT COLLINS HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE DESCRIPTION: For the Commission’s consideration at this meeting, City staff members will provide a presentation on the Housing Strategic Plan outlining progress to date, public engagement feedback, work with consultant Root Policy Research, and outcomes from Council’s Ad Hoc Housing Committee. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek introduced the item and introduced Meaghan Overton, Senior City Planner. Ms. Overton discussed the Housing Strategic Plan process that has moved quickly through public outreach, strategy identification and evaluation, and drafting. She noted the Plan is set to be considered by Council in February for first reading. Ms. Overton discussed the vision for the Plan: that everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford. Ms. Overton detailed the public outreach process and resulting input around housing challenges. She also discussed the list of strategies that have been identified and the draft criteria for evaluating those strategies. She commented on the goals of Council's Ad Hoc Housing Committee consisting of Councilmembers Gorgol, Cunniff, and Stephens. Ms. Overton mentioned the six topics the Commission may want to discuss: conducting a displacement or gentrification analysis, considering a demolition tax or fee as a revenue stream for affordable housing, removing barriers to the development of accessory dwelling units, revising occupancy limits and family definitions, Land Use Code changes, and enhancing programs that support home rehabilitation of existing building stock. Mr. Bello suggested an examination of design standards that increase home construction prices. Ms. Overton replied that was one of the driving factors behind the Land Use Code audit. Chair Dunn commented on older housing typically being turned into multi-unit dwellings and on the possibility of placing accessory dwelling units in large lots in non-Old Town areas. She also mentioned the connection between housing affordability and transportation which affects gentrification. She noted occupancy limits negatively affect affordability. Ms. Nelsen commended the staff work on this topic. Ms. Overton noted the hope is that Council will adopt a Plan with clear priorities and metrics and a community summit is planned for the spring to begin implementation. Chair Dunn commented on the benefits of a demolition tax. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn mentioned the Historic Larimer County Holy Places for the Holiday tour and noted this is Ms. Bredehoft's and Ms. Wallace's last meeting. Commission members thanked them for their service. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 10 December 16, 2020 • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, DECEMBER 3, 2020 TO JANUARY 6, 2021 STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on the HPD’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and LPC for their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the LPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within two weeks of staff denial. The report below covers the period between December 3, 2021 to January 6, 2021. There is no staff presentation this month, however, staff would call the Commission’s attention to the December 10 modification to the 600 Mathews NRHP Design Review. Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 331 S. Shields St. Removal of ash tree in rear yard; removal of elm tree in south allée due to overcrowding/blowdown risk. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved December 4, 2020 301 Garfield St. Rooftop solar on south roof slope. Non- contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (non-contributing due to alterations in 2018). Report waived due to negligible effects to overall historic district. Approved December 4, 2020 600 Mathews St. Revision of project previously reviewed by LPC. Changes include relocation of building on property to shift footprint out of high-risk floodplain. Project will also include a new raised concrete foundation, and repair of existing historic windows. Project not referred back to LPC as new project elements did not significantly alter recommendations or review from LPC. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved December 10, 2020 Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 401 Pine St. Painting upper floor windows and coverings. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved December 10, 2020 133 S. College Av. Painting storefront for new tenant. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved December 30, 2020 Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Updated 1-20-21 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 20, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME THE QUARRY AT WATERMARK –DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed development at Shields and Hobbit Streets of 326 multi-family dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The site is undeveloped. The northeast portion of the site plan, containing three buildings, is within the historic influence area and subject to the design compatibility requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the land use code. The application is subject to a Type 2 Review, for which the decision maker will be the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: North Spring Creek Properties, LLC; Russ Lee, Ripley Design, Inc. LPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the proposed new construction in the historic influence area near Sheely Drive Historic District (designated in 2000), relative to compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: The proposed development’s northeastern section is within a historic influence area resulting from proximity to the Sheely Drive Historic District, a local landmark district of midcentury residential properties. The applicant is currently preparing for hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board and has participated in two neighborhood meetings to date regarding the proposed development. At the first meeting, comments included requests for additional buffering and design compatibility on the eastern edge of the development. The applicant team met with City staff to review the compatibility requirements in 3.4.7, and those revisions were presented at a second neighborhood meeting and were received positively by the participating residents from the adjoining Sheely neighborhood. PROJECT SUMMARY: •MMN – Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood •NC -- Neighborhood Commercial (6 acres, southwest) •326 multi-family dwelling units; 1-story and 2-story on eastern edge •10,000 square feet of commercial space •553 parking spaces •Amenities (southeast) •Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (east and south) •Historic Influence Area (northeast): 3 two-family buildings (1-story ranch style) Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Updated 1-20-21 Item 3, Page 2 AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review is Sheely Drive Historic District, northeast of the proposed development. Due to the large scale of the development and in accordance with Section 3.4.7(B) of the land use code, the design compatibility requirements must be applied only to the “historic influence area” (green) established by the overlap of the 200-foot buffer zones (red) around the development site and the Sheely Drive Historic District. UPDATED INFORMATION – COMMISSION WORK SESSION REQUESTS The following information that is relevant to the evaluation of compliance with Section 3.4.7 has been added to the agenda packet: •Comparative information about design and pattern of fenestration in the Sheely Historic District (applicant exhibit added as supplementary document) •Comparative information about the average height and width of residences in the Sheely Historic District (applicant exhibit added as supplementary document) •Sample motions for a recommendation to the decision maker (added to this staff report) The following information has been added for your information only. This information is not relevant to the application of 3.4.7 standards to the project. •Neighborhood meeting notes (attached as supplemental document) •A question about the reference to the Wallenberg Drive right-of-way (applicant can share info at meeting) •A question about the rezoning plan (applicant can share info at meeting) Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Updated 1-20-21 Item 3, Page 3 REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Complies/Does Not Comply) Massing and Building Articulation 1.New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Key Questions: How well does the project reflect the typical width of properties in the area of adjacency, and the abutting property to the east in particular? To confirm compliance with this standard, applicant has provided additional information about building dimensions relative to typical building width in the historic district. Using three examples, the applicant shows estimated building heights and widths (lengths) as follows: •1600 Sheely: 10 feet high (to ridge); 100 feet long (at roof) •1608 Sheely: 12 feet high (to ridge); 85 feet long (at roof) •1609 Sheely: 14 feet high (to ridge); 76 feet long (at roof) •Proposed 1-story duplex buildings: 16 feet high (to ridge); 77 feet long (at roof) Staff finds that the proposal meets this standard calling for similar building width and height relative to the buildings in the historic district. Complies Massing and Building Articulation 2.In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. N/A Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Updated 1-20-21 Item 3, Page 4 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Complies/Does Not Comply) Building Materials 3.The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. Key Questions: Do the proposed materials for the 1-story residences (fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement board and batten siding, stone veneer, and asphalt shingles) meet this standard? Discussion: The applicant notes that many Sheely Drive homes feature a solid masonry base with a lighter top of horizontal lap siding. Material palette of the historic residences is primary in neutral and natural colors, with some use of contrasting accent colors. Staff finds the proposed design meets this standard. Complies Building Materials 4.New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5) pattern. Key Questions: Do the proposed materials for the 1-story residences (fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement board and batten siding, stone veneer, and asphalt shingles) meet this standard? The applicant notes that many Sheely Drive homes feature a solid masonry base with a lighter top of horizontal lap siding. Material palette of the historic residences is primary in neutral and natural colors, with some use of contrasting accent colors. Staff finds the proposed design meets this standard. Complies Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 3 Updated 1-20-21 Item 3, Page 5 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Complies/Does Not Comply) Fenestration 5.Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Key Questions: Do the windows and doors on the new construction meet this standard? Discussion: The applicant notes off-centered windows and entries with accented doors and partial height windows in the historic district as inspiration for the design of the proposed 1-story buildings. Also noted are the simple window styles representative of the period, which lack grids/muntins and sit directly on the masonry base of the building. Staff also notes a similar solid-to-void ration between the new construction and the historic buildings. Staff finds the proposed design meets this standard. Complies Design Details 6.Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Key Questions: Do the proposed reference elements in the design satisfy the intent of this standard? Discussion: The applicant notes emphasis on horizontal building form and lines as inspiration for the 1-story building design. The rooflines on the new construction are also inspired by the ranch style buildings found in the historic district. Staff finds the proposed design meets this standard. Complies Visibility of Historic Features New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Staff finds no evidence of concern regarding this standard. N/A Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval: Packet Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Updated 1-20-21 Item 3, Page 6 The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of The Quarry by Watermark, finding it complies with all of the applicable standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, Table 1 with respect to the three one-story duplex buildings within the historic influence area, as summarized in the staff report.” Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of denial of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of The Quarry by Watermark, finding it does not comply with [one or more] of the applicable standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, Table 1 with respect to the three one-story duplex buildings within the historic influence area, based on the following findings [insert findings].” Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1.Staff Presentation 2.Applicant Presentation 3.Sheely Drive District Complete Packet 4.Sheely Drive History Pamphlet 5. Watermark Exterior Design Duplex Exhibits Packet Pg. 23 1 The Quarry by Watermark – Development Review Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, January 20, 2021 Project Summary and Status 2 • MMN – Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood • NC -- Neighborhood Commercial (6 acres, southwest) • 326 multi-family dwelling units; 1-story and 2-story on eastern edge • 10,000 square feet of commercial space • 553 parking spaces • Amenities (southeast) • Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (east and south) •Historic Influence Area (northeast): 3 two-family buildings (1-story ranch style) •Decision Maker: Planning & Zoning Board 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 24 Role of LPC Provide recommendation to P&Z Board for proposed development within historic influence area, re: compliance with Section 3.4.7(E) Table 1 3 4 Area of Adjacency/Historic Influence Area 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 25 5 Proposed Site Plan 3.4.7(E) Table 1: Design Compatibility 6 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 26 Additional Information Relevant to your recommendation: Info about design/pattern of fenestration of Sheely residences (applicant provided) Info about the average height and width of Sheely residences (applicant provided) Updated staff findings (staff report) Sample motions for a recommendation to the decision maker (staff report) For information only: Neighborhood meeting notes Wallenberg Drive right-of-way 7 Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 8 Key Questions: • Does the Commission agree with staff findings that the design of the new construction within the historic influence area complies with all six of the compatibility standards in 3.4.7(E), Table 1? • Other questions or concerns? 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 27 ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϴ͕ϮϬϮϬ dŚĞYƵĂƌƌǇďǇtĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬ WƌŽũĞĐƚEĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞ ŽŶĐĞƉƚZĞǀŝĞǁĂƚĞ͗ϴͲϮϬͲϮϬ &ŝƌƐƚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐĚĂƚĞ͗ϭϬͲϮϴͲϮϬ ^ĞĐŽŶĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͗ϭϮͲϭϰͲϮϬ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐKǁŶĞƌƐ͗ EKZd,^WZ/E'Z<WZKWZd/^>> ϰϭϲtK<^d &KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϭϮϲϭϭ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚKǁŶĞƌƐ͗ dŚŽŵƉƐŽŶdŚƌŝĨƚ ^ĂůĞƐĨŽƌĐĞdŽǁĞƌ ϭϭϭDŽŶƵŵĞŶƚŝƌĐůĞ ^ƵŝƚĞϭϲϬϬ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ͕/EϰϲϮϬϰ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚhƐĞ tĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϮϲůĂƐƐŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͘ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůǇ͕ ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐϰ͕ϬϬϬƐ͘Ĩ͘ŽĨĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐƉĂĐĞŝŶƚŚĞŵŝǆĞĚƵƐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌϲ͕ϬϬϬƐ͘Ĩ͘ ŝŶĂƐƚĂŶĚĂůŽŶĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ tŚĂƚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƵƐĞƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĞǆŝƐƚŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͍ dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƵŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ͘ ^ŝƚĞĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ;ĂƵƚŽĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶͿ͕ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂŶĚŚŽǁŝƚĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘ WƌŝŵĂƌǇǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĂĐĐĞƐƐŝƐĨƌŽŵ^ŚŝĞůĚƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƚƚŚĞƐŝŐŶĂůŝǌĞĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƚ^ƚƵĂƌƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ƐƚƌĞĞƚͲůŝŬĞ ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĚƌŝǀĞǁŝƚŚĚŝĂŐŽŶĂůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĨƌŽŵ^ŚŝĞůĚƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚƚŽ,Žďďŝƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘dŚĞ ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůŝƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐ ŽƵƚŚ͘dŚĞdƌĂŝůŝŶĐŽŵďŝŶĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĂŶ ĚƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͘^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƋƵĂŶƚŝƚŝĞƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞ>hǁŝƚŚƵƉƚŽϰϬйĐŽŵƉĂĐƚƐƉĂĐĞƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͘ ^ŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůǇƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚǁŝƚŚŝŶϮϬϬ͛ŽĨĂƉƵďůŝĐƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬ͘dŽŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂŵĂũŽƌǁĂůŬǁĂǇƐƉŝŶĞĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘dŚĞ ƐƉŝŶĞǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚǁŽƉŽŝŶƚƐŽĨ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂŶĚďŝŬĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞdƌĂŝůĂŶĚtĂůůĞŶďĞƌŐZKt͘͘ ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 28 ĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬ͕ƐƚƌĞĞƚƚƌĞĞƐĂŶĚĂďƵƐƐƚŽƉĞǆŝƐƚĂůŽŶŐ^ŚŝĞůĚƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚŶŝŶĞ ĨŽŽƚĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚǁĂůŬǁŝƚŚƚƌĞĞƐŝŶƚƌĞĞŐƌĂƚĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚͲůŝŬĞƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĚƌŝǀĞ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͘ dŚŝƐƵƉƐĐĂůĞŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽďĞǀŝƐƵĂůůǇĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ĂŶĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘^ĂĨĞƚǇĂŶĚĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞŽĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŝƐĂůƐŽĂƉƌŝŵĂƌǇĚĞƐŝŐŶŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞ͘dŽƚŚĂƚĞŶĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚĂůŽŶŐƐƚƌĞĞƚƐǁŚĞƌĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚĞĚďĞŚŝŶĚ͕ĂǁĂǇĨƌŽŵƉƵďůŝĐǀŝĞǁďƵƚ ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘ KƚŚĞƌĨĂĐƚŽƌƐƚŚĂƚĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ •ĨŽƌƚǇͲĨŽŽƚǁŝĚĞ͕ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐĂŶŝƚĂƌǇƐĞǁĞƌĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĐƌŽƐƐĞ ƐƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĞĂƐƚƚŽǁĞƐƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚƚŽ ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚ͘ •ƚǁĞŶƚǇͲĨŽŽƚǁŝĚĞ͕ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌůŝŶĞĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĐƌŽƐƐĞƐƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĞĂƐƚƚŽǁĞƐƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƚŚ͘ •dŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂƐƚƌĞĞƚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵ^ŚŝĞůĚƐƚŽ,Žďďŝƚ͘dŚĞĞ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐƵůͲĚĞͲƐĂĐƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲǁĂǇŽŶ ,Žďďŝƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĞůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƉŽŝŶƚ͘ •dǁŽǌŽŶĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐĞǆŝƐƚŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ ŝƐǌŽŶĞĚDDEʹDĞĚŝƵŵĞŶƐŝƚǇ DŝǆĞĚͲhƐĞEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͕ǁŚŝůĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϲĂĐƌĞƐƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚŝƐǌŽŶĞĚEʹ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů͘DƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŝŶƚŚĞDDEǌŽŶĞĐĂŶŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚƌĞĞ ƐƚŽƌŝĞƐ͕ǁŚŝůĞDŝǆĞĚͲhƐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŝŶƚŚĞEǌŽŶĞĐĂŶďĞĨŝǀĞƐ ƚŽƌŝĞƐ͘ •dŚĞŝƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐEĂƚƵƌĂů,ĂďŝƚĂƚƵĨĨĞƌŽŶĞƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ ϭϬϬͲĨŽŽƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨƌŽŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬŽŶƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚĂϱϬͲĨŽŽƚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨĂϯϮϲͲƵŶŝƚ͕ůĂƐƐŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůǇƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƌĞŶƚĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĚŝǀŝĚĞĚ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶŽŶĞϰͲƐƚŽƌǇŵŝǆĞĚƵƐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĞŝŐŚƚϯͲƐƚŽƌǇ͕ŐĂƌĚĞŶƐƚǇůĞǁĂůŬͲƵƉďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƚĞŶƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůǇ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͘dŚĞŐĂƌĚĞŶƐƚǇůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŚĂǀĞϯƉŽŝŶƚƐŽĨƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐĂƚƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚĚŝƌĞĐƚƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞ ŐƌŽƵŶĚĨůŽŽƌƵŶŝƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚƐŝĚĞ͘͘dŚĞ ĞǆƚĞƌŝŽƌŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨĂŵŝǆŽĨŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂŶĚĂŶĞƵƚƌĂůĐŽůŽƌƐĐŚĞŵĞƚŽƚŝĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂů ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůŝŵĞŶƚĂƌǇƚŽĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽ ƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͘dŝŵďĞƌĂĐĐĞŶƚƐ͕ĨŝďĞƌĐĞŵĞŶƚůĂƉƐŝĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƚŽŶĞĂƌĞƵƐĞĚĂƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞƵŶŝƚƐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƉĂĐŝŽƵƐ͕ŽƉĞŶĨůŽŽƌƉůĂŶƐ͕ǁĂůŬŽƵƚďĂůĐŽŶŝĞƐŽƌƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŝŶƵŶŝƚǁĂƐŚĞƌĂŶĚĚƌǇĞƌĂŶĚ ŚŝŐŚͲĞŶĚĨŝŶŝƐŚĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌϲϬйĐŽǀĞƌĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƐŚĞůƚĞƌƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚŝƐůŽŽŬŝŶŐŝŶƚŽƐƉĂĐĞŝŶƚŚĞĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚ ĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐĂŶĚƵŶŝƚƐƚŽŵĞĞƚĐŽĚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ ϱϰϲƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƐŚŽǁŝŶŐϱϱϯƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘dŚŽƐĞƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂƌĞďƌŽŬĞŶƵƉŝŶƚŽϰĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ͗ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƚĂůůƐ͕ůŽŶŐƚĞƌŵƐƚĂůůƐ͕ĐŽŵƉĂĐƚƐƚĂůůƐĂŶĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ ĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚĐŚĂƌƚďƌĞĂŬŝŶŐĚŽǁŶƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĐŽǀĞƌƐŚĞĞƚ͘ dŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇǁŝůůĂůƐŽŚĂǀĞǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂŵĞŶŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘dŽƐĂƚŝƐĨǇϯ͘ϴ͘ϯϬ;Ϳ͕ĂŶĂŵĞŶŝƚǇƐƉĂĐĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶ ĐĞŶƚƌĂůůǇůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘ŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƉŽŽů͕ŐƌŝůůŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐ͕ƉŝĐŶŝĐ ĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚŽƉĞŶŐƌĞĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĨŽƌƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƚŽƚĂůƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŝƐΕϭϴ͕ϰϬϬƐ͘Ĩ͘/Ŷ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ĂƉůĂǌĂǁƌĂƉƐƚŚĞŵŝǆĞĚƵƐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐďĞŶĐŚƐĞĂƚŝŶŐ͕ĂƌĞĂƐĨŽƌƚĂďůĞƐĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚ͘ dŚŝƐŝƐŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚϰ͘Ϯϯ;Ϳ;ϭͿ;ďͿ͘dĞŶĂŶƚƐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂŵƉůĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ǁŝƚŚĐŽǀĞƌĞĚĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ͘KŶĞƚƌĂƐŚĂŶĚƌĞĐǇĐůŝŶŐĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ŶĞĂƌƚŚĞ,Žďďŝƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘tĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬ͛ƐWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞ ŵĞŶƚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶǁŝůůŽĨĨĞƌĨƵůůǀĂůĞƚƚƌĂƐŚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŽƚŚĂƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƚĂŬĞƚŚĞŝƌƌĞĨƵŐĞ ƚŽƚŚĞĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ͘ ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 ,ŽǁŝƐǇŽƵƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂ͍ /ŶϮϬϭϳƚŚĞƐŝƚĞǁĂƐƌĞͲǌŽŶĞĚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨůĂŶĚǌŽŶĞ ĚEĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞDDEƉŽƌƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞǌŽŶŝŶŐǁĂƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌ ĞĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘dŚĞŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂďƵĨĨĞƌĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƐŝŶŐůĞͲ ĨĂŵŝůǇŚŽŵĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘dŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ ŝƐ ĐĂƉƉĞĚĂƚϯϲϱĂŶĚƚŚĞ͞ƌĞŶƚͲďǇͲƚŚĞͲďĞĚƌŽŽŵ͟ůĞĂƐŝŶŐŵŽĚĞůŝƐŶŽƚĂůůŽǁĞĚ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐǁĂǇƐ͗ •tĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐϯϮϵŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͕ƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůůǇďĞůŽǁƚŚĞϯϲϱĐĂƉ͘ •dŚĞŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞƵƉƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚŶŽƚŵĂƌŬĞ ƚĞĚƚŽƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘ •EŽϯͲƐƚŽƌǇŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĨĂĐĞƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘ •KŶĞĂŶĚƚǁŽƐƚŽƌǇƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞ ůůŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶĞĚŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶŽĨďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŚĞŝŐŚƚĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŚĞƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐĂƌĞ ƉůĂĐĞĚĂƚĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨϱϬ͛ĨĂƌƚŚĞƌĂǁĂǇĨƌŽŵtĂůůĞŶďĞƌŐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞƌĞǌŽŶĞƉůĂŶ;ϴϱ͛ŝŶƐŽŵĞ ŝŶƐƚĂŶĐĞƐͿ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵŽƌĞďƵĨĨĞƌƚŽƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉĞƌƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͘ dŚƌĞĞŽĨƚŚĞƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ^ŚĞĞůĞǇEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐŝŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞǌŽŶĞ͘dŚŽƐĞ ƚŚƌĞĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞŽŶĞƐƚŽƌǇƌĂŶĐŚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚĂŶĂĞƐƚŚĞƚŝĐƚŚĂƚĐŽŵƉůŝŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĞ^ŚĞĞůĞǇ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉĞƌϯ͘ϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ dŚĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚͲŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚ>ĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐĞǆŝƐƚƐŶŽƌƚŚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌ ŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ͘ŽƚŚ>ĂŶĚŵĂƌŬĂŶĚ tĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬĂƌĞŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐǁŝƚŚƐŝŵŝůĂƌƐŝǌĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͘>ĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŝůů ďĞŶĞĨŝƚŝĨtĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬŝƐďƵŝůƚďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚƌĞĞƚĐŽŶŶĞ ĐƚŝŽŶƚŽ,ŽďďŝƚǁŝůůĂůůŽǁƚŚĞŵƚŽ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ^ŚŝĞůĚƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƚĂƐŝŐŶĂůŝǌĞĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƚŚĞŝƌĂĐĐĞƐƐŽŶƚŽ^ŚŝĞůĚƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝƐƵŶƐĂĨĞ ĨŽƌůĞĨƚƚƵƌŶŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ ^ƚŽƌŵtĂƚĞƌ KŶƐŝƚĞĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝƐŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĚƵĞƚŽƉƌŽǆŝŵŝƚǇƚŽ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬĂŶĚĂŶĂů/ŵƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞǁĂǇƐ ĂŶĚΗĞĂƚƚŚĞWĞĂŬΗĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌǁ ŝůůďĞƚƌĞĂƚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂĐŽŵďŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ>Žǁ/ŵƉĂĐƚĞƐŝŐŶ ;>/ͿZĂŝŶ'ĂƌĚĞŶƐĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇ;tYͿƉŽŶĚƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽďĞŝŶŐƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ǁĞ ĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚŽƚƌĞĂƚƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ŚŝĞůĚƐ^ƚZKtĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƚŚĂƚ ĞŶƚĞƌƐƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞǁĂǇŽĨ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬ͘ ,ŽǁĚŽĞƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͍ EĂƚƵƌĂů,ĂďŝƚĂƚƵĨĨĞƌŽŶĞƐ;E,ͿĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨ ƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘tŚŝůĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽĞŶĐƌŽĂĐŚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞE,͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů E,ĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƐƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚĐŽĚĞŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐ͘ tĂƚĞƌŵĂƌŬŝŶƚĞŶĚƐƚŽŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞƚŚĞĚŝƐƌƵƉƚŝŽŶŝŶƐŝĚĞƚŚĞďƵĨĨĞƌƐƉĂĐĞ͘dŚĞĂƌĞĂŝƐƚŽƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶĂŶĂƚƵƌĂů ƐƚĂƚĞĂŶĚͬŽƌĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚǁŝƚŚŶĂƚŝǀĞƐĞĞĚĂŶĚƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƐ͘ůĞĂƌůǇĚĞĨŝŶĞĚƚƌĂŝůĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐǁŝůůďĞŵĂĚĞ ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďůŽĐŬůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŚĞƌĞƉĞŽƉůĞǁĞƌĞĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĚŝƌƚƉĂƚŚƐƚŽ ^ŚŝĞůĚ͛Ɛ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ ŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶŐĐŽĚĞƐĞĐƚŝŽŶϯ͘ϰ͘ϭ;/Ϳ;ϭͿ͕dŚĞ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůŝƐƌĞĐĞƐƐĞĚƐĞǀĞƌĂůĨĞĞƚďĞůŽǁƚŚĞŐƌĂĚĞŽĨƚŚĞ ƐŝƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĂƚĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůĂŶĚ ƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƚŚĞǀŝƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƉƌŝŶŐĐƌĞĞŬĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌǁŝůůďĞĚĞŶƐĞůǇ ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 30 ƐĐƌĞĞŶĞĚ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶůŝŵŝƚƐƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůŚĂďŝƚĂƚďƵĨĨĞƌƚŽ ŽŶĞƐŵĂůůĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƚŚĞƐŵĂůůĞƐƚŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘DŽƐƚŽĨƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůŚĂďŝƚĂƚĐĂŶďĞ ǀŝĞǁĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂŶĚĨƌŽŵ^ŚŝĞůĚƐĂŶĚtĂůůĞŶďĞƌŐƌŝŐŚƚŽĨǁĂǇƐ͘ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͗ ƐƐƚĂƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞďƵĨĨĞ ƌĨƌŽŵtĂůůĞŶďĞƌŐĂƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚǁŝƚŚ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƐŚŽǁŶƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘dŚĂƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞƐŽŶĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚǁŚŝĐŚĞǆƉƌĞƐƐĞĚƚŚĞǁĂŶƚ ĨŽƌŵŽƌĞďƵĨĨĞƌŝŶŐ͘dŚĞŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁĞƌĞƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽĐŽŵƉĂƚŝ ďŝůŝƚǇ͘dŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŚĂƐƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŚĞ ŽŶĞƐƚŽƌǇƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůǇƵŶŝƚƐƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨϯ͘ϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ͘ dŚĞŶĞǁƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶĂŶĚŶĞǁĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨƚŚĞƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐǁĂƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽŶƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐǁĂƐƉŽƐŝƚŝǀĞ͘dŚĞ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŵŵĞŶƚĞĚĨĞůƚƚŚĞŶĞǁĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĐŽŵƉůŝŵĞŶƚĞĚĂŶĚĞǆƉƌĞƐƐĞĚƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ ^ŚĞĞůĞǇŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘ ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 31 VIEW A & BVIEW CVIEW A & BVIEW CITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 32 VIEW ASHOWINGARCHITECTURE WITHEXISTING TREESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 33 VIEW BEXISTING TREESREMOVED FROM THE RENDERING SO THEARCHITECTURE CANBE SEENITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 34 VIEW CITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 35 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$9,(:/22.,1*$76725<'83/(;&2/256&+(0()5217(/(9$7,21HOW WATERMARK'S BUILDINGS WERE REVISED TO MEETSECTION 3.4.7 TABLE 1:THE SITE PLAN WAS REVISED TO PLACE 1 STORYSTRUCTURES IN THE AREA OF INFLUENCE.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 36 Building DetailsSection 3.4.7Table 1, Column B• Massing and Building Articulation• Building Materials• Facade DetailsMassing and Building ArticulationSimple roof line with low-slope pitched roofs and exaggerated roof overhangsOff-centered windows and building entries with accented door are commonBuilding MaterialsMany homes have a solid base of brick or stone and a lighter top consisting of horizontal lap sidingNeutral and natural colors are common, homes in the area feel earthy with the occasional pop of colorFacade DetailsEmphasis on horizontal features is common, larger sections of solid wall are not uncommonMinimal grids / glazing separations are found at windowsITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 37 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$)5217(/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU QG)ORRU 725RRI 6,'((/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU QG)ORRU 725RRI %$&.(/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU QG)ORRU 725RRI 6,'((/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU QG)ORRU 725RRI )5217(/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU 725RRI 6,'((/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU 725RRI )5217(/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU 725RRI 6,'((/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU 725RRI 6WRQH9HQHHU)LEHU&HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ$VSKDOW6KLQJOHV6WRQH9HQHHU)LEHU&HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ6WRQH9HQHHU)LEHU&HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ$VSKDOW6KLQJOHV6WRQH9HQHHU)LEHU&HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ$VSKDOW6KLQJOHV)LEHU &HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ$VSKDOW 6KLQJOHV)LEHU &HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ)LEHU&HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ$VSKDOW6KLQJOHV)LEHU&HPHQW/DS6LGLQJ$VSKDOW6KLQJOHVITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 38 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*&2/25*5((16+(5:,1:,//,$06),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*&2/25%(,*(6+(5:,1:,//,$06),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*&2/255('6+(5:,1:,//,$06),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*&2/25'$5.*5(<6+(5:,1:,//,$06),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*&2/25/,*+7*5(<6+(5:,1:,//,$06:22'&20326,7(6,',1*1(:7(&+ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 39 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$6721(9(1((5/21(67$56721($63+$/76+,1*/(7$0.2+(5,7$*(5867,&%/$&.),%(5&(0(17%2$5'$1'%$77(1&2/25*5((16+(5:,1:,//,$06),%(5&(0(17%2$5'$1'%$77(1&2/255('6+(5:,1:,//,$06ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 43 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 44 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 45 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 46 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 47 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 48 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 49 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 50 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 51 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 52 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 53 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 54 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 55 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 56 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 57 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 58 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 59 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 60 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 61 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 62 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 63 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 64 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 65 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 66 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 67 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 68 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 69 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 70 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 71 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 72 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 73 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 74 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 75 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 76 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 77 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 78 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 79 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 80 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 81 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 82 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 83 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 84 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 85 DDrive ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 86 i Acknowledgements Thanks to the Archive at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery for the use of several historic images, including the cover art, an architectural drawing associated with the Sheely Addition (Image ID#: H11845). Thanks also to Per Hogestad for reviewing and commenting on the content of this history booklet. Prepared in 2019 for City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services by Reyana Jones, Historic Preservation Specialist, and Delaney Taylor, Historic Preservation Intern. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 87 ii Table of Contents Contents ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 88 2 Introduction In 1943, Lieutenant Colonel Arthur C. Sheely returned to Fort Collins to find things not quite as he left them. Deployed in February 1942 to serve during World War II, Sheely remarked on the changes that had occurred in his home town in his short absence, and more changes were coming still. Between 1940-1960, Fort Collins’s population more than doubled from 12,251 to 25,027.2 The expansion of Colorado A&M into Colorado State University and the development sparked by the Federal Highway Acts of 1944 and 1956 in part drew people to the “Choice City.” To accommodate this influx of residents, construction surged to quickly create new standardized housing communities, such as Reclamation Village and the Circle Drive Neighborhood. However, postwar prosperity created a different niche of housing demand from upper-middle class residents, many of whom desired more than a “cookie cut-ter” home. The Sheely Drive neighborhood emerged from this context in 1953. Now known as the Sheely Drive Landmark District (designated in 2000), this neighborhood features home designs that integrate modern tastes, ambitions, and architectural features while embracing the natural environment and the tight-knit character that makes Fort Collins distinct.“Gosh, things are different.” — Arthur Sheely, 19431 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 89 3 Historic Context “Mr. Ben Olds, we owe him a lot of favors.” — Inez Romero3 Although Inez Romero, who built the adobe Romero House (a Fort Collins landmark) with her husband, John, was referring to Ben Olds’s generosity toward her husband in the above expression of thanks, a similar gratefulness could be extended to Olds for his role in platting the distinctive Sheely Drive neighborhood. When developer Ben Olds platted the Sheely Addition in 1953, American attitudes vacillated between postwar optimism and Cold War anxiety. These opposite feelings affected patterns of events at the national, state, and local levels. In the United States, the postwar period was a time of optimism and confidence; America had survived and won World War II. Soldiers returning from war sought stability of home and work. The national government accommodated this need by passing or expanding some legislation. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the GI Bill, gave veterans funds to attend college, providing them with training they might need to reintegrate into a postwar economy and prevent another depression. The National Housing Act of 1934 created the Federal Housing Administration; after WWII ended, the FHA and the GI Bill together expanded the accessibility of homeownership for some veterans by federally insuring home loans, resulting in very low-interest rates for mortgages. As populations boomed, moving to the open spaces of the West “became synonymous with achieving the American Dream.”4 The Federal-Aid Highway Acts of 1944 and 1956 tasked state highway departments to develop 40,000 of interregional roads. This produced new circulation patterns throughout the nation and sparked much new development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 90 4 However, not all Americans experienced postwar prosperity equally. Racist undercurrents behind policies like redlining created a geography of segregation. Across America, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation “graded” neighborhood risk for mortgage lenders; race was a large factor in these assessments. Minority neighborhoods received red/high-risk grades, which discouraged investment. Furthermore, the housing developments that were being built typically included housing exclusions against minorities. The economic and social inequity that minorities experienced led to calls for civil rights reform, the echoes of which have reverberated for generations. In Colorado, the postwar period was one of growth. The population increased by 32.5% in the 1950s as people moved west and families grew.5 Colorado may have attracted so many new residents because its economy benefited from defense spending during the war and after, during the Cold War. For example, during the Cold War, the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the Rocky Flats Plant were both created in Colorado. The state was also home to facilities pivotal in the development of the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missiles.6 In response to the burgeoning demand for residences, developers started construction on new standardized housing developments using mass-produced products, standard designs, and new materials. The Atlas-E missile was part of the nation’s nuclear deterrent force starting in 1961. After Atlas technology became obsolete in 1965, this missile site northwest of Fort Collins, CO was decommissioned and the missile was removed. (Photo c.1990)7 Historic Context ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 91 5 Historic Context Servicemen returning home to Fort Collins found their town changing as the Cold War began to leave its impact and as the population increased and diversified. During the Cold War, Fort Collins was given the moniker “Choice City.” This nickname referred to the fact that Fort Collins was the chosen evacuation site for Denverites in the event of a nuclear attack on “the second Washington” based on estimated fallout drift and existing transportation routes out of Denver. Immediately following the war, the enrollment at Fort Collins’s Colorado State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts (Colorado A&M) tripled. To compete with the USSR during the Cold War, the college increased its emphasis on mathematics, engineering, and science. Students who graduated from the school often decided to stay in Fort Collins, and veterans also moved to the town with their families in increasing numbers.8 The once rural, sleepy college town became a thriving city with a respected university. This created an urgent need for housing. Standardized housing developments like the Circle Drive neighborhood accommodated this need. However, demographic changes also brought economic diversity to the city. An upper-middle class emerged with different consumer tastes than other residents and different residential aspirations. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 92 6 Historic Context By the time Arthur Sheely returned home permanently from military service in 1946, he had significant ambitions for his family and business. Sheely merged his auto company with his former competitor, Harry Andrews. He sold his house on Mountain Avenue and invested in his business, Sheely-Andrews Motors. Andrews retired by 1950, according to City Directories, so Sheely assumed their combined customer base and eventually rebranded as the Sheely Motor Company.9 With his business taking off, Sheely purchased forty acres of land off of Prospect Street from Carl W. and Pauline Birkey on March 23, 1951. He soon sold to Olds and Redd Construction Company, owned by Ben Olds and B. G. Redd. Olds and Redd platted the Sheely Addition on August 26, 1953, creating six lots of on the west side of Sheely Drive. A part of the remaining land was subdivided June 11, 1954 into twelve more lots, five on the east side of Sheely Drive.10 “Larimer County and Fort Collins City Peace Officers with Their Cars” in front of Art Sheely’s garage at 326-330 S. College Ave. (Photo taken by Mark Miller Studio, 1939)11 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 93 7 The land’s topography affected the layout of the neighborhood and the type of houses built in the area. Low-profile houses followed the natural contours of the land, and architects oriented homes to take advantage of scenic views. Unlike typical homes of the era that were constructed on graded, flat lots, odd-numbered homes were constructed on the top of a ridge, many featuring walkout basements, and the street itself is curved, breaking from the usual grid-pattern. The choice of lampposts over street lights protects the view of the night sky. Passive-solar architectural elements like sun screens or design choices like the orientation of windows work to naturally control the home’s interior climate— a cutting edge design choice.12 The most prominent style in the neighborhood is the custom Ranch. Owners often worked with architects and commissioned design plans to create their own distinctive home. Building materials included wood, stucco, brick, stone, and glass. Houses were often one room deep and had an “L” or “U” shape to surround a patio or other landscape element. Although the homes in the Sheely Drive neighborhood were often oriented toward nature, they did not eschew modern technologies or materials either. For example, the rise of the automobile’s significance after World War II affected the design of many houses on Sheely Drive. Driveways were large and garages or carports were integral to a home’s design rather than being disguised or hidden. The prominence of garages in the neighborhood suggested the affluence of the residents. Modern materials, like cast artificial stone, exterior-grade plywood, or plastic laminate, were integrated into home designs as well, and other materials’ uses were reimagined, like the installation of ceramic tile window sills rather than wood.13 Historic Context ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 94 8 Ranch-Style Architecture “This type of home is not as much a style as it is an expression of our modern standard of living.” — The Rhodes Agency on “The House of Tomorrow,” 195514 The Ranch style draws elements from the International, Prairie, and Usonian styles. The International style, often called “the architecture of the machine age,” emerged in the wake of World War I as a manifestation of rejection of the old order and a turn toward modernity. International style buildings emphasize modern materials like concrete, steel, glass, and glass blocks. Pioneered by architect Frank Lloyd Wright, the Prairie style is sometimes regarded as the first uniquely American architectural style. These buildings evoke an overall horizontal feeling. The materials used in construction tend to be regionally appropriate. The Usonian style emerged as a reaction to the modern necessity for affordable middle-class housing with a simple design. Smaller and favoring natural materials like wood, stone, or concrete block, Usonian houses tend to be more economical than sprawling Prairie-style homes or International-style structures made of modern materials. These homes also tend to meld into the landscape.15 1509 Westview Ave.– Like some of the houses on Sheely Drive, this example of Modern Movements architecture has Usonian influences, including a large sandstone chimney, a façade window wall, horizontal orientation, and natural interior elements.16 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 95 9 Ranch-Style Architecture Ranch-style homes gained popularity by the 1940s during the postwar construction boom. By the 1950s, ranches were prolific in the United States. From 1955 to 1960, nine out of ten new houses constructed were in the Ranch style.18 Industrial building techniques allowed for mass housing design and construction in suburban neighborhood developments. The sites of ranches were usually graded, stripped of natural vegetation, and replanted with grass and shrubs.19 These one-story houses tend to have a low profile with horizontal emphasis, a low-pitched roof with wide overhanging eaves, a minimal front porch, picture windows, a rear porch or patio, and an attached garage integral to the home. Some ranches feature decorative, non-functional shutters, but many of these houses lack ornamentation in general. Rather than emphasizing the front of the house or street, the backyard is the focus of Ranch-style homes. Reflective of this tendency, these houses sometimes have smaller windows in the front and larger windows in the back.20 65 Circle Dr.– This Ranch-style house was built in 1946 by Harry G. Worsham Constructors. Like many of the houses in the Sheely Drive neighborhood, this house has an elongated, asymmetrical façade.17 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 96 10 Design elements of Ranch-style architecture found in the homes of the Sheely Drive neighborhood include: The fireplace as a central organizational element, typical of Frank Lloyd Wright's concept of the hearth as the heart of the home Long, low, ground-hugging design that responds to and integrates into natural surroundings Long and low, partial-height exterior walls extending from the house Large, overhanging eaves that emphasize horizontal lines and help control interior climate Sun screens such as louvers or lattices Decks that reinforce the design philosophy of the blurring of inside and outside Interior planters also reinforce the blurring of inside/outside Large expanses of windows, sometimes forming entire walls, which create a seamless flow from inside to outside and reflect site orientation and its associated solar energy Open floor plans that create spaces with more universal use and entertainment orientation21 Ranch-Style Architecture ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 97 11 Ranch-Style Architecture Unlike some other neighborhoods of Ranch-style “cookie-cutter” houses, the Sheely Drive neighborhood features many custom homes. The original residents of Sheely Drive, who built their homes between 1953 and 1960, predominantly belonged to the upper-middle class. These individuals had the means to work closely with architects to design distinctive, modern homes that stepped away from traditional styles. These homes worked with the area’s natural topography and included innovative features like passive solar design elements. In itself, each house in this landmark district is architecturally significant, but when seen as part of the overall neighborhood, displaying the same social, economic, and design theories, each house becomes part of a unique example of affluent development in Fort Collins and the social attitudes of the postwar period. Map– The yellow line indicates the border of the Sheely Drive Landmark District. The numbers labeling each house correspond to the next section, “Sheely Drive Homes.”22 1 3 2 6 4 8 9 10 5 7 11 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 98 12 Sheely Drive Homes “Without an architecture of our own, we have no soul of our own civilization.” —Frank Lloyd Wright23 1600 Sheely Dr. — Ben Olds House24 This house is significant because of its association with Ben Olds and as a clear representation of a Ranch-style residence, an architectural style popular in America during the 1950s and 1960s. Ben Olds, who platted the Sheely Addition in 1953, bought the lot for 1600 Sheely Drive on Sept. 28, 1959 and built the house in 1960. Olds was a developer and co-owned Old & Redd Construction Company with B.G. Redd. He worked on the Circle Drive housing development for the Columbia Savings and Loan of Denver and was also the developer of the Mantz Addi-tion. His company built many of the houses in the Sheely Addi-tion as well. Additionally, the layout, construction, materials, design, and stylistic features of the Ben Olds House all exemplify the Ranch style. Many ranch-style homes emphasize the backyard as a leisure space. Reportedly, the Ben Olds House boasts one of the first home swimming pools in the city. The rectangular-shaped, in-ground pool was built in the Esther Williams pattern. Local anecdotes indicate that Fort Collins High School students used to take swimming lessons in the pool at this residence. 1600 Sheely Dr.– The very low-pitched roof of the Ben Olds House features exposed rafter tails and purlin construction with wide overhanging eaves.25 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 99 13 11601 Sheely Dr. — Mittry-Young House The Mittry family built the house at 1601 Sheely Drive in 1953. K. S. Mittry owned Mittry Construction and Transportation at 416 Linden St. He was the contractor who built the storm sewer for Colorado A&M in 1952 along with a portion of the Fort Collins storm sewer system on College Avenue. He worked on the Big Thompson Project and Carter Lake pressure tunnel as well. The Mittry-Young house was designed by Don Goff. In 1954, Goff was a home designer with Fred Harsch Lumber Company but soon after began his own business, Don Goff Designs. The Mittry-Young House exhibits stylistic influences of both the International and Prairie Schools of design. For instance, the two-sided fireplace located at the intersection of the three wings of this home’s Y-shaped floorplan evokes Wright’s concept of the “hearth as the heart of the home.” Another design choice influ-enced by Wright is the blurring of indoor and outdoor spaces; this can be seen in the use of stone in both the exterior walks and the kitchen and dining area floors as well as in the interior stairway. This house also features modern materials, such as steel casement windows, stucco over concrete block, glazed-ceramic window sills, neon accent lighting, and glass block, which are all associated with the International Movement. Sheely Drive Homes1601 Sheely Dr.– Most of the Mittry-Young House is tucked away behind lush, mature landscaping to the right. 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 100 14 Sheely Drive Homes 11604 Sheely Dr. — Sherwood House Ormand and Margaret Sherwood purchased the property at 1604 Sheely Drive on January 8, 1955. They built their house that same year. Margaret Sherwood worked as a teacher. Ormand Sherwood was a realtor for Rhodes Realty and co-owned the Valley Block Company, a local concrete block manufacturer. He sought to promote the use of Valley Block Company materials in the Sheely Drive neighborhood. Postwar prosperity allowed new home designs to break away from traditional housing forms. Prospective home owners were able to afford more than what utilitarian design could offer. Leisure and entertainment became important considerations in designing the houses of the Sheely neighborhood. Innovations in travel and communication technologies, like print or television, expanded Fort Collins residents’ knowledge of design and construction to a global scale. 1604 Sheely Drive reflects this context of modern design and social ideas. This Ranch-style house responds to and is integrated into the natural surroundings, hugging the ground. Outside and inside seamlessly flow through the large expanses of windows. The progressive residential design of 1604 Sheely Drive implements new materials, and materials that were once found only in commercial design. 1604 Sheely Dr.– The Sherwood House features a carport on the south side of the property (right side of image). 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 101 15 11605 Sheely Dr. — Moyer House Gerald and LaVila Moyer purchased the property at 1605 Sheely Drive on September 18, 1953 and built their house between 1953 and 1954. Gerald worked as a dentist. The Moyer House is an excellent example of high-style Ranch architecture in Fort Collins. Additionally, reflecting its Cold War context, an interesting feature of the Moyer House is the remains of a fallout shelter. The Moyer House demonstrates many of the design elements associated with Ranch-style architecture. Its low profile and low-pitched roof with wide overhanging eaves, boxed underneath with plywood, are characteristic of the Ranch style. There is a sandstone-colored brick veneer on the lower half of the southern third of the house with aluminum siding above. The brick veneer in the middle of the façade extends from grade to eaves. The northern section of the house features an aluminum-sided garage addition. Evocative of the International style, the minimalist entry is inset under a low-pitched, overhanging roof and features multiple light fixtures along the eaves. The entry separates the two different brick veneered sections. The front door has three vertical windows and a large, ringed brass plate around the handle. The sliding glass doors on the rear elevation open onto the large backyard with a spectacular view of the mountains. Sheely Drive Homes1605 Sheely Dr.– The Moyer House features modern materials, like glass block. 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 102 16 Sheely Drive Homes 11608 Sheely Dr. — Arthur Sheely House Arthur and Margaret Sheely purchased their property on October 15, 1954 and built their home the following year. Arthur Sheely was a partner in Sheely-Andrews Motor Company at 330 S. College Ave. He was also active in the Republican Party, serving as the Colorado Republican chairman from 1941-47. He co-chaired the Eisenhower-for-president campaign in Colorado in 1952, and he was a national committeeman for the Republican Party from 1956-1960. Local legend states that Arthur Sheely once served dinner to President Eisenhower in his Sheely Drive home. This property incorporates Colonial decorative elements like shutters and diamond-shaped panes of glass in the front door, typical of Ranch-style houses. The porch light fixture and the bathroom window feature similar motifs. A small, non-functional red sandstone wall extends past the end of the house to the north; called “Wright walls” this type of design element is associated with Frank Lloyd Wright. Scalloped siding in the gable ends is another typical feature of this style. This house has several corner windows composed of a large, fixed-pane window paired with a thinner casement. The Arthur Sheely House also features a number of pocket doors, creating a more open plan when desired. 1608 Sheely Dr.– The prominent chimney of the Arthur Sheely House is made of red sandstone. 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 103 17 Sheely Drive Homes11609 Sheely Dr. — Wells House The property at 1609 Sheely Drive was purchased by W. D. and Jennie Holley. W. D. was a professor of horticulture at Colorado A&M. The Holleys sold to O. Rex and Dorothy Wells on September 8, 1956 and built their house in 1957. Rex Wells was an attorney who specialized in water law. He helped codify city ordinances during a special council that convened in 1955. Additionally, he helped establish rural domestic water districts in the areas around Fort Collins. Dorothy Wells was a professor of Home Economics at Colorado A&M and also volunteered with the Avery House and Fort Collins Museum. Dorothy Wells also once worked as an assistant to a Dean and instructor at Colorado A&M. The Wells Residence at 1609 Sheely Drive is significant for its embodiment of the Ranch style of architecture, one of several important and popular post-World War II housing styles. Mrs. Wells found an architectural design she liked in an issue of Better Homes and Gardens and had the design of her and Rex’s home patterned after it. The only differences between the pattern Mrs. Wells found and the actual residence built at 1609 Sheely Drive were the reduction in the size of the kitchen and the increase in size of the dining room. This asymmetrical Ranch residence is a rectangular, one-story structure with a side-gabled, wood-shingled roof with wide overhanging eaves. 1609 Sheely Dr.– The Wells House’s rear deck has a roof designed to cast patterns of light and shadow. 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 104 18 Sheely Drive Homes 11612 Sheely Dr. — Dwight Ghent House The property at 1612 Sheely Drive changed hands several times before a house was built. Ben and Marie Brack purchased this property on August 11, 1954, and then sold to Arthur Sheely on April 13, 1955. Sheely sold to Sam Day on April 25, 1955, and Day finally sold to Dwight and Amy Ghent September 2, 1955. The Ghents built their house in 1956. Dwight Ghent was Vice President of Ghent Motor Co. He served as chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Roads Committee in 1953 and director of the Chamber of Commerce in 1954. He was also president of the Fort Collins Automobile Dealers Association in 1953. This post-World War II residence is an L-shaped, cross-gabled, single-story structure situated on a corner lot. This home was designed in the Ranch style. The wood-shingled roof is very low pitched, a characteristic of the Ranch style. The red-brick walls have board-and-batten detailing above the bay window, in the gable ends, and in the pent roof gable. This home exhibits several examples of the use of new materials and design in residential architecture, including a ground-to-ceiling glass-block window, the use of a vertical panel of decorative art glass as a sidelight, picture windows, steel casement windows, and sliding glass doors. 1612 Sheely Dr.– The Dwight Ghent House features a floor-to-ceiling glass block window. 7 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 105 19 Sheely Drive Homes 11613 Sheely Dr. — Galyardt-Puleston House William J. and Roberta S. Galyardt purchased this property on October 15, 1953 and built their house between 1954 and 1955. William Galyardt was a partner in the Galyardt-Harvey Insurance Agency at 149 Sylvan Ct. He became president of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce in 1953. He was also active in his church, serving as president and Colorado District Official for St. John’s Lutheran Church. Roberta was also a member of St. John’s Lutheran and was active in the Women’s Auxiliary. She was a member of the Fort Collins Symphony and the Fort Collins Country Club as well. This one-story house was designed by architect William Robb and was built by Victor Deines in 1954. The Galyardt-Puleston House at 1613 Sheely Drive is an excellent example of the Ranch style. With its daylight basement, rambling roof line, and use of local materials, this house is representative of the care taken by architects and builders to fit residences into the surrounding terrain of this neighborhood. The interior features several built-in, solid-wood cabinets in the living room, dining room kitchen, laundry, and den. The rooms are all spacious, with an open floor plan. The living room’s large windows overlook the garden and offer stunning views of the mountains. 1613 Sheely Dr.– The south side of the Galyardt-Puleston House features an exterior red-brick stairway leading down to the patio.8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 106 20 Sheely Drive Homes 11617 Sheely Dr. — McCluskey House On May 11, 1954, Robert and Margaret McCluskey purchased the property at 1617 Sheely Drive, and they built their home by the following year. Robert McCluskey was the owner of Poudre Valley Creamery. This property contributes to the architecture and design philosophy of the neighborhood. Overall, the neighborhood reflects the prosperity of post-World War II Fort Collins as well as the design and material innovations of the time. A Ranch-style residence, 1617 Sheely Drive is constructed of pale-gray, non-standard-dimension stone-faced brick. The brick detailing is minimalistic, with row lock coursing at sills and wall caps. There are also several brick walls at the front and rear elevations. This house has a brick and wood-beam carport is located on the north side. The shallow-pitched roof has eaves with broad overhangs. The rear elevation features a walk-out basement, and the upper floor level opens to a raised deck with asymmetrically spaced horizontal railings. Characteristic of many Ranches, this house emphasizes horizontality and takes advantage of the natural site conditions. 1617 Sheely Dr.– The McCluskey House is nestled in a setting of flourishing plants and mature trees. 9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 107 21 Sheely Drive Homes11645 Sheely Dr. — Shawver House The property at 1645 Sheely Drive was purchased by Caspar D. and Ella Shawver on June 8, 1954 and construction began the same year. C. D. Shawver was the president of the Collinado Drug Company at 1220 S. College Ave. His wife, Ella, was the secretary/treasurer of the same company. This house has a symmetrical massing design, but conveys a sense of asymmetry through its details. On the façade, there is a bay window on the north half of the elevation. The placement of the entry, to the north side of the center gable, contributes to the sense of asymmetry, creating a large, open area with one side of the gable cantilevered over this entry. On the north side of the house, there is a stone fireplace. Louvered shutters adorn the façade’s center window. The rear of the house has a walkout design. The garage is incorporated into the lower level of the house; this was a new design element that allowed cars to actually be brought inside the house, as opposed to the more common attached or detached garages. 1645 Sheely Dr.– The Shawver House uses ashlar sandstone below the centered gable. 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 108 22 Sheely Drive Homes 11700 Sheely Dr. — Lincoln Mueller House Lincoln A. and Dorothy Mueller purchased the property at 1700 Sheely Drive in October 1954. Lincoln Mueller was a forester at Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and also helped formulate forestry policies. He is also credited with much of the developments in wood technology that led to the development of plywood. The single-story, Ranch-style house at 1700 Sheely Drive is constructed of modular red brick and has an asymmetrical design. The roof has two cross gables at either end the house, one over the garage and the other over the living room. The roof uses wood shakes and the roof eaves have deep overhangs. At the center of the façade, a large, horizontal fixed window is flanked by operable, steel casement windows. Paired, steel casement windows appear elsewhere on the house. There are large, full-height fixed windows and a sliding door on the rear elevation. A brick fireplace is also centered on the rear elevation. A frame canopy protects a concrete patio, creating an outdoor leisure space typical of Ranch homes. 1700 Sheely Dr.– The horizontality of the Lincoln-Mueller House is characteristic of ranch-style architecture. 11 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 109 23 Conclusion “Men may come and men may go, but I stay here forever.” — Arthur Sheely26 Although Arthur Sheely’s high school classmates may have attributed the above quote to him in jest, it seems appropriate when applied to the Fort Collins landmark district named in his honor. City Council designated the Sheely Drive Landmark District at the recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission February 15, 2000 (1600, 1601, 1604, 1605, 1608, 1609, 1612, 1613, 1617, 1645, and 1700 Sheely Drive ). This district is significant for its buildings’ “innovative architecture,” such as passive solar design elements, “their historical association with several prominent Fort Collins business and civic leaders,” such as Arthur Sheely, and “for their portrayal of the social, economic, and technological changes occurring in Fort Collins and Colorado following World War II.”27 As a landmark district, alterations to these buildings are reviewed based on the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, ensuring the preservation of the significant history and character of these properties for the community. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 110 24 1600 Sheely Dr. — Ben Olds House 1601 Sheely Dr. — Mittry-Young House 1604 Sheely Dr. — Sherwood House 1605 Sheely Dr. — Moyer House 1608 Sheely Dr. — Arthur Sheely House 1609 Sheely Dr. — Wells House 1612 Sheely Dr. — Dwight Ghent House 1613 Sheely Dr. — Galyardt-Puleston House 1617 Sheely Dr. — McCluskey House 1645 Sheely Dr. — Shawver House 1700 Sheely Dr. — Lincoln Mueller House Quick Reference List of Sheely Drive Landmark District Homes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 111 25 Notes 1 “Art Sheely Home for Rest,” Wray Gazette XLI, no. 25, June 10, 1943. 2 Harris, Cindy and Adam Thomas. “’Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S’: The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969.” Historitecture, LLC, 2011. 3 Romero, Inez. Interviewed by Charlene Tresner and Lloyd Levy. April 14th, 1975. Oral History Transcript. Local History Archives at the Museum of Discovery. Fort Collins, CO. 4 Ibid., 7. 5 Abbott, Carl, Stephen J. Leonard, and Thomas J. Noel. “Postwar Boom.” In Colorado: A History of the Centennial State, 5th Edition. Denver: University Press of Colorado, 2013, 318. 6 Harris and Thomas, 22. 7 Local History Archive at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. “Atlas Missile Silo.” Photo. Triangle Review Collection. https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/22429/rec/3. 8 Harris and Thomas. 9 Local History Archive at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. City Directory Collection. https://history.fcgov.com/collections/directories. 10 McWilliams, Karen. Fort Collins City Council Agenda Item Summary: Item no. 11. February 1, 2000. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 112 26 11 Local History Archive at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. “County and City Peace Officers. Photo by Mark Miller Studio, 1939. Miller Collection. https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/14620. 12 McWilliams. 13 Ibid. 14 The Rhodes Agency. Quoted in “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S: The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969,” by Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas. Historitecture, LLC. 2011, 1. 15 No Author. “Development of the Ranch.” City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services. Sheely Drive Files. Fort Collins, CO. 16 Erin L. Nuckols. “1509 Westview Avenue Photopages.” City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services. 1509 Westveiw Property Files. December 4, 2012. 17 Bumgarner, Cassandra. “2016-12-8 Photos and Drawings.” City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services. 95 Circle Drive Property Files. December 8, 2016. 18 Striegel, Mary. “Identifying the 1950s Ranch House Interior as a Cultural Resource.” National Center for Preservation Technology Training. https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/identifying-the-1950s-ranch-house-interior-as-a-cultural-resource/. 19 Hubka, Thomas C. “The American Ranch House: Traditional Design Method in Modern Popular Culture.” TDSR VII, no. 1 (1995): 33-39. 20 History Colorado. “Ranch Type.” https://www.historycolorado.org/ranch-type. 21 “Development of the Ranch.” Notes ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 113 27 22 “Landmark Location and Modification Map.” City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services. https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/map. Edited by Reyana Jones August 1, 2019. 23 Frank Lloyd Wright. Quoted in “FLW Quotes: On Architecture.” Dr. George and Eleanor Stockman House (1908): Frank Lloyd Wright Architect. River City Society for Historic Preservation. http://www.stockmanhouse.org/flw-quotes. 24 Information in the section “Sheely Drive Homes” paraphrased from: No Author. “Sheely Homes Histories.” City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division. Sheely Drive District Files. Fort Collins, CO. August 29, 2007. 25 Photos in the section “Sheely Drive Homes” taken by: Yani Jones and Delaney Taylor. City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division. Sheely Drive Property Files. Fort Collins, CO. 2019. 26 “Odaroloc: Volume VIII.” Boulder: State Preparatory School of Boulder, CO, 1918, 68. 27 City of Fort Collins. “Ordinance No. 12, 2000.” Historic Landmark Designation. February 15, 2000. Notes ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 114 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 115 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$9,(:/22.,1*$76725<'83/(;)5217(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 1-20-21Packet Pg. 115-1 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$9,(:/22.,1*$76725<'83/(;)5217(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 1-20-21Packet Pg. 115-2 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$9,(:/22.,1*$76725<'83/(;)5217(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 1-20-21Packet Pg. 115-3 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$9,(:/22.,1*$76725<'83/(;)5217(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 1-20-21Packet Pg. 115-4 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$)5217(/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU 725RRI %26RIILW %$&.(/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU 725RRI %26RIILW 6,'((/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH VW)ORRU 725RRI %26RIILW 6,'((/(9$7,216725<'83/(;6FDOH ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 1-20-21Packet Pg. 115-5 :$7(50$5.$7)257&2//,16)257&2//,16&2/25$'2$352326('6725<'83/(;648$5()227$*(648$5()((7%8,/',1*+(,*+7)((7725,'*(%8,/',1*/(1*7+)((7$7522)6+((/(<'5,9(648$5()227$*(648$5()((7(67,0$7('%8,/',1*+(,*+7 )((7725,'*((67,0$7('%8,/',1*/(1*7+)((7$7522) (67,0$7('6+((/(<'5,9(648$5( )227$*(648$5()((7(67,0$7('%8,/',1*+(,*+7)((7725,'*((67,0$7('%8,/',1*/(1*7+)((7$7522)(67,0$7('6+((/(<'5,9(648$5()227$*(648$5()((7(67,0$7('%8,/',1*+(,*+7)((7725,'*((67,0$7('%8,/',1*/(1*7+)((7$7522)(67,0$7('&(17(5*$%/(:,7+/2:6/23,1*3,7&+('522)6,0,/$5726+((/(<+20(6(175<'225,6$&&(17&2/25:,7+3$57,$/+(,*+7:,1'2:6,0,/$5726+((/(<+20(66,03/(:,1'2:67</(6:,7+12*5,'60817,16:,1'2:66,7210$6215<%$6(6,0,/$5726+((/(<+20(6(175<'2256$5(2))&(17(5('21(/(9$7,21 5(&(66('81'(5522)6,0,/$5726+((/(<+20(60$6215<%$6(6,0,/$5726+((/(<+20(63$,17&2/256$5($//($57+721('6,0,/$5726+((/(<+20(6ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 1-20-21Packet Pg. 115-6 Option APresented at 1st Neighborhood MeetingOption BRevised to address compatibility and Section 3.4.7 (E) LPC review in influence zoneNote: More details on these modifications called out on next page. Our team is actively working on a second color scheme for these structures that will relate to the 3-story color schemes, but still vary.ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A presented at hearingPacket Pg. 115-7 Agenda Item 4 Updated 1-20-21 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 20, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME MAGNOLIA DWELLINGS – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 335 E Magnolia, a single-family residence, to construct a four-unit multifamily building. Development site is in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. The existing zoning is Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM), and the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Board. OWNER/APPLICANT: Owner: 335 Magnolia LLC (Contact: Jordan Obermann); Applicant: Russell + Mills (Shelley LaMastra); alm2s (Ian Shuff) LPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide conceptual review comments regarding the proposed new construction, relative to compliance with Section 3.4.7(E) Table 1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a Round 1 PDP application for the proposed Magnolia Dwellings project and has participated in the conceptual review process with City staff. As a presubmittal requirement for the proposed project, City staff contracted with Tatanka Historical Associates (Ron Sladek) to evaluate the existing dwelling at 335 E Magnolia. Based on the property’s lack of significance and integrity, Mr. Sladek found the property not to be eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, and also noted that it should not be considering contributing to the National Register district. PROJECT SUMMARY: In order to redevelop this site, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence at 335 E Magnolia and construct a four-unit multifamily building. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: The property is in the Laurel School National Register Historic District, with nineteen contributing properties to that district within 200 feet of the development site. Two of those properties, 401 Peterson and 405 Peterson, are immediately abutting to the east and therefore of primary concern regarding design compatibility. The existing residence on the site will be demolished and is not part of the area of adjacency due to the 2019 survey findings. UPDATED INFORMATION – COMMISSION WORK SESSION REQUESTS The following information that is relevant to the evaluation of compliance with Section 3.4.7 has been added to the agenda packet: Packet Pg. 116 Agenda Item 4 Updated 1-20-21 Item 4, Page 2 •Comparative information about the average height and width of residences in the area of adjacency (applicant exhibit to be provided at meeting) •Response from applicant re: roofline design and how it responds to area of adjacency (applicant exhibit) •Addition of information about second abutting property at 405 Peterson (staff presentation) •Information about 327 E Magnolia apartments (constructed in 1972; not yet 50 years old, therefore not a candidate for evaluation as potential historic resource) •Sample motions for a recommendation to the decision maker (added to this staff report) The following information has been added for your information only. This information is not relevant to the application of 3.4.7 standards to the project. •Neighborhood meeting notes (attached as supplemental document) •Request to provide more information on how the design addresses neighboring property’s privacy concerns (applicant exhibit) REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. 3.4.7(E)(1): Design Requirements for a Proposed Development Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Complies/Does Not Comply) Massing and Building Articulation 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Key Questions: How well does the project reflect the typical width of properties in the area of adjacency, and the abutting property to the east in particular? What is the width of the front elevation of the abutting contributing property at 401 Peterson, and what is the comparative width of the front elevation of the new construction? In general, what is the average width of buildings along the block in the area of adjacency? TBD Packet Pg. 117 Agenda Item 4 Updated 1-20-21 Item 4, Page 3 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Complies/Does Not Comply) Massing and Building Articulation 2.In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. Key Questions: Do the proposed stepback locations or equivalent massing strategy meet the code standard relative to the closest historic resources in the area of adjacency? Discussion: Stepbacks for this project are required on the east elevation that abuts two identified contributing properties to the Laurel School National Register District, 401 and 405 Peterson. The apartment buildings immediately to the west were not evaluated as a potential historic resource because the property is not yet 50 years old (constructed in 1972), and thus the stepback requirement does not apply on that elevation. The proposed massing and stepbacks meet this requirement. Complies Building Materials 3.The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. Discussion: The proposed materials of fiber cement lap siding, stone veneer, and aluminum clad wood windows comply with this standard. Complies Packet Pg. 118 Agenda Item 4 Updated 1-20-21 Item 4, Page 4 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Complies/Does Not Comply) Building Materials 4.New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5) pattern. Discussion: The proposed materials reference the lap siding of 401 Peterson in type, scale, dimension, and pattern. The proposed board and batten siding is not drawn from the area of adjacency. TBD Fenestration 5.Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Key Questions: Do the windows on the new construction meet this standard, particularly in the most visible locations? Staff finds that the proposed design uses a similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources in the area of adjacency, as well as similar proportions and patterns. Complies Design Details 6.Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Discussion: The primary consideration here is whether the rooflines and porch roofs, which draw from the wider area of adjacency rather than the abutting properties, are also sufficiently compatible with the abutting properties at 401 and 405 Peterson. TBD Packet Pg. 119 Agenda Item 4 Updated 1-20-21 Item 4, Page 5 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Complies/Does Not Comply) Visibility of Historic Features New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Staff finds no evidence of concern regarding this standard. N/A 3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection A draft plan of protection that outlines how historic resources will be protected during the process of rehabilitation and new construction on the site (as well as ongoing use and operations) is required prior to the Landmark Preservation Commission providing a recommendation to the decision maker regarding a development project. SAMPLE MOTIONS: Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Magnolia Dwellings project at 335 E Magnolia, finding it complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, based on the following findings: [insert findings].” Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of denial of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the Magnolia Dwellings project at 335 E Magnolia, finding it does not comply with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, based on the following findings: [insert findings].” Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1.Staff Presentation 2.Applicant Presentation 3.Site Form_335 E Magnolia Packet Pg. 119-1 Magnolia Dwellings – Development Review Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner1 Landmark Preservation Commission, January 20, 2021 Site 2 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Revised 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 120 Project Summary and Status 3 • Demolish residence at 335 E Magnolia (Laurel School National Register District) • Construct 4-unit multifamily building Review Status (Round 1 PDP) • Complete: survey requirement & conceptual staff review Role of LPC Provide recommendation to P&Z Board for proposed development re: compliance with Section 3.4.7(E) Table 1 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Revised 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 121 5 Property Assessment • 335 E Magnolia – Intensive-Level Survey c. 1902-1906 2019: • Non-contributing to NR district • Not eligible for FC Landmark designation 6 Area of Adjacency: 405 Peterson 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Revised 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 122 7 Area of Adjacency: 401 Peterson Review Requirements 8 3.4.7(E) Table 1: Design Compatibility with Area of Adjacency 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Revised 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 123 Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 9 Key Questions: • Does the design of the new construction comply with all six of the compatibility standards in 3.4.7(E), Table 1? • Other relevant questions or concerns? 9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Revised 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 123-1 &^/ͬ'hddZ^ͲDd,KzK>KZ,KZ/KEd>DEd&/Z>W^//E't/d,ϰΗyWK^hZͲK>KZϭ>/D^dKEsEZ>hD/EhDͲ>tKKt/EKt^KZWKZ,^</ZdͲK>KZϮWKZ,EdZzK>hDE^EZ/>/E'^ͲK>KZϭϴΗd>>Z^^EhDZ>^ϰΗd>>hE/dEhDZ^KEKKZ^>>dZ/DdKDd,KzK>KZϰͲWE>EdZzKKZ^ͲK>KZϯϯϬͲzZ,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKKϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϮϵΖͲϵΗϯϭΖͲϴϭͬϰΗцϵϵΖͲϮΗsZ''Z>sd/KEWZKWZdz>/EϭϴΖͲϬΗϭΖͲϬΗϮΖͲϬΗDEd&/ZKZEddE^//E't/d,ddE^dϭϲΗK͘͘ͲK>KZϮϯϬͲzZ,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/ͬ'hddZ^ͲDd,KzK>KZ>/D^dKEsEZ>hD/EhDͲ>tKKt/EKt^WKZ,EdZzK>hDE^EZ/>/E'^ͲK>KZϭ>>dZ/DdKDd,KzK>KZϬϭϰϰͲWE>EdZzKKZ^ͲK>KZϯϴΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗцϵϵΖͲϮΗsZ''Z>sd/KEϯϬΖͲϭΗ>>yWK^>dZ/>ED,E/>Yh/WDEd/^dK^ZEKZW/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'K>KZϭͲ/E/z>>KtK>KZϯͲZ/E:>K>KZϮͲZ/>/E'^K>KZ>'E>/D^dKEsEZ;tZ^^dKEͲh^dKD>EͿ^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKKϭͬϰΗͬϭϮΗdZ^,Zz>dZ^,Zz>ϬϭϲϱͲ'>>KEdZ^,EZz>/E'/E^ϬϭdZ^,Zz>dZ^,Zz>ϰΖͲϬΗKZ&EͲK>KZϮϰyϰWK^d^ͲK>KZϮKEZd^dKKWͲ^>KWϭ͗ϰϴD/E͘ϬϭͬϮΗϭΗϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϬEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϭϮͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϬϭ͗ϭϮ͗ϭϬWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚh/>/E'>sd/KE^ηϮϬϮϭ:tϭϮͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϬϬϭϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/^dZdͲ &KZdK>>/E^͕KD'EK>/t>>/E'^^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϭϬϮEKZd,>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϭϬϭt^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϭϯdZ^,^ZEW>EͲ dzW͘^>͗ϭͬϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϭϰdZ^,>sd/KEϭ^>͗ϭͬϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϭϱdZ^,>sd/KEϮEK /^^hdITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 124 &^/ͬ'hddZ^ͲDd,KzK>KZ,KZ/KEd>DEd&/Z>W^//E't/d,ϰΗyWK^hZͲK>KZϭ>/D^dKEsEZ>hD/EhDͲ>tKKt/EKt^KZWKZ,^</ZdͲK>KZϮWKZ,EdZzK>hDE^ͲK>KZdKDd,KzϰΗd>>hE/dEhDZ^KEKKZ^>>dZ/DdKDd,KzK>KZϰͲWE>EdZzKKZ^ͲK>KZϯϯϬͲzZ,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKKDd>WKZ,Z/>/E'^ͲWKtZͲKd><&/E/^,ϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϯϬΖͲϮΗ&^/ͬ'hddZ^ͲDd,KzK>KZ,KZ/KEd>DEd&/Z>W^//E't/d,ϰΗyWK^hZͲK>KZϭ>/D^dKEsEZ>hD/EhDͲ>tKKt/EKt^KZWKZ,^</ZdͲK>KZϮWKZ,EdZzK>hDE^ͲK>KZdKDd,Kz>>dZ/DdKDd,KzK>KZϯϬͲzZ,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKKDEd&/ZKZEddE^//E't/d,ddE^dϭϲΗK͘͘ͲK>KZϮ^/zZ^d<ϱΖͲϬΗDyt>>,/',dϭϴΖͲϬΗϭΖͲϬΗϮΖͲϬΗ/d/KE>t>>,/',d^d<ZYh/ZDEdWZKWZdz>/EϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϴΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϱΗϭϮΗϮϵΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ>>yWK^>dZ/>ED,E/>Yh/WDEd/^dK^ZEKZW/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'K>KZϭͲ/E/z>>KtK>KZϯͲZ/E:>K>KZϮͲZ/>/E'^K>KZ>'E>/D^dKEsEZ;tZ^^dKEͲh^dKD>EͿ^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKKϱϵϭ^&hE/dϱϲϰ^&hE/dϱϲϱ^&hE/dϲϬϯ^&hE/dϯϰϳ^&hE/dϯϴϲ^&hE/dϯϵϬ^&hE/dϯϰϳ^&hE/dϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϬEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϭϮͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϬϭ͗ϭϮ͗ϯϵWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚh/>/E'>sd/KE^ηϮϬϮϭ:tϭϮͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϬϬϮϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/^dZdͲ &KZdK>>/E^͕KD'EK>/t>>/E'^^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϮϬϮ^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϮϬϭ^Khd,>sd/KEEK /^^hdITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 125 ϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗϱϰϯϮϭWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϬEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϭϮͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϬϭ͗ϭϮ͗ϱϴWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚϯs/t^ηϮϬϮϭ:tϭϮͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϬϬϯϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/^dZdͲ &KZdK>>/E^͕KD'EK>/t>>/E'^^>͗Ϭϯϭs/t&ZKDE^>͗ϬϯϮs/t&ZKD^^>͗Ϭϯϯs/t&ZKDEt^>͗Ϭϯϰs/t&ZKD^dEK /^^hdITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 126 ϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗϱϰϯϮϭWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϬEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϭϮͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϬϭ͗ϭϯ͗ϭϲWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚϯs/t^ηϮϬϮϭ:tϭϮͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϬϬϰϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/^dZdͲ &KZdK>>/E^͕KD'EK>/t>>/E'^^>͗Ϭϰϭs/t&ZKDEKZd,^>͗ϬϰϮs/t&ZKDt^d^>͗Ϭϰϯs/t&ZKD^Khd,EK /^^hdITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 127 WZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϬEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϭϮͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϬϭ͗ϭϯ͗ϭϲWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚ^/dKEdydηϮϬϮϭƵƚŚŽƌϭϮͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϬϬϱϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/^dZdͲ &KZdK>>/E^͕KD'EK>/t>>/E'^;ϭͿϯϮϰ͘D'EK>/΀΁EtKE^dZhd/KEͲs/t&ZKDKZEZK&WdZ^KEED'EK>/;ϮͿϰϬϭWdZ^KE;ϲͿϯϯϬWdZ^KE;ϰͿϰϬϲWdZ^KE;ϱͿϰϬϬWdZ^KE΀΁EtKE^dZhd/KEͲϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/;ϯͿϯϮϯ͘D'EK>/EK /^^hd;ϭͿ;ϮͿ;ϯͿ;ϰͿ;ϱͿ;ϲͿ΀΁΀΁s//E/dzDWITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 128 ;ͿϰϬϭWdZ^KE;EtͿϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/;Ϳϯϯϭ͘D'EK>/;ͿϯϮϳ͘D'EK>/y/^d/E'dd,'Z'ͲϰϬϭWdZ^KE;zKEͿϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϬEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϭϮͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϬϭ͗ϭϯ͗ϮϰWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚKEdydh>>sd/KE^Eϯs/t^ηϮϬϮϭƵƚŚŽƌϭϮͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϬϬϲϯϯϱ͘D'EK>/^dZdͲ &KZdK>>/E^͕KD'EK>/t>>/E'^EK /^^hd^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϬϲϭKEdydh>EKZd,>sd/KEs/t>KK</E'^Khd,dt^dEK&>K<s/t>KK</E'EKZd,ZK^^d,^dZd&ZKD^/dITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 129 East Magnolia StreetPeterson StreetUnit 1Unit 2 Unit 3Unit 4PorchPorchPorchPorchParking lot (7 spaces)Sheds with bike parking Trash staging area Trash/ RecyclingTrash/ RecyclingAlleyZoning: NCM Lot area: 9,500 sf / 0.218 acProposed Use: Multi-Family ResidentialBuilding information: Maximum height: 29’-8 1/2” Total Units: 4 (2 bedroom units) Total Area: 3,781 SFRequired vehicle parking spaces: (2) bedroom unit = 1.75 space/unit 1.75 x 4 = 7 spacesProvided vehicle parking spaces:Long Term spaces 4Compact spaces 3 Total spaces 7 spacesRequired bike parking spaces:1/bedroom 8 spacesProvided bike parking spaces:Total 8 spaces enclosed in sheds Magnolia Dwellings2021.01.05Site Plan0102040’ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 130 OAHP1403 Official Eligibility Determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible - NR Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Determined Not Eligible - NR Determined Eligible - SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible - SR (Page 1 of 21) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. Identification 1.Resource Number:5LR2823 2.Temporary Resource Number: Not Applicable 3.County:Larimer 4.City:Fort Collins 5.Historic Building Name:Frederick and Martha Gross House 6.Current Building Name:Not Applicable 7.Building Address:335 E. Magnolia St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 8.Owner Name & Address:Mark C. Foster & Pamela Bonnema Foster 2319 Cotswold Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 131 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 2 of 21) II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6th Township 7 North Range 69 West NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 12 10. UTM Reference Zone: 13 Easting: 493874 Northing: 4492426 11. USGS Quad Name: Fort Collins, Colorado Year: 1960 (revised 1984) Map scale: 7.5' 12. Lot(s): W½ of Lot 1 Block: 144 Addition: Fort Collins Original Townsite Year of Addition: 1873 13. Boundary Description and Justification: This legally defined parcel (97123-32-021), clearly delineated by an urban lot and block description, includes the historic house and its surrounding grounds. III. Architectural Description 14. Building Plan: T-Shaped Plan 15. Dimensions in Feet: 36' x 38' 16. Number of Stories: 1 17. Primary External Wall Material(s): Wood 18. Roof Configuration: Gabled Roof 19. Primary External Roof Material: Composition Roof 20. Special Features: Porch, Fence 21. General Architectural Description: This small one-story residence is of wood frame construction and today the building has a slightly T-shaped footprint measuring 36’ x 38’. This includes the front and rear porches, along with a rear addition. The original 27’ x 38’ building was L-shaped and this area of the building remains apparent from its intersecting gables. Facing toward the north, the house rests upon a sandstone foundation. Its exterior walls are finished with fiberboard siding that has covered or replaced the original wood clapboard siding. The roof consists of two primary intersecting gables with boxed eaves and composition shingles. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 132 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 3 of 21) North Wall (front): The façade of the house is asymmetrical, with a front-facing projecting gable on the east and a projecting enclosure on the west. These two projections frame a non-original open porch constructed with a wood plank floor and three square posts supporting a shed roof. The front entrance is at the porch on the primary wall of the building, and this holds a non-historic panel door along with a storm door. Flanking the entry are two windows. The one to the east is a one-over-one double-hung sash window and to the west is a narrow two-over-two double-hung sash window. The front-facing projection on the east end of the façade holds a narrow two-over-two double-hung sash window, with non-original shutters fixed to the wall. At the peak of the gable end wall above is a small louvered attic vent. East Wall (side): This side wall holds no entries into the house. Three windows are present there, one of which appears to be a two-light sliding window. The second appears to be a one-over-one double-hung sash window, and the third toward the rear appears to be a pair of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. South Wall (rear): The rear wall of the house holds the building’s only other entrances, both of them off a non-historic open wood deck. One of these contains a non-historic panel door with nine lights. The other has a historic wood panel door with a single light. To the east is a pair of one-over-one double-hung sash windows with wood frames. A small louvered attic vent is in the upper gable end wall. West Wall (side): This side wall holds no entries into the house. On the basement level is a small window set in a metal-lined well. Two windows are present on the main wall of the house, both of them two-over-two double-hung sash windows with wood frames. 22. Architectural Style / Building Type: Gabled Ell 23. Landscaping or Special Setting Features: This residence is located on the south side of Magnolia St., two properties west of Peterson St. The house faces north onto a small yard planted with grass and flower gardens, and bisected by a flagstone sidewalk. A tree lawn is found along the street frontage. The chain- link fenced backyard occupies half of the rear area of the lot, with open ground beyond to the alley. Part of the fenced yard is planted with grass and the rest is unpaved ground with trees on the west and a fenced vegetable garden in the southeast corner. Historic residences surround the property, along with a large 1970s apartment building on the adjacent lot to the west. 24. Associated Buildings, Features or Objects: Shed – This small wood frame building with a footprint of about 8’ x 10’ is located in the backyard southeast of the house. Facing toward the north, its north wall holds a pair of wood swinging doors. The building does not appear to be historic and is constructed with wood panel siding and a gambrel roof. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 133 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 4 of 21) IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1902-1906 Actual: Source of Information: Warranty Deed, Joseph A. Kern to Frederick Gross, 13 January 1902; Fire Insurance Map of Fort Collins, Sanborn Map Company, 1906 26. Architect: Unknown Source of Information: Not Applicable 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of Information: Not Applicable 28. Original Owner: Frederick and Anna Gross Source of Information: Warranty Deed, Joseph A. Kern to Frederick Gross, 13 January 1902 29. Construction History: House (ca. 1902-1906) – Archival documentation shows that this house was built sometime between 1902 and 1906. Fire insurance maps indicate that it included open porches on the front and back from around the time it was built. According to historic records, the original front porch was demolished in 1948 and rebuilt the following year with low walls along the front and a projecting enclosure on the west. The low walls are now gone. The original narrow clapboard siding was replaced with wide siding boards between 1948 and 1969, along with the fixed shutters on the facade. The rear porch was enclosed and the house extended toward the rear between 1948 and 1969. Shed (ca. 1990) – This small building dates from sometime around 1990. 30. Original Location: Yes V. Historical Associations 31. Original Use(s): Domestic / Single Dwelling 32. Intermediate Use(s): Not Applicable 33. Current Use(s): Domestic / Single Dwelling 34. Site Type(s): Single-Family Home ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 134 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 5 of 21) 35. Historical background: Throughout its early years from the late 1800s to the early 1920s, the property now known as 335 E. Magnolia St. was part of Lot 1 in Block 144 of the original Fort Collins townsite. By 1894, Lot 1 was owned by Robert Walsh, an Irish immigrant who was farming in the Fort Collins area by the mid- 1880s. He was also a businessman and during the 1890s appears to have resided with his family in the house on the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Peterson Street (this has since been replaced). The western half of the lot was vacant yard. In July 1899, Walsh arranged to sell the property to prominent Fort Collins farmer, businessman and property investor Samuel H. Clammer for $1,050. Clammer is unlikely to have lived in the house and instead quit-claimed his ownership back to Robert Walsh in May 1900 for a payment of $1,000. One week later, Walsh sold Lot 1 to Joseph A. Kern, about whom nothing is known. He sold the property in January 1902 to Frederick Gross, who may have been his brother-in-law, for $1,300. This transfer launched the property into a new phase of its history. Frederick Gross was born in Prussia in 1840 and immigrated to the United States in 1862. After a short stay in New York City, he traveled west to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he was employed as a blacksmith for twelve years. He married Anna Brost in 1869 and they started a family in Milwaukee. In 1875, they moved to northern Colorado, where for three years Gross worked as a farmhand for his brother-in-law, Lewis Kern. In 1878, he purchased two adjacent 80-acre tracts of land in the Harmony District south of Fort Collins and over the following years established a successful farm. This remained the family home through the end of the century. Sometime between 1894 and 1906, the house on the southwest corner of Magnolia and Peterson was demolished and the east half of the lot remained vacant until the years following World War II. The house in the west half of the lot appears to have been constructed after the property had been acquired by Frederick Gross, dating the house to the period between 1902 and 1906. City directories show that two families lived at this address between around 1903 and 1908, both evidently renting the property from Frederick Gross. The first occupants were horse breeder Addison S. Carner and his wife Serena. They were followed by farm laborer and Lindell Mill watchman William F. Wittenbrink and his wife Minnie. Anna Gross died in April 1908 and exactly two years later Frederick married Martha Manson. A native of Ohio, she was 24 years younger than her new husband and this was also her second marriage. Frederick and Martha initially lived in a rented home on Laporte Avenue before moving into the house at 335 E. Magnolia St., where they resided from around 1911 to 1920. Martha was a member of the Loyal Temperance Legion, and in September 1915 the Fort Collins Courier noted that the group held their monthly meeting in the house. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 135 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 6 of 21) Frederick and Martha advertised the sale of Lot 1, consisting of the house and adjacent vacant ground to the east, in March 1919. However, it did not sell at that time. Instead, the following month he transferred the property to Martha and in May 1920 they were divorced. After that, she began advertising to rent the house, which included furnished rooms and a large garden. Martha also sought a renter for a barn on the lot, which she advertised could hold four cars or a shop. In December 1920, the vacant ground in the east half of the lot was used for the sale of stove wood and Christmas trees. In September 1920, Martha signed an agreement to sell the house to teamster Herman Lundvall and his wife Verna, who had arranged for a series of payments to be made. They kept horses on the property and in June 1921 advertised in the Fort Collins Courier for two horses that had strayed. The following month, in July 1921, Martha was committed to the Colorado State Hospital for the Insane in Pueblo, where she remained the rest of her life. Following their divorce, Frederick moved into the Linden Hotel in downtown Fort Collins and lived there until his death in 1927. He was buried in Grandview Cemetery. In May 1923, almost two years after she was sent to Pueblo, Martha’s estate administrator sold the west half of Lot 1 to Fort Collins insurance agent Edwin A. Schlichter and real estate agent William P. Withrow. This was the first time Lot 1 was divided in two and the partners clearly purchased the property as an investment. According to the conservator’s deed and other documents, Herman and Verna Lundvall resided there through 1922 or early 1923 and then made plans to leave Fort Collins. They assigned their interest in the purchase contract to Schlichter and Withrow, who agreed to pay the remaining balance due to the estate. Schlichter and Withrow held onto the property at 335 E. Magnolia St. for just three days before selling it to Ira Dwight Allen and his wife Carolyn Edith. Ira was born in 1859 in New York and around 1885 married Carolyn, who was an immigrant from Canada. They arrived in Fort Collins by the mid-1910s, where he operated a livery barn and express delivery service. After purchasing the house at 335 E. Magnolia St. in May 1923, they resided there through at least 1940, and this essentially served as their retirement home. Ira died in 1942 and was buried in Grandview Cemetery. Carolyn died in 1953 and was buried next to her husband. Although they would continue to live in the house for several more years, in July 1934 Ira and Carolyn sold the property to August C. Kluver. August and his wife Mary lived a few doors to the west at 323 E. Magnolia St., and owned the house under study from 1934 to 1946. No evidence was found that they ever lived there. August died in June 1945 and one year later, in May 1946, his estate sold the property to Robert and Margaret Kenworthy for $3,800. They in turn sold it in September 1947 to tire serviceman Carl Hoffmaster and his wife Ann. The Hoffmasters held onto the house for just three months before selling it in December 1947 to Elmer and Nancy Shepherd. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 136 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 7 of 21) Born in Iowa in 1881, Elmer Shepherd married Nancy Campbell in 1904 and the couple farmed for many years in the vicinity of McCook, Nebraska. They moved to Fort Collins in 1943, where Elmer worked as a janitor at Colorado A & M. After purchasing the house at 335 E. Magnolia St. in 1947, they remained there until 1957. Nancy died in Fort Collins in 1963 and was buried in McCook’s Riverview Cemetery. Elmer joined her there following his death in 1963. The Shepherds sold the house in February 1957 to Clarence and Delila Jacobsen, who had moved to Fort Collins from Iowa sometime earlier that decade. Clarence was a self-employed carpenter and they lived in the house until August 1960, when they sold the property to Eugene and Grace Fischer. Eugene worked as a high school teacher and the couple resided in the house for just two years. Around November 1962, they sold it to Kenneth and Olive Clay. Kenneth was a mechanic at A1 Auto in Fort Collins. In September 1968, they sold the house to Arthur and Nancy Eckdahl. The Eckdahls remained there through 1972, and Arthur was employed as a fireman and mailman. 36. Sources of information: Burial Record, August and Mary Kluver, Grandview Cemetery, Fort Collins, CO. August’s Date of Death: 18 June 1945. Mary’s Date of Death: 1 January 1948. Located at www.findagrave.com. Burial Record, Elmer Shepherd and Nancy Lee Shepherd, Riverview Cemetery, McCook, NE. Elmer’s Date of Death: 9 April 1969. Nancy’s Date of Death: 21 Septemer 1963. Located at www.findagrave.com. Burial Record, Frederick Gross, Grandview Cemetery, Fort Collins, CO. Date of Death: 8 December 1927. Located at www.findagrave.com. Burial Record, Ira Dwight Allen and Carolyn Edith Allen, Grandview Cemetery, Fort Collins, CO. Ira’s Date of Death: 18 September 1942. Carolyn’s Date of Death: 26 March 1953. Located at www.findagrave.com. City of Fort Collins Building Permits, 335 E. Magnolia St., 1946-1949. Colorado State Census, Listing for Robert Walsh, Larimer County, CO, 1885. Divorce Record, Frederick and Martha Gross, Colorado Divorce Index, 11 May 1920. Fire Insurance Maps of Fort Collins, Sanborn Map Company, 1895-1963. Fort Collins City Directories, Listings for 335 E. Magnolia St., 1902-1970. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 137 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 8 of 21) Fort Collins Courier “Want Ads – For Sale,” 18 March 1919, p. 4. “Court House News,” 13 May 1920, p. 5. “For Rent,” 8 June 1920, p. 7. “For Rent,” 28 July 1920, p. 7. “For Sale,” 16 August 1920, p. 7. “New Wood Yard,” 1 December 1920, p. 4. “Strayed,” 28 June 1921, p. 7. “For Rent,” 20 September 1922, p. 7. Fort Collins Topographic Quadrangle Maps, US Geological Survey (1908, 1960, 1969, 1984) Fort Collins Weekly Courier Local Notes, 20 July 1899, p. 1 (transfer from Walsh to Clammer). “For Sale,” 7 October 1903 p. 5. “L. T. L. Notes,” 3 September 1915, p. 6. Historic Building Inventory Record, 335 E. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO (#5LR2823). Prepared by Jason Marmor, August 1997. Larimer County Assessor, Real Estate Appraisal Cards and Photographs, Parcel 97123-32-021, County Assessor’s Office and Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives, 1948-2019. Larimer County, Clerk & Recorder’s Office, Title Records (W½ Lot 1, Block 144) Bond for Deed (Lot 1), Robert Walsh (owner) and Samuel H. Clammer, 14 July 1899 (Book 137, Page 18). Quit Claim Deed (Lot 1), Samuel H. Clammer to Robert Walsh, 24 May 1900 (Book 77, Page 539). Warranty Deed (Lot 1), Robert Walsh to Joseph A. Kern, 31 May 1900 (Book 160, Page 580). Warranty Deed (Lot 1), Joseph A. Kern to Frederick Gross, 13 January 1902 (Book 160, Page 581). Warranty Deed (Lot 1), Frederick Gross to Martha R. Gross, 15 April 1919 (Book 392, Page 336). Conservator’s Deed (W½ Lot 1), Estate of Martha R. Gross to E. A. Schlichter and W. P. Withrow, 5 May 1923 (Book 469, Page 382). Warranty Deed (W½ Lot 1), E. A. Schlichter and W. P. Withrow to I. D. and Edith C. Allen, 7 May 1923 (Book 462, Page 85). Warranty Deed, I. D. and Edith C. Allen to A. C. Kluver, 7 July 1934 (Book 642, Page 56). Executor’s Deed, Estate of August C. Kluver to Robert and Margaret Kenworthy, 7 May 1946 (Book 812, Page 376). Warranty Deed, Robert E. and Margaret A. Kenworthy to Carl M. and Ann V. Hoffmaster, 19 September 1947 (Book 841, Page 308). ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 138 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 9 of 21) Warranty Deed, Carl M. and Ann V. Hoffmaster to Elmer and Nancy Lee Shepherd, 15 December 1947 (Book 846, Page 68). Warranty Deed, Elmer and Nancy Lee Shepherd to Clarence and Delila Jacobsen, 1 February 1957 (Book 1038, Page 205). Warranty Deed, Clarence C. and Delila E. Jacobsen to Eugene E. and Grace M. Fischer, 5 August 1960 (Book 1122, Page 542). Warranty Deed, Eugene and Grace Fischer to Kenneth and Olive Clay, Recorded 28 November 1962 (Book 1189, Page 152). Warranty Deed, Kenneth Nolan Clay and Olive Arlene Clay to Arthur D. and Nancy C. Eckdahl, 27 September 1968 (Book 1395, Page 56). Quit Claim Deed, Arthur D. Eckdahl to Nancy C. Eckdahl, 7 February 1972 (Book 1493, Page 644). Warranty Deed, Nancy C. Eckdahl to Leador Corporation, 14 December 1972 (Book 1574, Page 418). Map of Fort Collins, W. C. Willits, Civil Engineer, May 1894. United States Federal Census, August and Mary Kluver, 1930-1940, Fort Collins, CO. United States Federal Census, Edwin A. Schlichter, 1920, Fort Collins, CO. United States Federal Census, Elmer and Nancy Shepherd, 1940, Osborn, NE. United States Federal Census, Fredrick and Anna Gross, 1900, Larimer County, CO and Frederick and Martha Gross, 1910, Fort Collins, CO. United States Federal Census, Ira Dwight Allen and Carolyn Edith Allen, 1920- 1940, Fort Collins, CO. United States Federal Census, Martha Gross, 1940, Pueblo, CO - Colorado State Hospital for the Insane. United States Federal Census, Robert Walsh, Fort Collins, CO, 1900. United States Federal Census, William and Minnie Wittenbrink, 1910, Fort Collins, CO. United States Federal Census, William P. Withrow (mistakenly listed as William Palmer), 1920, Fort Collins, CO. Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: The Courier Printing & Publishing Company, 1911. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 139 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 10 of 21) VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Applicable Fort Collins Criteria (Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Section 14-5) A. Events: Associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation (a specific event or pattern of events) B. Persons/Groups: Associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented C. Design/Construction: Embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or part of a recognizable and distinguished group of properties D. Information potential: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history X Does not meet any of the above Fort Collins designation criteria Analysis of Fort Collins Significance: In Fort Collins, a property may be eligible for local designation even when it is found to be ineligible for the more stringent State and National Registers of Historic Places. In this case, the property at 335 E. Magnolia St. is determined to be ineligible for individual designation as a City of Fort Collins landmark under any of the criteria. It simply does not meet the historical or architectural standards. In addition, the house has been altered by a number of changes that have combined to damage its architectural integrity even though it retains some aspects of integrity such as location and setting. Most importantly, these changes included replacement of the original clapboard siding with wider fiberboards, along with alterations to the front porch that changed the character of the house. Although this work was done between 1949 and 1969, it has left the building’s original architecture greatly changed and no longer a good example of the style. There are much better examples of the style in Fort Collins. For the same reasons, the house is no longer a contributing element of the National Register-listed Laurel School Historic District. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 140 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 11 of 21) 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable 40. Period of significance: Not Applicable 41. Level of significance: National No State No Local No 42. Statement of significance: Based upon the extensive archival research and field documentation completed for this project, this property was found to have been developed between 1902 and 1906, during a period of economic and neighborhood expansion in Fort Collins. It was one of many houses, ranging from modest to upscale, that were built around that time along E. Magnolia St. This property does not appear to be eligible for the NRHP or SRHP under Criterion A because it was not found to have been adequately associated with an important historic event or pattern of events. Owned by a series of families with modest backgrounds, the property also does not meet the standard for eligibility under Criterion B. In relation to Criterion C, the house retains some elements of its early twentieth century style and detailing. However, it was substantially altered during the period between 1948 and 1969. Although these would be considered historic alterations, they resulted in negative changes to its architectural character and there are certainly better examples of the style in Fort Collins. Because of this, the property does not convey an adequate enough sense of its original historic architecture, including materials and design, to qualify as eligible for the NRHP or SRHP under Criterion C. There is no indication that it might be eligible under Criterion D. The house is determined to be non-contributing to the National Register-listed Laurel School Historic District. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 141 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 12 of 21) 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The small wood frame house on this property was constructed between 1902 and 1906, and over the following decades appears to have remained largely unaltered. In 1948- 1949, the building was remodeled when the front porch was removed and rebuilt, complete with a low wall, or closed rail, along the front and a projecting enclosure on the west. Sometime between 1949 and 1969, the house’s original clapboard siding was removed and replaced with wide fiberboard siding along with fixed shutters on the front window. The brick chimney was also removed and a second west-facing entrance from the front porch closed. These alterations greatly changed the house’s historic appearance. While the house is in its original location and continues to stand among residences of similar age, the adjacent property to the west was redeveloped with a large apartment building around the early to mid-1970s. This sits very close to the house’s west property line and encroaches upon the historic home. To the east are three residential buildings dating from the 1950s or early 1960s. Consequently, the aspect of setting has been diminished. The house on this site retains some of its original features, including its asymmetrical façade, intersecting gables, and several early double-hung sash windows. Yet it exhibits an altered degree of integrity in the areas of design and feeling. In addition, the aspects of materials and workmanship are diminished due to the described changes to its front porch and wall cladding. Overall, this property retains a very modest degree of integrity that challenges its ability to clearly convey its origins in the early twentieth century and its association with its early owners. Consequently, its integrity fails to support NRHP or SRHP eligibility. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Not Eligible 45. Is there National Register district potential? N/A Discuss: This property is located within the National Register-listed Laurel School Historic District. If there is National Register district potential, is this building contributing: N/A 46. If the building is in an existing National Register district, is it contributing: No ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 142 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 13 of 21) VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: #7672-7685 Negatives filed at: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522 48. Report title: Intensive-Level Documentation of the Property at 335 E. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO 49. Date(s): 23 July 2019 50. Recorder(s): Ron Sladek, President 51. Organization: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 52. Address: P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522 53. Phone number(s): 970 / 221-1095 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 143 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 14 of 21) Site Location Map USGS Fort Collins 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle 1960 (photorevised 1984) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 144 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 15 of 21) Aerial Site Diagram ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 145 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 16 of 21) Historic Photographs Historic View of the House, 1948 Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Historic Assessor’s Card ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 146 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 17 of 21) Historic Photographs Historic View of the House, 1969 Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Historic Assessor’s Card ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 147 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 18 of 21) Historic Photographs Historic View of the House, 1977 Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Historic Assessor’s Card ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 148 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 19 of 21) Current Photographs Front of the House, View to the Southwest Front of the House, View to the Southeast ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 149 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 20 of 21) Current Photographs East Wall of the House with Shed Beyond, View to the South West Wall of the House, View to the South ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 150 Resource Number: 5LR2823 Address: 335 E. Magnolia St. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 21 of 21) Current Photographs Rear of the House, View to the North Rear of the House and Fenced Backyard, View to the North ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 151 Magnolia Dwellings Landmark Preservation Commission January 20 , 2021 ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-1 Magnolia Dwellings Proposed Site Plan ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-2 Magnolia Dwellings Proposed Landscape Plan ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-3 Magnolia Dwellings Site Data Zoning ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-4 Magnolia Dwellings Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context Context ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-5 Magnolia Dwellings Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context Context South block face of Magnolia Street looking South North block face of Magnolia Street looking North SITE SITE ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-6 Magnolia Dwellings Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context Context West block face of Peterson Street looking West East block face of Peterson Street looking East SITE SITE ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-7 Magnolia Dwellings Building design Proposed ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-8 Magnolia Dwellings Building design Proposed ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-9 Magnolia Dwellings Building massing and site placement Massing East side of building has a 8’ deep step-back at the upper level interior units The bulk of the massing has been placed on the west side of the property adjacent to the existing 2-story apartment building providing for more open space and transition of scale to the two houses to the east The front north side has a 18’ deep step-back from the upper level to the front face of the 1- story porch. The south side also includes a 11’ step-back from the rear porch to the upper level ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-10 Magnolia Dwellings Building massing and site placement Massing Street perspective from Magnolia looking South Street elevation from Magnolia looking South ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-11 Magnolia Dwellings Building massing and site placement Massing Street perspective from Peterson/Magnolia intersection looking Southwest Street perspective from Peterson looking Northwest ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-12 Magnolia Dwellings Privacy with existing house to the east Upper balcony perspective from Unit 2 and 3 looking East E/W site section looking North Privacy ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-13 Magnolia Dwellings Privacy with existing house to the east East Tree Elevation Privacy ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-14 Magnolia Dwellings Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-15 Magnolia Dwellings Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-16 Magnolia Dwellings Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-17 Magnolia Dwellings Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-18 Magnolia Dwellings Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-19 Magnolia Dwellings Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-20 Magnolia Dwellings LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) – Massing & Bldg. Articulation 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective or the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The proposed design has a scale, form and typology of many of the surrounding historic residential buildings. LUC Standards ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-21 Magnolia Dwellings LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) – Massing & Bldg. Articulation 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The proposed design includes significant 1-story setbacks on the north, east and south facades to respond to the contributing historic house located directly to the east. LUC Standards ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-22 Magnolia Dwellings LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) – Building Materials 3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high- quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. The lower level stepback facades use stone veneer and lap clapboard siding to compliment the surrounding historic residences LUC Standards ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-23 Magnolia Dwellings LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) – Building Materials 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) Type 2) Scale 3) Color 4) Three-dimensionality 5) Pattern The proposed design uses a building form type with the roof form and front porch design to relate to many of the surrounding historic homes. The design also include a similar scale and use of fenestration pattern at also present in the surrounding context. LUC Standards ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-24 Magnolia Dwellings LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) – Façade Details 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) Similar window pattern 2) Similar window proportion of height to width 3) Similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The proposed design meets this requirement in all three areas: similar pattern, proportion, and solid-to-void pattern for the majority of windows. LUC Standards ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-25 Magnolia Dwellings LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) – Façade Details 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and belt courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley. The rooflines and single story porch roofs of the proposed apartment are drawn from the historic buildings as a reference. LUC Standards ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-26 Magnolia Dwellings Landmark Preservation Commission January 20 , 2021 ITEM 4, Exhibit A presented at hearing Packet Pg. 151-27 Agenda Item 5 Updated 1-20-21 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 20, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER) – SUNSHADE ADDITION STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the addition of an upper patio enclosure on the northwest corner of the historic building at 359 Linden Street (Ginger and Baker). APPLICANT: Chris Aronson (VFLA); Jack and Ginger Graham (Owners) LPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker, regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, for a Minor Amendment application to construct a shade structure addition on the north elevation ground floor patio. BACKGROUND: Originally the Poudre Elevator Company, the mill and grain elevator more recently occupied by Feeders Supply and now by Ginger and Baker was constructed in 1910. The location was considered strategic with proximity to railroad tracks of the Colorado and Southern Railway line to allow for loading and unloading of goods to and from the train. The building featured a retail store, two and one-half story grain elevator, hay warehouse and coal storage. The stepped parapets, gable roof, limited windows, and head-house have been, and continue to be the building’s character-defining historic features. Between approximately 1917 and 1949 four subsequent additions were successively added on to the rear of the mill along Willow Street. In 1944, stucco was added to the exterior. Feeders Supply (the mill, grain elevator and hay warehouse) was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 as a contributing property to the Old Town District. In 2013, the four rear additions were determined to have no historic significance and were removed. In 2015, the current owners, Jack and Ginger Graham, received approval for an application to construct a two-story addition to the building and rehabilitate the historic structure to accommodate a new use as restaurant and retail space. In 2020, the LPC provided approval for the addition of a sunshade structure on the lower patio (north elevation). PROJECT SUMMARY: This application calls for the enclosure of the upper patio on the northwest corner of the building. The structure is composed of painted steel columns (black), corrugated metal roofing, a skylight system, and aluminum bifolding windows. The applicant has provided a full set of iterative designs that were considered before arriving at the final proposed design solution, in order to provide the Commission with a better understanding of why those alternatives were rejected in favor of the current design. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of this historic review is the historic building itself at 359 Linden Street. While there are other historic resources within 200 feet, the relatively limited scope and size of this proposed alteration and the fact that it is being added to a historic resource requires analysis of this alteration under the SOI Standards, rather than a broader design compatibility comparison with other historic structures on nearby parcels. Packet Pg. 152 Agenda Item 5 Updated 1-20-21 Item 5, Page 2 UPDATED INFORMATION – COMMISSION WORK SESSION REQUESTS The following information that is relevant to the evaluation of compliance with Section 3.4.7 has been added to the agenda packet: • Roof plan (applicant will provide at meeting) • Will the new space be conditioned? (Yes, it will have HVAC) • How will the new construction meet the existing building? (applicant will provide at meeting) • Could it be removed? (Not easily, but technically it could be removed.) • Information about the overframed space (it is voided space) • Are there structural impacts to the first floor building below? (No, the structure will be connected to the interior steel columns and steel belly band.) • Were there historic portions of the building in this area that were removed for the 2015 project? (No) • Was there a parapet around the top of the first floor, historically? (No) • Is the glass translucent? (Yes, clear and not tinted) • Why has the applicant proposed a different product on the second floor location? (The existing structural conditions don’t allow the prefab sunshade system, and the system is not recommended for second floor location.) REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7 (D)(2): “Proposed alterations to any building, site, structure, or object located on the development site that is not a Fort Collins landmark but is designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, either individually or contributing to a district, or the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or contributing to a district, must comply with the design review requirements in Chapter 14, Article III, of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The applicant must obtain a report pursuant to Chapter 14 regarding all proposed alterations before receiving a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation pursuant to below Subsection (F). Additionally, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of any such building, site, structure, or object.” Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. N/A SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The 2015 alterations to this property created a mixed environment of highly differentiated new construction and sensitive rehabilitation of the existing primary historic building, which did also include the addition of some modern construction with the north elevation patios at the upper and lower levels. In 2020, the LPC also approved the sunshade structure on the lower north patio. As with that 2020 alteration, the question is whether the addition of the enclosure on the northwest patio would lead to loss of the property’s overall historic character and distinctive features and spaces. TBD Packet Pg. 153 Agenda Item 5 Updated 1-20-21 Item 5, Page 3 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. The proposed enclosure appears to meet this Standard, being sufficiently differentiated from the original building and its features to avoid a false sense of history. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. N/A SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. N/A SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. N/A SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. The applicant will provide more information regarding the installation and attachments of the enclosure structure at the meeting. TBD SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Design compatibility in terms of the visual impact on the historic structure, considered also as an additional alteration to the property along with the 2015 and 2020 alterations, is the primary consideration for this particular project. The alteration is relatively minor compared to the large addition on the south and the enclosure is on a side/rear portion of the building. However, the corner location of the building presents a challenge in terms of making this alteration more prominent and visible. The new work is differentiated from the original design. The enclosure will have a greater impact on the historic character when the bifold windows are closed, at which time the structure will function and feel more like a small addition. TBD Packet Pg. 154 Agenda Item 5 Updated 1-20-21 Item 5, Page 4 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The enclosure could be removed, technically, but not easily. The applicant will provide more information about installation and construction details at the meeting. TBD Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of a Minor Amendment to add an upper patio enclosure to 359 Linden, finding it complies with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, specifically the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, based on the following findings [insert findings], and further instruct staff to issue the required report to the State Historic Preservation Office summarizing these findings. Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of denial of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of a Minor Amendment to add an upper patio enclosure to 359 Linden, finding it does not comply with one or more of the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, specifically the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, based on the following findings [insert findings], and further instruct staff to issue the required report to the State Historic Preservation Office summarizing these findings.” Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1.Staff Presentation 2.Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 155 1 359 Linden (Ginger and Baker) – Sunshade Addition Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, January 20, 2021 Background 2 • 1910: Construction date • 1978: 359 Linden listed as contributing property in the Old Town National Register District • 2015: Approval of rehabilitation and two-story addition, with LPC recommendation (Architect: VFLA) • July 2020: Approval of aluminum shade structure (Struxure Outdoors) to north lower patio; black frame, white louvers, operable shades 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 156 Role of LPC Provide recommendation to P&Z Board for proposed development re: compliance with Section 3.4.7 (D)(2), specifically the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 3 Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(D)(2) 4 Proposed alterations to any building, site, structure, or object located on the development site that is not a Fort Collins landmark but is designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, either individually or contributing to a district, or the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or contributing to a district, must comply with the design review requirements in Chapter 14, Article III, of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The applicant must obtain a report pursuant to Chapter 14 regarding all proposed alterations before receiving a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation pursuant to below Subsection (F). Additionally, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of any such building, site, structure, or object. 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 157 Area of Adjacency: •359 Linden 2015: Approved Plans 6 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 158 2015: Approved Plans 7 July 2020: Approved Sunshade Addition 8 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 159 Proposed Upper Patio Enclosure Design details: • Steel columns • Aluminum bifolding windows • Standing seam metal roof with skylights 9 Additional Views 10 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 160 Key Questions/Considerations 11 • How does preferred enclosure design comply with SOI Standards, on its own and relative to the overall changes to date? (Standards 2 and 9) • How does it integrate with overall design? Is it both compatible and differentiated? (Standards 2 and 9) • Are any important historic features obscured or would require alteration/removal? (Standards 2 and 9) • Can it be installed and is it removable without damaging integrity? (Standards 7 and 10) Staff Findings re: 4 Applicable Standards Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 12 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 161 Staff Findings re: 4 Applicable Standards Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 13 13 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 1-20-21 Packet Pg. 161-1 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 'HVLJQ5HYLHZ$SSOLFDWLRQ +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ'LYLVLRQ Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. $SSOLFDQW,QIRUPDWLRQ $SSOLFDQW¶V1DPH 'D\WLPH3KRQH (YHQLQJ3KRQH 0DLOLQJ$GGUHVV IRUUHFHLYLQJDSSOLFDWLRQUHODWHGFRUUHVSRQGHQFH 6WDWH =LS&RGH (PDLO 3URSHUW\,QIRUPDWLRQ SXW1$LI RZQHULVDSSOLFDQW 2ZQHU¶V 1DPH 'D\WLPH3KRQH (YHQLQJ3KRQH 0DLOLQJ$GGUHVV IRUUHFHLYLQJDSSOLFDWLRQUHODWHGFRUUHVSRQGHQFH 6WDWH =LS&RGH (PDLO 3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 3URYLGHDQRYHUYLHZ RI\RXUSURMHFW6XPPDUL]HZRUNHOHPHQWVVFKHGXOHRIFRPSOHWLRQ DQGRWKHULQIRUPDWLRQDV QHFHVVDU\WRH[SODLQ\RXUSURMHFW Reminders: Complete application would need all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing and proposed. 7KHIROORZLQJ DWWDFKPHQWV DUH5(48,5(' Ƒ&RPSOHWH$SSOLFDWLRQIRU'HVLJQ5HYLHZ Ƒ'HWDLOHG6FRSHRI:RUN DQGSURMHFWSODQVLIDYDLODEOH Ƒ&RORUSKRWRVRIH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQV Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate demolition application will need to be approved. Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense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■ ■ ■ ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 162 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page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acket Pg. 163 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 5HTXLUHG$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQ 7KHIROORZLQJ LWHPVPXVWEHVXEPLWWHGZLWKWKLVFRPSOHWHGDSSOLFDWLRQ 'LJLWDOVXEPLWWDOVSUHIHUUHGIRU SKRWRJUDSKVDQGIRURWKHULWHPV ZKHUHSRVVLEOH $WOHDVWRQHFXUUHQWSKRWRIRUHDFKVLGHRIWKHKRXVH3KRWRILOHVRUSULQWVVKDOOEHQDPHGODEHOHG ZLWKDSSOLFDQWQDPHDQGHOHYDWLRQ)RUH[DPSOHVPLWKHDVWMSJVPLWKZHVWMSJHWF,IVXEPLWWHGDV SULQWVSKRWRVVKDOOEHODEHOHG 3KRWRV IRUHDFKIHDWXUHDVGHVFULEHGLQ WKHVHFWLRQ ³'HWDLORI3URSRVHG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ:RUN´ 3KRWR ILOHVRUSULQWVVKDOOEHQDPHGRUODEHOHGZLWKDSSOLFDQWQDPHDQGIHDWXUHOHWWHU)RUH[DPSOH VPLWKDMSJVPLWKDMSJVPLWKEMSJVPLWKFMSJHWF 'HSHQGLQJRQWKHQDWXUHRIWKHSURMHFWRQHRUPRUHRIWKHIROORZLQJLWHPVVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHG <RXU FRQWUDFWRUVKRXOGSURYLGHWKHVHLWHPVWR\RX IRUDWWDFKPHQWWRWKLVORDQDSSOLFDWLRQ 'UDZLQJZLWKGLPHQVLRQV 3URGXFWVSHFLILFDWLRQ VKHHWV 'HVFULSWLRQRIPDWHULDOVLQFOXGHGLQ WKHSURSRVHGZRUN &RORUVDPSOHVRUFKLSVRIDOOSURSRVHGSDLQWFRORUV Ƒ 3DUWLDORUIXOOGHPROLWLRQ LVDSDUWRIWKLVSURMHFW 3DUWLDOGHPROLWLRQFRXOGLQFOXGH VFRSHVVXFKDVWDNLQJRIIH[LVWLQJUHDUSRUFKHVWRFUHDWHVSDFHIRUDQHZ DGGLWLRQRUUHPRYLQJDQH[LVWLQJZDOO RUGHPROLVKLQJD URRI,I \RXDUHWDNLQJDZD\SLHFHVRIWKHH[LVWLQJ UHVLGHQFH\RXDUHOLNHO\XQGHUJRLQJVRPHSDUWLDOGHPROLWLRQ 6LJQDWXUHRI$SSOLFDQW 'DWH ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 164 COVER PAGEGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.com2nd FLOOR ARBORETUMITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 165 EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comLINDEN STREET ELEVATIONCORNER OF LINDEN AND WILLOWWILLOW STREET ELEVATIONLOOKING EAST DOWN WILLOWGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 166 INSPIRATION IMAGES419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 167 )')'75$6+%8))(76(59,,1*:,7+6725$*(&+$1'(/,(5%$579(&+,01(<522)%(/2:522)%(/2:35(3 (;,7'225 $5%25(780),5(3/$&(%$5%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1* 6(&21')/2253/$1PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5($2):25.ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 168 35(9,286'(6,*1,7(5$7,216&$1<21$9(18(67(_)257&2//,16&2/25$'2__($67/,1&2/1:$<_&+(<(11(:<20,1*__ZZZ9)/$FRP*,1*(5$1'%$.(51')/225$5%25(7807KHIROORZLQJVOLGHVGHSLFWWKHHYROXWLRQRIWKHGHVLJQIURP0DUFKWKURXJKWKHFXUUHQWGHVLJQ7KHWKRXJKWSURFHVVHDUO\RQLQWKHGHVLJQZDVWRH[SORUHDOOGHVLJQRSWLRQVVKDGHVVDLOVORXYHUVDQGIXOOHQFORVXUHVITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 169 35(9,286'(6,*1237,21)5202SWLRQLVQRWSUHIHUUHGE\WKHFOLHQWITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 170 35(9,286'(6,*1237,21)5202SWLRQLVQRWSUHIHUUHGE\WKHFOLHQWITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 171 35(9,286'(6,*1237,21)5202SWLRQLVWRRZKLPVLFDODQGQRWSUHIHUUHGE\WKHFOLHQWITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 172 35(9,286'(6,*1237,21)5202SWLRQLVWRRZKLPVLFDODQGQRWSUHIHUUHGE\WKHFOLHQWITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 173 35(9,286'(6,*1237,21)5207KLVRSWLRQKLWVWKHH[LVWLQJZLQGRZ/RZHULQJWKHURRIWRJRXQGHUQHDWKWKHZLQGRZLVXQGHVLUDEOHITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 174 35(9,286'(6,*1,7(5$7,216&$1<21$9(18(67(_)257&2//,16&2/25$'2__($67/,1&2/1:$<_&+(<(11(:<20,1*__ZZZ9)/$FRP*,1*(5$1'%$.(51')/225$5%25(780$5%25(7801:&251(535(9,286'(6,*1237,21)5207KLVRSWLRQZDVUHYLVHGWRUHGXFHWKHKHDYLQHVVRIWKHURRIIUDPLQJWKHVN\OLJKWVITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 175 352326(''(6,*1&$1<21$9(18(67(_)257&2//,16&2/25$'2__($67/,1&2/1:$<_&+(<(11(:<20,1*__ZZZ9)/$FRP*,1*(5$1'%$.(51')/225$5%25(7808OWLPDWHO\WKHIROORZLQJGHVLJQZDVIXOO\GHYHORSHG7KHGHVLJQSURFHVVOHGXVWRWKHIROORZLQJ8WLOL]HWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOODQJXDJHRIWKHFXUUHQWEXLOGLQJWRWKHSDWLRHQFORVXUH0D[LPL]HELIROGLQJGRRUVWRDOORZIRUDVPXFKWUDQVSDUHQF\DVSRVVLEOHZLWKWKHHQFORVXUH0DWFKWKHH[LVWLQJURRISLWFKWRDYRLGKLWWLQJWKHH[LVWLQJKLVWRULFZLQGRZITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 176 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801:&251(523(1%,)2/',1*'2256ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 177 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801:&251(5&/26('%,)2/',1*'2256ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 178 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801(&251(523(1%,)2/',1*'2256ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 179 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801(&251(5&/26('%,)2/',1*'2256ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 180 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020),1)/225 6(&21')/225 (*5$'( 6.</,*+76<67(0&2558*$7('0(7$/522),1*7(;785(720$7&+(;,67,1*522)&2/2572',))(5%,)2/',1*'2256<67(0%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*),;('6725()5217$66(0%/< $5%25(780 1257+(/(9$7,21ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 181 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.com),1)/225 6(&21')/225 %,)2/',1*'2256522)3,7&+720$7&+(;,67,1*0,//723522)6/23(&2558*$7('0(7$/522),1*67((/6758&785(3$,17('%/$&.6725()5217*/$=,1*,1),//)5$0(':$//&2558*$7('0(7$/ (;,67,1*%5,&.:$//5(48,5('(;,7'22529(5)5$0('522)5(48,5('72'5$,1:$7(52172(;,67,1*522)6/23( $5%25(780 ;(:7(/(9$7,21GINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 182 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.20206(&21')/225 (;,67,1*+,6725,&$/:,1'2:725(0$,129(5)5$0('63$&(29(5)5$0('522) $5%25(780 /22.,1*($67ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 183 COVER PAGE GINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM01.20.2021419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.com2nd FLOOR ARBORETUMLPC HEARING PRESENTATION EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comLINDEN STREET ELEVATIONCORNER OF LINDEN AND WILLOWWILLOW STREET ELEVATIONLOOKING EAST DOWN WILLOWGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.202001.20.2021 678',2$7&$1<21$9(18(68,7()257&2//,16&2/25$'2__217+(:(%$7:::9)/$&209$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621$5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256$5%25(780,163,5$7,21,0$*(6 )')'75$6+%8))(76(59,,1*:,7+6725$*(&+$1'(/,(5%$579(&+,01(<522)%(/2:522)%(/2:35(3 (;,7'225 $5%25(780),5(3/$&(%$5%,)2/',1* %,)2/',1* %,)2/',1* %,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1* 6(&21')/2253/$1PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020AREA OF WORK01.20.2021 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020AREA OF WORK01.20.2021 PROPOSED DETAILS419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.202001.20.2021 PREVIOUS DESIGN ITERATIONS419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020The following slides depict the evolution of the designfrom March, 2019 through the current design.The thought process early on in the design was toexplore all design options; shades, sails, louvers, andfull enclosures.01.20.2021 PREVIOUS DESIGN OPTIONFROM 3/22/2019Option is not preferred by the client.01.20.2021 PREVIOUS DESIGN OPTIONFROM 3/22/2019Option is not preferred by the client.01.20.2021 PREVIOUS DESIGN OPTIONFROM 3/22/2019Option is too whimsical and notpreferred by the client.01.20.2021 PREVIOUS DESIGN OPTIONFROM 3/22/2019Option is too whimsical and notpreferred by the client.01.20.2021 PREVIOUS DESIGN OPTIONFROM 3/22/2019This option hits theexisting window.Lowering the roof to gounderneath thewindow is undesirable.01.20.2021 PREVIOUS DESIGN ITERATIONS419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801:&251(5PREVIOUS DESIGN OPTIONFROM 11/24/2020This option wasrevised to reduce theheaviness of the roofframing the skylights.01.20.2021 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020Ultimately the following design was fully developed.The design process led us to the following:1. Utilize the architectural language of the currentbuilding to the patio enclosure.2. Maximize bi-folding doors to allow for as muchtransparency as possible with the enclosure. 3. Match the existing roof pitch to avoid hitting theexisting historic window. 01.20.2021 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801:&251(5OPEN BIFOLDING DOORS01.20.2021 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801:&251(5CLOSED BIFOLDING DOORS01.20.2021 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020$5%25(7801(&251(5OPEN BIFOLDING DOORS01.20.2021 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020CLOSED BIFOLDING DOORS01.20.2021$5%25(7801(&251(5 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.2020),1)/225 6(&21')/225 (*5$'( 6.</,*+76<67(0&2558*$7('0(7$/522),1*7(;785(720$7&+(;,67,1*522)&2/2572',))(5%,)2/',1*'2256<67(0%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*%,)2/',1*),;('6725()5217$66(0%/< $5%25(780 1257+(/(9$7,2101.20.2021 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.com),1)/225 6(&21')/225 %,)2/',1*'2256522)3,7&+720$7&+(;,67,1*0,//723522)6/23(&2558*$7('0(7$/522),1*67((/6758&785(3$,17('%/$&.6725()5217*/$=,1*,1),//)5$0(':$//&2558*$7('0(7$/ (;,67,1*%5,&.:$//5(48,5('(;,7'22529(5)5$0('522)5(48,5('72'5$,1:$7(52172(;,67,1*522)6/23( $5%25(780 ;(:7(/(9$7,21GINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.202001.20.2021 PROPOSED DESIGN419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO| 970.224.1191| 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING| 307.635.5710| www.VFLA.comGINGER AND BAKER - 2ND FLOOR ARBORETUM12.22.20206(&21')/225 (;,67,1*+,6725,&$/:,1'2:725(0$,129(5)5$0('63$&(29(5)5$0('522) $5%25(780 /22.,1*($67OVERFRAMED01.20.2021