Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2021 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular Meeting City of LandmarkCommission F6rt Collins AGENDA 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 February 17, 2021 5:30 PM 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/'/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 gschiaaer(cDfcgov.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(a)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. Page 1 Packet Pg.1 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 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 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2021. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 17, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. Page 2 Packet Pg.2 • 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. TENNEY COURT NORTH AND WEST OAK STREET ALLEYS CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for improvements to two alleys: Tenney Court North and West Oak Street. APPLICANT: Downtown Development Authority OWNER: City of Fort Collins 4. ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE)— DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 1608, 1610, and 1618 S College for construction of a new Alpine Bank building with parking and drive-up teller lanes, requiring demolition of two non-historic resources and onsite relocation of one historic resource, which would require approval of a modification of standards in section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Development site is in the General Commercial (GC)zone district, and the decision maker for this Type 1 Review will be a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Zell Cantrell, Galloway 5. 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) 6. 421 MATHEWS STREET (TOMLIN-ROBERTS PROPERTY)— NRHP DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Full rehabilitation of property including rear addition, window/door replacement, siding repair, porch repair, and chimney repair. APPLICANT: Ryan & Bryan McCarty • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Page 3 Packet Pg.3 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 1 Packet Pg A Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission Date: 2/17/2021 Walter Kurt Eizabeth Kevin Anne Vacant Meg Roll Call Mike Bello Dunn Knierim Michell Murray Nelsen Jim Rose Seat Dunn Vote Absent x x x x x x N/A x 7 present CONSENT: 1)January Minutes approval Anne Kurt Vacant Walter Mike Bello Kevin Eizabeth Jim Rose Meg Nelsen Knierim Seat Dunn Murray Michell Dunn Yes Yes N/A Yes Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes 7-0 3 -Tenney Court North &West Oak Street Alleys - Kurt Vacant Walter Mike Bello Kevin Eizabeth Anne Meg Confirm no effect on designated historic resources Knierim Seat Dunn Murray Michell Jim Rose Nelsen Dunn Yes N/A recused Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-0 4-Alpine Bank Development Review-Recommend Vacant Walter Mike Bello Kevin Eizabeth Anne Kurt Meg Approval Seat Dunn Murray Michell Jim Rose Nelsen Knierim Dunn N/A Yes Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7-0 5 -Magnolia Dwellings Development Review - Walter Mike Bello Kevin Eizabeth Anne Kurt Vacant Meg Recommend approval Dunn Murray Michell Jim Rose Nelsen Knierim Seat Dunn Yes Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes 7-0 6 -421 Mathews Street NRHP Design Review- Kevin Eizabeth Anne Kurt Vacant Walter Meg Issuance of report finding the proposal does not Mike Bello Murray Michell Jim Rose Nelsen Knierim Seat Dunn Dunn meeting the standards Absent recused Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 6-0 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 2/17/21 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC January 20, 2021 Hearing — minor edit 2. Staff Design Review Decisions Report— minor edit DISCUSSION AGENDA: (All changes in this section were added to the online packet on 2-16-21) 3. TENNEY COURT NORTH AND WEST OAK STREET ALLEYS CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW No updates 4. ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE) — DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Revised staff report • Revised staff presentation • Revised applicant presentation • 2 new attachments: o Att 6 - Site Form for 1618 S College o Att 7 - Draft Plan of Protection 5. MAGNOLIA DWELLINGS — DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • No updates 6. 421 MATHEWS STREET (TOMLIN-ROBERTS PROPERTY) — NRHP DESIGN REVIEW • Citizen emails/letters: 0 Revised staff report in response to applicant information • Revised staff presentation • Att 2 - updated to add revised applicant plans before the original plan set. • 2 new attachments: o Att 4 - Applicant follow up from Work Session w/ photos o Att 5 - Historic Survey file for property EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit# Description: 5 A Updated Applicant Presentation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Visitor Log [This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.] DATE: 2/17/21 Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance Todd Dangerfield, DDA tangerfield@fcgov.com Item 3, Tenney & W Oak Alleys Cara Scohy, Norris Design Item 3, Tenney & W Oak Alleys Zell Cantrell, Architect Galloway ZellCantrell@gallowayus.com Item 4, Alpine Bank Dev Rev 6162 S. Willow Drive, Ste 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Ben Van Hoose, Branch President Alpine Bank BenVanHoose@alpinebank.com Item 4, Alpine Bank Dev Rev 400 7th Street South Rifle, CO 81650 Kristoffer Kenton, Architect Galloway Item 4, Alpine Bank Dev Rev 6162 S. Willow Drive, Ste 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Todd Goulding, Consultant Goulding Development TGoulding@gda-co.com Item 4, Alpine Bank Dev Rev Advisors Glen Davis, Chief Retail Officer Alpine Bank, Glenwood Springs Item 4, Alpine Bank Dev Rev Ian Shuff, Architect alm2s Architects ishuff@alm2s.com Item 5, Magnolia Dwellings Jordan Obermann, Property Owner - jordan@forgeandbow.com Item 5, Magnolia Dwellings Ryan McCarty, Owner/Builder - Item 6, 421 Mathews THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiagergfcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! 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: Kevin Murray Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Member Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): 421 Mathews Street (Tomlin-Roberts Property) — Design Review Brief statement of interest: Had been asked to talk with the Owner of 421 Mathews about some exterior design issues, and may continue to do so. Therefore I feel a conflict of interest in discussing as a Commission Member. Date: Feb 8th 2021 ign re: REMOVAL O�CONFLICT C�- ITERE 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 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: Walter Dunn Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Member Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): TENNEY COURT NORTH AND WEST OAK STREET ALLEYS CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW Brief statement of interest: The company I work for, Majestic Surveying, did the survey work for this project, and through them I helped with the survey as well. And I am unsure if Majestic Surveying will be doing any further work on this project in the future. Due to having worked on this project and being unsure of future involvement of the project, I feel the need to recuse myself. Date: 02/11/21 Signature: Walter Dunn 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 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: Walter Dunn Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Member Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): TENNEY COURT NORTH AND WEST OAK STREET ALLEYS CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW Brief statement of interest: The company I work for, Majestic Surveying, did the survey work for this project, and through them I helped with the survey as well. And I am unsure if Majestic Surveying will be doing any further work on this project in the future. Due to having worked on this project and being unsure of future involvement of the project, I feel the need to recuse myself. Date: 02/11/21 Signature: Walter Dunn 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 Agenda Item 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation • • STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2021 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC January 20, 2021 Minutes— DRAFT Item 1, Page 1 Packet Pg.5 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 City of Landmark Preservation F6rt Collins Commission Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Michael Bello This meeting was held remotely. Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting January 19, 2020 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 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: Mike Bello, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell, Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: None STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Brad Yatabe, Gretchen Schiager, Judy Schmidt Chair Dunn read the following legal statement: "We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020." • INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER Chair Dunn introduced Walter Dunn who had just been appointed to the Commission. Mr. Dunn shared about his background in history, archaeology, and construction. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.6 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • 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. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the January 20, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed 8-0. • 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. The Commission did not request a presentation, nor did they have any questions on this item. 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. Mr. Yatabe recused himself from this item due to a conflict. Ms. Schmidt stepped in as legal counsel. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, explaining that the Commission's role is to provide a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board based on its compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Landmark Preservation Commission January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.7 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 She described the proposed development, noting that due to its proximity, the Sheely Drive Historic District is the area of adjacency. She explained that the standards outlined in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code contain the review criteria for the development proposal which focuses on compatibility with the historic resources in regard to massing, fenestration pattern, design detail and building materials. She reviewed the Commission's requests for information from the work session. She informed the Commission that formal minutes are not taken at neighborhood meetings, so she was unable to provide them as requested at the work session. Applicant Presentation Jessica Tuttle, Watermark Apartments, presented details about the proposal, highlighting information requested by the Commission at the work session. She talked about the transition from the 16-foot villa to the two-story villa and then up to the three-story and higher density portions along Shields. Public Input Colleen Hoffman, a resident of Wallenberg Drive, stated the design proposal looks pretty good. She asked to see the previous proposal in comparison with the latest design. Ms.Tuttle shared the relevant slides and commented that the proposal is now much more compatible with the Sheely Drive homes. Ann Hunt inquired about the stonework around the bottom in front. Ms. Tuttle responded that the bottom base below the window on all sides will be wrapped in a band of stone similar to the Sheely Drive homes and the top is lap-siding fiber-cement high-quality material. Steve Herron, Watermark Apartments, added that it is a cultured stone with a capstone cap. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Bello asked about the square footage and the number of bedrooms in the units. Ms. Tuttle responded that each of the two sides is a 1000 sq. ft., two-bedroom unit. Chair Dunn said the applicant and staff had done a great job answering their questions and providing all the details they needed. Ms. Tuttle commented that the whole process had been good for the project. Commission Discussion Mr. Murray agreed with Chair Dunn and stated the applicant had answered his questions. Mr. Knierim agreed and added that the low-sloping gable in front fit well with the character of the District. Chair Dunn appreciated Ms. Hoffman's earlier question which allowed everyone to see the older, more complex version, and how the updated design addressed that. Mr. Murray suggested that the addition of bleeding mortar work as seen in the Sheely Drive area might improve the compatibility even more. Chair Dunn commented that bleeding mortar might not be appreciated these days. Ms. Nelsen asked if cultured stone, which is concrete made to look like stone, meets the high-quality material requirement in 3.4.7. Ms. Bzdek responded that is up to the Commission to determine. Mr. Murray stated if cultured stone is done right it will look good for the next 20 years or so. Chair Dunn said while she is not a fan of cultured stone, from a distance it looks similar enough. Mr. Bello agreed, and while he thought the rear elevation was little flat, it is a good project in his opinion. Ms. Nelsen appreciated that the cultured stone wrapped around the sides and the back. Chair Dunn commented that the back faces the historic district. Ms. Tuttle explained that the back side of the villa faces the back side of the Sheely Drive homes, and there is a fence in between. She explained the front of the villa is visible from Wallenberg Drive. Chair Dunn inquired about the Wallenberg right-of-way. Ms. Tuttle explained that Watermark Apartments owns the space where the existing trail lies. The right-of-way line is between the concrete trail and the pavement for the street. The City has an easement for the trail for access and maintenance, and there has been some discussion about the possibility of deeding some of the trail to the City. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.8 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved 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. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 8-0 Chair Dunn stated this is a fine project that will fit in well with the Historic District. Mr. Yatabe returned to the meeting. 4. MAGNOLIA DWELLINGS— CONCEPTUAL 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) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board and briefly described the proposal. She talked about the intensive-level survey conducted in 2019 which found the property does not contribute to the National Registry of the district, nor is it eligible for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. Ms. Bzdek reviewed and clarified the area of adjacency. Ms. Bzdek discussed the review requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and stated the Commission will need to determine whether the design of the new construction complies with all six of the required standards. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff introduced himself and Craig Russell from Russell + Mills, the landscape architect on the project. Mr. Russell talked about the character of the frontage historic homes in old town, noting the wide tree lines. He talked about the foundation plantings around the front porch and explained that the stepping stones are an attempt to tie into the historic use of large sandstone pavers. He talked about using pre-cast concrete rather than stone, while focusing on the scale. He described details about the landscape plan and talked about creating privacy from the property to the east. He talked about the plant pallet and use of a simple, informal planting style. Mr. Shuff addressed the Commission's work session questions about massing, placement of buildings and circulation. He explained the massing was placed in the back intentionally and pointed out the location of the main doors. Mr. Shuff discussed the neighborhood context and contributing properties, pointing out a mix of architectural styles, including Queen Anne, American Foursquare, Craftsman and Classic Cottages. He explained how the building design relates to the neighborhood in fenestration, interest, gabling, grade change and stepping the building down, adding that the step down on three sides of the building exceeds the Land Use Code requirements. Mr. Shuff noted from the street elevation looking south the main face of the building is most visible. He talked about how privacy concerns were addressed, partly with trees and a six-foot privacy fence between the properties. Mr. Shuff compared the height of the building to the neighborhood context to illustrate the general massing. Mr. Shuff discussed the use of high-quality materials including stone and lap-siding with some board and batten siding in back. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.9 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 He pointed out the building form type, roof and front porch design, as well as the fenestration pattern and other facade details, stating they are compatible with the neighborhood. Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Murray asked about the location of the closest Queen Anne, whether the alley is paved, and the life-expectancy of the trees. Mr. Shuff said the closest Queen Anne was 330 Peterson. He stated the alley is not paved, adding that the neighbors do not want it paved, but the City may require it. Mr. Russell said the junipers and flowering trees usually last 60-75 years. Ms. Nelsen appreciated the detailed responses to the work session questions and asked about the sill height of first story windows. Mr. Shuff stated they are three feet high, and explained they are higher for furniture placement. Ms. Nelsen said she understood the reasoning but pointed out that makes it different than others in the area. She added that fitting four units in that space is quite an accomplishment. Mr. Murray asked about sight lines with regard to privacy. Mr. Shuff said most views will be obscured by the privacy fence. Mr. Shuff noted that privacy is not really a 3.4.7 item. Mr. Bello commented that looking at the elevation comparisons with existing homes, the proposed building is complex with lots of roofs and gables which is an expensive way to build something. He suggested it might be less expensive and fit in better if it were simpler. Ms. Nelsen was not sure what could be simplified without losing character. Mr. Shuff stated that they considered hip roofs to make the roofs less dominant, adding that he is open to that with just one gable face if the client were interested. Mr. Bello asked whether the units are for sale or rent. Mr. Shuff stated they are condos for sale. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern about making all of it a hip roof which might be out of place and overwhelming, and stated she understood the desire for at least one gable. Chair Dunn counted eight roof forms on the proposed project, while the surrounding houses have one to three, making this project significantly busier than surrounding houses. Mr. Bello agreed. Chair Dunn pointed to several of the properties Mr. Shuff had used as examples in his comparisons and stated that most of them were not in the area of adjacency and should not be considered. She noted that those that are in the area of adjacency have much simpler roof forms. Mr. Shuff asked whether having the same number of roof forms is required by Code. Chair Dunn responded referencing Standard 6 of 3.4.7 regarding use of design elements, including rooflines, to relate to the historic resources. Staff displayed the homes across the street on Google Maps, noting that each have two or three roof forms. Chair Dunn stated the proposed project has more than double of what is seen historically. She stated the complexity does not fit with neighborhood and is probably more expensive anyway. Ms. Nelsen agreed it is more complex but argued it helps to break up the massing and scale while still being fairly sensitive to the existing context. Chair Dunn stated the building could be articulated and still simplified. She said it stands out and does not fit with the historic character,adding that the massing can be mitigated without adding such a spotlight on it. Mr. Murray pointed out an elevation in the packet that showed a simpler roof line. Mr. Shuff said it was the same design just a different elevation that does not show as much of the roof. Mr. Murray asked if that is what would be seen from the street and Chair Dunn said it be what is seen from close up. Chair Dunn asked about the height, and Mr. Shuff responded that the project was four to five feet taller than the two-story apartments next door, adding that he did not compare it to the green one-story house on the corner. Mr. Shuff stated his belief that the pitch of the roof is more compatible with the overall surrounding homes. Ms. Nelsen asked if the gable above the front entry porch could be changed to a hip roof. Mr. Shuff said that would be possible, but that gables are more predominant in the area. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.10 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Commission Discussion Chair Dunn suggested discussing compliance with each standard separately. Standard 1 Mr. Bello had no concerns with the width. Ms. Nelsen stated the width seems compatible. Standard 2 Mr. Murray appreciated that the massing was pushed over to the bigger buildings and believes the step backs comply with the standard. Standard 3 The Members did not express any disagreement with Staff's finding that the project complies. Standard 4 Mr. Murray said the board and batten siding does not match, but since it is in the back, it does not show from the street or adversely impact the historic resources. Ms. Nelsen agreed and added that overall, the materials are compatible. Standard 5 Chair Dunn commented that Applicant had done a good job with the proportions of the windows. Standard 6 Mr. Murray talked about the variety of styles and eras of homes in the neighborhood. Chair Dunn pointed out one Queen Anne house with a steeper roof pitch and five roof forms in front. Mr. Dunn drew the Commission's attention to the corner house at Magnolia and Mulberry, which is in the area of adjacency and seems more similar to the proposed building. Chair Dunn counted five roof forms on that home. Mr. Murray additionally noted the bay window with the compound roof. Ms. Nelsen asked for clarification on the Code in terms of the area of adjacency. Ms. Bzdek explained that a 200-foot radius can be considered, but the project must comply with all six standards for any historic resources on the site or abutting the site. She clarified that the homes across the street are not abutting. She said in this case, the Commission should consider the overall area of adjacency rather than just those closest to the project which are not of the predominant style as those in the whole area. She stated this was an eclectic environment in which to insert the new construction. Chair Dunn asked if the 1972 two-story apartment buildings with the Mansard roofs are shorter than the today's building Code would require. Mr. Bello and Ms. Nelsen both speculated that they are 8' ceiling heights. Ms. Nelsen commented that up to a 2.5-foot difference would be expected between a house 30 years ago and today. Mr. Shuff commented that current Code might not allow such a low a slope and clarified that residential housing cannot have a flat roof in some areas. Ms. Nelsen inquired about whether a motion could communicate that the project mostly meets 3.4.7 but might need finessing on the roof. Mr. Yatabe stated that the Commission's role is to make a recommendation based on whether it satisfies the criteria, and to state why it does or does not. Mr. Bello asked if they could make a condition that the rooflines be looked at for compatibility. Chair Dunn asked whether the Applicant could go to the Planning and Zoning Board without coming back to the Commission if they made changes to the design based on the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Yatabe explained that the Planning and Zoning Board could choose to send it back to the Commission if substantive changes are made. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved 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 that it does not comply with Part 6, Table 1 of the Code related to design details,particularly the complexity of the rooflines as compared to the adjacent properties. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.11 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Mr. Murray seconded. Chair Dunn stated that we desperately need more housing, especially in this area, and this is a great project from that perspective. She approved of the porches having a similar style to existing porches in the area. She commented that the project could fit in better if it were modeled after the Foursquares in the area of adjacency. Mr. Bello agreed, stating that was the only issue and it was otherwise a great project. He hoped they would take the Commission's advice. Mr. Rose said he would not support the motion. He agreed there is a desperate need for affordable housing. He stated this was a very good project with thoughtful articulation and that the roofline helps to diminish the overall scale and mass. He stated it would be unfortunate if adjusting the roofline resulted in increasing the massing. He added that the design is a sincere attempt to do something with density while attempting to integrate into difficult site in a sensitive way. Mr. Shuff interjected that they really wanted a recommendation for approval and would be willing to agree to conditions such as adjusting the roofline. Mr. Bello said he was willing to pull the motion and restate it as an approval with conditions. Mr.Yatabe said the Code talks about a recommendation and does not mention conditions. Mr. Bello asked whether the Commission has imposed conditions on a recommendation in the past, and Ms. Bzdek responded that they had done so in situations where the Commission was comfortable allowing Staff to follow up on the conditions in the final review process prior to going to hearing. Mr. Yatabe stated the Code does not specifically prohibit conditions, and that in this case an approval with conditions is essentially the same message as was conveyed in the motion for denial, if that language is preferable Mr. Yatabe stressed the importance of being specific about the condition. Mr. Murray suggested instructing Staff help to simplify the rooflines to reflect the abutting historic properties, although that would just refer to the 1950's houses which may not be preferable. Mr. Bello suggested approval without conditions, but outside of the motion recommending changes to the Applicant. Mr. Knierim agreed. Ms. Nelsen stated that as a whole the project does meet 3.4.7, and she would be concerned about efforts to reduce the complexity of the roofline because of the potential impact that may have on the overall design. She would be inclined to recommend approval full stop. Ms. Michell disliked the roofline and did not think it fit with the neighborhood but expressed concern that trying to fix it might make it worse. Neither Mr. Dunn nor Mr. Knierim had anything to add to what had already been stated. Motion failed 4-4 with Mr. Rose, Mr. Knierim, Mr. Bello, and Ms. Nelsen dissenting. Mr. Bello moved 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. Ms. Nelsen seconded. Chair Dunn asked whether the Planning and Zoning Board would see both motions. Ms. Bzdek responded that Staff would issue a summary memo of the Commission's findings that includes the motion and any substantive discussion points that were not specified as findings in the motion. Motion failed 4-4 with Ms. Michell, Mr. Murray, Mr. Dunn, and Chair Dunn dissenting. Mr. Bello asked if they could vote on his first motion again, explaining that he only voted against it because he planned to make this other motion and assumed it would pass. Mr. Yatabe emphasized that the Code says the Commission will make a recommendation. He added that there may be a rule for reconsideration of a motion, but he would need to research that. Mr. Shuff interjected that they are willing to work with Staff to make changes to the roof form. Mr. Dunn suggested that putting forward the split decision regarding Part 6 would be the best approach. Mr. Murray asked if they could make an amendment to a motion. [Secretary's Note: The Commission took a break 8:28 to 8:35. A roll call taken upon reconvening to confirm all were still in attendance.] Mr. Yatabe explained that a motion to reconsider is not preferred. A variation to a previous motion could be made, or someone who voted against the first motion could make a motion to reconsider which would need to be seconded, or a new motion can be made. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.12 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Mr. Murray moved 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, provided the Applicant works with Staff to help the design relate better to the abutting historic resources. There was no second. There was discussion about whether to continue the item to next month to give the Applicant an opportunity to revise their plans. Mr. Bello moved to continue the item to the February meeting, Ms. Michell seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 5. 359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER)— PROPOSED ENCLOSURE TO UPPER 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) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She provided some background on the building, reviewed the role of the Commission, and clarified that Staff is the decision maker for this item. She explained that the project must comply with the design review requirements in Chapter 14,Article III, of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, as stated in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(D)(2). Ms. Bzdek reviewed the area of adjacency and provided an overview of the previously approved plans for the building's renovation in 2015 and the addition of the lower-level patio sunshade last year. She summarized the currently proposed plans, pointing out some design features and additional views. Ms. Bzdek asked the Commission to consider key questions relating to Standards 2, 7, 9 and 10. Applicant Presentation Mr. Aronson discussed some of the design approaches that were considered and the evolution of the design. He explained details about the construction and connections for the enclosure. He addressed questions from the work session, clarifying that there was no previous enclosure and confirming the glass will be translucent and not tinted. He explained that they chose a different product that what was used for the upper patio for structural purposes. He also stated there was no historic parapet at the first floor. Ms. Graham explained the importance of the project to the future of the business. Mr. Graham expanded on her comments, explaining in more detail how the uncovered patio significantly limits the seating capacity of the restaurant in the colder months. He emphasized that the financial viability of the business depends on the approval of this addition. Ms. Graham added that temperature control has also been challenging in the summer. Mr. Aronson discussed how the project and design will meet Standards 2, 9, 7 and 10. He stated that no historic elements would be removed with this project, nor would the view of the historic window be obstructed. He also explained the measures they are taking to avoid structurally attaching to the historic structure. He noted that the new form will respect the historic building and that they have tried to make it as transparent as possible, even though the use of steel is structurally unavoidable. He also confirmed that this addition would be removable in the future if necessary. Public Input None Commission Questions Chair Dunn asked whether non-historic additions were previously removed from this building. Mr. Aronson said that was correct. Chair Dunn asked if the steel structure would go through the teaching kitchen to the floor. Mr. Aronson answered in the affirmative. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 8 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.13 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Mr. Murray asked about the approved addition on the north patio that was not built and whether more additions are planned in the future. Ms. Graham responded that they do intend to execute the plans for the north patio, but the timing has not worked out yet. They hope to complete both projects in 2021, after which the only uncovered space would be part of the lower patio where the bike racks, utilities, and stairs to the teaching kitchen are located. They may pursue an enhancement to the lower north patio in the future for street interaction with a possible food element such as a pizza oven or smoker. Other than that possibility, they do not have additional plans, and there are no other areas that could be enclosed. Mr. Murray asked if they had considered opening up the"slice of pie"addition. Mrs. Graham explained that the entire glass wall does open, but weather has prevented them from opening it as often as they would like. Ms. Graham explained that this proposed enclosure would add another 25 seats to the Cache restaurant, which is currently limited to 20 seats due to COVID restrictions. Under normal conditions, this enclosure will allow more events to be held regardless of weather. Chair Dunn commented that the addition only connects to the existing building on one corner, so as far as additions go, it is a very light touch. Commission Discussion Chair Dunn guided the discussion around the Code standards. Standard 2 Mr. Murray said he understood the need for the enclosure but expressed concern that at the street level only the front will really show the original feeling. He also questions whether some of the load will be on the old building. Ms. Graham stated that they worked hard to preserve the imagery of the historic building coming from Old Town and ensure that the public could appreciate the full effect of how the original old grain building looked. Chair Dunn suggested identifying the character-defining features of the building. She mentioned the unique gables and the storefront. Ms. Graham added that the white paint,the steep parapets,the steep roof with the cupula, and the scale were specifically called out in the historic report. Chair Dunn commented that the historic building is more visible than it would have been if the addition plans that had been approved by a previous Commission had actually been built. She said the visibility of the building will depend on how transparent the new structures will really be. Ms. Graham said their goal is for maximum transparency. Ms. Nelson commented that the only thing partially obstructed by the new enclosure is the southwest most parapet. She stated the project meets Standard 2. Standard 7 The Commission did not express any concerns regarding this standard. Standard 9 Ms. Nelsen commented that the schematic details provided were helpful. She stated that the addition seems to have very little impact on the historic part of the building, so it meets Standard 9. Standard 10 Mr. Knierim appreciated that there is very little direct interface between the new addition and the historic structure. Chair Dunn asked for any additional comments or discussion. Ms. Michell liked the glass and how the shape compliments the pie wedge. Mr. Bello stated that the addition fits in and does not negatively impact the important elements of the building. Mr. Dunn agreed, adding that the addition is not putting extra stress on the building since they have avoided attaching directly to it, and it would be easily disassembled. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 9 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.14 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Mr. Rose commented that it is a sensitive approach to dealing with the economic challenges and an imaginative way to solve a problem while honoring the historic integrity. He noted that the roof slopes are the same and the materials are repeated. He stated it is a totally acceptable solution. Commission Deliberation Mr. Bello moved 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, and further instruct staff to issue the required report to the State Historic Preservation Office summarizing these findings. Mr. Rose seconded. The motion passed 8-0. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn announced she is giving a talk at noon on Monday on the history of historic preservation as a preview to the Saving Places Conference. Ms. Bzdek suggested Chair Dunn give the presentation at an upcoming LPC work session. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on Meg Dunn, Chair Landmark Preservation Commission Page 10 January 20, 2021 Packet Pg.15 Agenda Item 2 Updated 2-16-21 REPORTSTAFF• - •n Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, JANUARY 7, 2021 TO FEBRUARY 3, 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 January 7, 2021 to February 3, 2021. There is no staff presentation this month. Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 127 N. Howes St. Repair of concrete stair in west courtyard. City January 7, St. Joseph's Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Approved 2021 Catholic School Code 14, Article IV. Installation of new fraternity signs on south gable January 11, 201 E. Elizabeth St. end. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Approved 2021 Municipal Code 14, Article IV. In-kind roof replacement(asphalt shingle). 410 E. Oak St. Contributing property to the Laurel School Approved January 11, Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff 2021 under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Replacement of windows with either aluminum- clad wood (upper floors)or vinyl (basement). Project did not meet Standards. Compliance with Standards not required due to type of designation and use. Staff provided relevant January 28, 633 Remington St. National Park Service guidance and Cost Approved 2021 Comparison tool to applicant to encourage repair rather than replacement. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Item 2, Page 1 Packet Pg.16 Agenda Item 3 STAFF REPORT - • 2021 Landmark - •n Commission PROJECT NAME TENNEY COURT NORTH AND WEST OAK STREET ALLEYS CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for improvements to two alleys: Tenney Court North and West Oak Street. APPLICANT: Downtown Development Authority OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Confirm no effect on designated historic resources EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has engaged in alley improvements in Fort Collins since 2006 to enhance aesthetics and use of these connective spaces in the Downtown. A 2008 master plan identified a multi-phased, prioritized approach to alley improvements and initial projects included Montezuma Fuller, Old Firehouse, Dalzell Alley, Beard more-Reid head-God inez, and Seckner Alleys. The current master plan calls for finalization of the improvements in five separate phases that will occur between 2020 and 2029. Phase 1 includes two square blocks of enhanced alleyways identified as Tenney Court North and West Oak Street alleys. The design and engineering team is Norris Design and JVA Consulting Engineers. Construction is expected to occur between spring 2021 and November 2021. The DDA is engaged in the capital project review approval process with City staff and outreach with the public, including involved property owners and businesses, and seeks Commission feedback for refinements of the plans in the final phase of design. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The improvements to the Tenney Court and West Oak Street alleys are proceeding as discussed with the LPC in October 2021, with some evolution of design details in the interim. The plans for these improvements reached the 90% completion milestone in January 2021. The design for each alley is based on a unique theme but serve the same goals: to encourage additional outdoor uses, inspire redevelopment of adjacent private parcels, create festive spaces with lighting and art installations, ensure emergency access and provide shared trash and recycling strategies, and implement a shared street model for vehicular access. Specific design elements include: • Vertical gateway elements • Circular concrete planters • Benches • Local granite rocks • Pedestrian lighting • Trash location • Wall mounted elements • Festoon lighting • Murals • Special paving Item 3, Page 1 Packet Pg.17 Agenda Item 3 RELEVANT REVIEW CRITERIA: Section 14-51. —Alterations to designated resources requiring a certificate of appropriateness or report. Alterations to rear elevations or other site features of designated landmark properties would require design review and approval based on the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As noted in the October 2020 discussion with the Landmark Preservation Commission, the proposed changes will not impact any elements of the historic setting or other historic features of the Armstrong Hotel, which is the only designated landmark property that directly abuts one of the alleys, West Oak Street Alley, included in this improvement project. Staff findings concur with this conclusion. Sample Motion "I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds the proposed alley improvements to Tenney Court and West Oak Street Alleys have no effect on the setting of the Armstrong Hotel, an abutting designated Fort Collins landmark, and therefore the work does not constitute alterations requiring review under Chapter 14, Article IV— Design Review of Proposed Alterations to Designated Resources." ATTACHMENTS 1. DDA Alleys LPC Staff Memo 2. DDA Alleys Applicant Presentation 3. Remote Hearing Acknowledgement Item 3, Page 2 Packet Pg.18 1§10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 ._ dda DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FORT COLLINS,COLORADO TO: Landmark Preservation Commission FROM: Todd Dangerfield THROUGH: Maren Bzdek DATE: January 25, 2021 RE: Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting, February 17, 2021 Tenney Court North/West Oak Street Alleys Projects Executive Overview Background In 1981,the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Plan of Development identified the alleys in the downtown area as an untapped opportunity for enhanced pedestrian connections. In 2006,the DDA initiated a pilot project which included improving the pedestrian-only Trimble Court (connecting College Avenue and Old Town Square) and Tenney Court(connecting Mountain Avenue with the Civic Center Parking Structure).The DDA's goal in initiating this project was to enhance the alleys aesthetically and to stimulate increased economic vitality and use of these spaces. In 2008,the DDA engaged local design firm Russell+Mills Studios to identify and create a master plan of proposed enhanced alleys between CSU, Downtown and the River District. Beginning in 2010,the first phase of alley enhancements began with the construction of two alleys: Montezuma Fuller and Old Firehouse Alleys. These two installations were followed by the construction of the Dalzell Alley enhancements in 2011 and the Beardmore-Reidhead-Godinez and Old Firehouse East/Seckner Alleys in 2018. The original master plan established a prioritized order of alleys to be enhanced. In 2019 the DDA Board reviewed the ten remaining alleys identified for enhancement, reexamined the relevancy of the order and made a few adjustments as well as establishing a model for"bundling" the remaining alleys into five separate phases for design and construction in alternating years beginning in 2020 and continuing through 2029. The Board established a finance plan for Phase 1 consisting of two square blocks of enhanced alleyways identified as "Tenney Court North" and "West Oak Street alleys." In early 2020,the DDA conducted a competitive process for design and engineering services related to the project. The team of Norris Design/JVA Consulting Engineers was formally approved for the project by the DDA Board in March 2020. The DDA is budgeting approximately$2.8 million for construction of the alley projects.The City Manager's recommended budget identifies$300,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 for the same purpose. The construction of both alleys is scheduled to begin in spring 2021 and be substantially completed in November 2021. Progress Designs Beginning in April 2020,the design team embarked on a programmatic and schematic design process that so far has engaged the City through the capital project review approval process as well as numerous individual coordination meetings with property owners and businesses adjacent to the two alleys. With the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on group gatherings,the team continues to explore additional opportunities for engagement with the public. Through this engagement process a final schematic (conceptual) design was developed and approved unanimously by the DDA Board of Directors in July 2020. Packet Pg.19 1§10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 ._ dda DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FORT COLLINS,COLORADO Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Meeting DDA staff member Todd Dangerfield and Cara Scohy of Norris Design presented 60% progress designs at the regular meeting held on October 21, 2020.The overall designs were well received by Commission members and City Preservation staff. Highlights of the dialog included: • Designing with frequent vehicle/delivery movements in the alleys and adjacent parking lots in mind; • Whether any traffic lanes would require modification; • The opportunity for interpretive signage to be installed in select locations in each alley explaining the inspiration for the designs. • The installation of ground-level planters at entries in previous alley projects was recognized as a positive traffic calming measure that should be included in the designs. At that time of the last update, "signature elements" of the design were still evolving. Since then the following refinements have occurred: • The project team constructed a scale mock-up of the proposed themed artistic element in the Tenney Court North Alley at LaPorte Avenue that has led to a reduction in the overall height to 15'-0". Improvements in material configuration have also been made that will simplify fabrication and bring the element within budget. • Designs and scale for the themed vinal wrap to be applied at interactive locations have evolved. • Designs for the themed elements in the West Oak Street alley have been refined and locations for the installations selected. • Paving colors and patterns as well as trash/recycling enclosure locations for each alley have been finalized. The attached images represent a higher-level of design progress since the October meeting with the team having just approached the 90%completion milestone on January 22na Architectural goals for the project include encouraging additional outdoor uses, inspiring redevelopment on adjacent private land, creating festive spaces using special lighting and artistic installations, ensuring emergency access where applicable, creating shared trash and recycling strategies as needed, and implementing a shared street model to allow vehicular access, including business deliveries and access to internal private parking lots in a controlled and integrated manner. Cara Scohy and Todd Dangerfield will present an overview of the progress designs at the meeting. The DDA is asking for feedback in anticipation of further refinement during this final phase of the design process. Packet Pg.20 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 1 Ul I 0 Rm At S Packet Pg.21 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 TENNEY COURT NORTH JANUARY 2021 KEY lO Decorative Lights 2O Decorative Rocks and Planters r 3O Seating Areas 4O Gateway Installation DTrash Enclosures 2 Paving Design 7O Improved Drainage r 3 SO Curbed Planters/Utilities Aw• _ Civic Center Parking Garage • - -- '°e 6 3 1 1 a � Fm®r ih .1 LA MIA PLAN VIEW L , Notes DESIGN Packet Pg.22 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 TENNEY COURT NORTH JANUARY 2021 KEY AO Eddington Blend lO Vertical Gateway Element BO River Red 2O Circular Concrete Planters r ii CO Buff 3O Anova Benches OCharcoal Local Granite Rocks -�� EO Standard Concrete SO Decorative String Lighting Sleeping Elephant 6O Trash Location GO Grey Rock i l HO Poudre River _ lO Colorado Aspens , - JO Poudre Falls II O � � D O ill O G� 6 PEP 10 c " O O O✓ ' � O O O O O O O 0 EAST MURAL COORDINATION NORMS DESIGN Packet Pg.23 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 TENNEY COURT NORTH JANUARY 2021 KEY AO Eddington Blend lO Circular Concrete Planters BO River Red 2O Anova Benches r CO Buff 3O Local Granite Rocks DD Charcoal D Pedestrian Lighting T EO Standard Concrete SO Trash Location FD Pin ree Valle 6O � Y 9 Decorative Lighting Forest Fire History i ,, HO Colorado Aspens if •..- 1��� aLrr.c.... rL� N C � O N f H ) Q � G Z 2 0 � SOUTH MURAL COORDINATION NORMS DESIGN Packet Pg.24 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 TENNEY COURT NORTH T-9" JANUARY 2021 �i 411 5� , - `.�ally__ - mod. •�� '`'%I .r 4: 20'-0" 8 11 t i 1 i 6'-0" 2'-0" 2, 2-Sz 5'.11" S..I Ba Grygutis Barbers Grygutis Sculpture LLC Vertical Gateway Element Nog"S(DESIGN CONCEPTUAL GATEWAY ELEMENTS Barbara Grygutis Sculpture, LLC ,..., .�q_..b... Packet Pg.25 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 TENNEY COURT NORTH JANUARY 2021 0 r I � 0 Foor - JFpll BEFORE PROPOSED AFTER (3D VIEW) NORMS DESIGN I Packet Pg.26 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 WEST OAK ALLEY JANUARY 2021 KEY - lD Vertical Gateway Element OFestoon Lighting 3O Hanging Baskets --- D Planter Pots r D Benches OPedestrian Lighting IL r Dae Gee Korean BBO n Jay's Bistro \ ►w^w.♦`wI♦`wI♦�w� r — ACE Hardware Joy Organics — x .rr q. Brand Spanking _ r - i a New Thrift Store _ Armstrong Hotel - lit .),j J PLAN VIEW NoWus DESIGN �- Packet PI ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 WEST OAK ALLEY JANUARY 2021 KEY lO Vertical Gateway Element OFestoon Lighting 3O Hanging Baskets i 4O Planter Pots SO Benches • 6O Pedestrian Lighting r r =j Doe Gee Korean BBQ )I m El / \ �� g 5 4 't a 1 - + ACE Hardware h Brand Spanking i New Thrift Store Notes DESIGN VIEW ENLARGEMENT Packet Pg.28 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 FORT COLLINS ALLEY RENOVATIONS - 2020 WEST OAK ALLEY JANUARY 2021 I cyP ,a nO oeve 4a4 s_a enp.�Aso e a� 15-0" 11'-6" yy A 1 i CONCEPTUAL GATEWAY ELEMENTS Barbara Grygutis Sculpture, LLC NOPWS(DESIGN Packet Pg.29 s /••.; r • Packet 1 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ,�, I ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Please reach out to Todd Dangerfield, Project Manager with the Downtown Development Authority• - � Todd Dangerfiel ! _ om Packet tdangerfield@fcgov.com� � �'' i f � .g ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 From: Todd Danaerfield To: Maren Bzdek Subject: RE: Remote Hearing Acknowledgment--Respond by noon,Wednesday,2/3 Date: Wednesday,February 3,2021 3:05:41 PM Attachments: imaae004.ona Hi Maren, Thanks for making me aware of this provision and I am fine with proceeding remotely with the meeting. Thanks, Todd Dangerfield, LEED AP BD+C Project Manager dda- DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FORT COLLINS • COLORADO 19 Old Town Square, Suite 230 Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Direct (970) 419-8254 Mobile (970) 237-9746 www.downtownfortcollins.org From: Maren Bzdek<mbzdek@fcgov.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 11:31 AM To:Todd Dangerfield <tdangerfield@fcgov.com> Subject: FW: Remote Hearing Acknowledgment--Respond by noon, Wednesday, 2/3 Importance: High Hi Todd, The City Attorney's Office has reminded staff that we should include a written acknowledgement from each applicant seeking a decision from the LPC that you understand the meeting will be conducted remotely on Zoom and that you are entitled to request that the meeting be delayed until the meeting could be conducted in person. This is required under Council's Ordinance 079 for remote hearings, as follows: Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or commission or an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use Code, shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi- Judicial Hearing using Remote Technology. Such person or applicant shall be entitled to request that the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be Packet Pg.32 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 conducted in person. Would you please reply immediately to this email that you are aware of this provision and would like to proceed with a remote hearing on Wednesday, February 17?Your response will be included as an attachment in the LPC agenda packet for the meeting. Thank you, Maren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAREN BZDEK She/Her/Hers Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Services 281 North College Avenue 970-221-6206 office mbzdekQfcaov.com Cfty Font Collins M�storx Pres*rvaW Twitter I Facebook Tell us about our service, we want to know! "The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those some systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more." COVID19 Resources For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business/ Want to help: https://www.fcgov.com/volunteer/ Recursos COVID-19 Para integrantes de la comunidad:https://www.fcaov.com/eps/Coronavirus Para empresas:httis:llwww.fcgov.com/business/ �Quieres ayudar o necesitas ayuda?https://www.fcaov.com/neighborhoodservices/ado 2 Recursos de United Way:https://uwa, Iv c.oral Packet Pg.33 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 REPORTSTAFF • 2021 Landmark - •n Commission PROJECT NAME ALPINE BANK(1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE)— DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 1608, 1610, and 1618 S College for construction of a new Alpine Bank building with parking and drive-up teller lanes, requiring demolition of two non-historic resources and onsite relocation of one historic resource, which would require approval of a modification of standards in section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Development site is in the General Commercial (GC) zone district, and the decision maker for this Type 1 Review will be a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Zell Cantrell, Galloway RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to decision maker LPC'S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker(hearing officer) regarding the proposed alterations, relative to their compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the proposed Alpine Bank project, which is currently undergoing staff review prior to hearing. As a pre-submittal requirement for the PDP, City staff contracted with Jason Marmor of Retrospect to evaluate the structures at 1610 and 1618 S College and produce evaluations via intensive-level survey forms. Mr. Marmor found 1610 S College to be eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under significance criterion 3, Design/Construction, [Code Section 14-22(a)(3)] based on its architectural significance as a Craftsman bungalow. The evaluation found that the residential structure retains very good architectural integrity, with no major alterations since it was constructed in 1928. Mr. Marmor found that the commercial building at 1618 S College is not eligible for landmark designation as it lacks significance under any of the criteria. Staff did not require an intensive-level survey of the commercial building at 1608 S College due to significant recent alterations that render it ineligible for consideration as a historic resource at this time. The LPC provided conceptual review comments to the applicant on November 18, 2020. PROJECT SUMMARY: In order to redevelop this multi-parcel site for the Alpine Bank project, the applicant proposes to demolish the structures at 1608 and 1618 South College Avenue; move the residential historic building at 1610 South College to the southern end of the development site and rehabilitate it for adaptive reuse; and construct a two-story, 8,242-square foot bank building with drive-up teller and ATM lanes, onsite parking. The project also includes improvements for a northbound deceleration lane, detached sidewalk, and associated eight-foot tree lawn along College Avenue. Item 4, Page 1 Packet Pg.34 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 The proposed relocation of 1610 S. College will require a new reinforced concrete foundation which will replace the original brick foundation and will change the basement from a full-depth basement to a crawl space. The new foundation will include the upper portion of brick cladding and a non-functional, period-correct garage-style door at the northeast corner of the building. The brick will be salvaged and used to create a ledge or mudsill for a single- depth brick cladding to replicate the visual appearance of the historic foundation. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: The "area of adjacency" for the purpose of historic review of the proposed changes is the development site because it contains an identified historic resource. 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 Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis—In General Complies/Does Code Not Comply _ Standard_ A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that SOI #1 requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and Complies spatial relationships. The property at 1610 S College was a residence for fifty years, between its construction date in 1928 and 1978. At that time, its use converted to office/commercial. The proposed redevelopment of this site would continue the property's era of adaptive reuse as an office/commercial building. To incorporate it into the proposed redevelopment, the building would be moved to the south, impacting its existing integrity of location and setting. The applicant will create a new concrete foundation for the building with a full-width brick cladding and will replace the rear garage entry with a nonfunctional, "period correct" door(specific product not provided). LPC conceptual review comments (see attached minutes) conveyed general support for these proposed alterations and indicated they meet this standard. The north elevation also indicates the intention to replace the basement windows with custom-made windows. Item 4, Page 2 Packet Pg.35 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 Applicable Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis—In General Complies/Does Code Not Comply _ Standard_ The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The SOI #2 removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial Complies relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. As noted above, the proposed work does include moving the building at 1610 S College to a new location on the south side of the site, to accommodate the new construction. LPC conceptual review comments (see attached minutes) conveyed support for moving the structure due to the existing and proposed site conditions and alterations, particular in respect to the siting of the planned northbound right-turn lane and the abutting site plan conditions for the bank. The LPC noted that moving the building to the south end of the development provides opportunities to maintain a more residential immediate setting for the building and a more comfortable spatial relationship with the site. The applicant does not believe the existing basement windows can be salvaged and would like to replace them with custom-made windows with opaque spandrel glass rather than clear glass. The Commission should also discuss with the applicant an appropriate _height/quantity of brick for the foundation (see east elevation). Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and SOI #3 use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as Complies adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Moving the building immediately to the south has the potential to create a false sense of history, so the redevelopment will need to include visible indicators and/or interpretative signage to document that the building has been moved. Staff recommends further exploration of this issue with the applicant to share suggestions and expectations for successfully meeting this standard. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own SOI #4 right will be retained and preserved. N/A Documentation of 1610 S College indicates no changes that have acquired significance in their own right. Item 4, Page 3 Packet Pg.36 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 Applicable Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis— In General Complies/Does Code Not Comply Standard SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or Complies examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The application notes that changes to the building will be limited to the new foundation, changes to the garage door at the rear, and minor rehabilitation and repairs. Elevation drawings also show new basement windows on the north elevation and a note indicating a new front porch and railing. Staff finds that the proposal to create a reinforced concrete foundation for the new building site, clad in salvaged brick from the original foundation, is appropriate method that takes advantage of the opportunity provided by moving the building and retains the visible character of the building's unusual brick foundation. SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where Complies 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. The applicant has identified and documented issues with the brick portion of the building's original foundation, which is the most urgent matter regarding the building's existing condition. Upon consultation with the LPC and further investigation of the foundation's original construction and current conditions, the applicant proposes to construct a reinforced concrete foundation clad in brick. Staff finds this meets the requirements of the standard. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the SOI #7 gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic Complies materials will not be used. The applicant's proposal to move the building to the south, while simultaneously addressing the foundation issues, is designed to stabilize the building as a whole and prevent further structural damage. If the Commission has any technical concerns about the details of the move, the treatment of existing damage to the building, and the new foundation, it would be very helpful for the applicant and staff to receive that information at this time. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such SOI #8 resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A Item 4, Page 4 Packet Pg.37 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 Applicable Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis— In General Complies/Does Code Not Comply Standard New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not SOI #9 destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work Complies 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. The new garage door at the rear and the changes to the foundation are _ primary considerations for this standard and generally meet the standard. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be SOI #10 undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential Complies form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. While the proposed relocation of the building is permanent, there are no design changes to the building that threaten its essential form and integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. Massing and 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be Complies Building articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of Articulation historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Discussion: Staff finds that the proposal meets this standard calling for similar building width relative to the historic residence on the site. While the new building's length along College is shown as 100.7 feet, the front porch design and front-gabled entrance help to break up the massing. In addition, the distance between the historic residence and the bank building, which will result from the relocation of the residence, further mitigates concerns related to the satisfaction of this standard. Massing and 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings Complies Building to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one Articulation 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. Staff finds no concerns related to the height of the new bank building based on physical distance from the historic residence on the site, and the stepped down design to one story at the south end of the building. Item 4, Page 5 Packet Pg.38 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 Applicable Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis—In General Complies/Does Code Not Comply Standard Building 3. The lower story facades until any stepback(required or Complies Materials 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: Staff finds the proposed materials for the bank building (brick, wood siding, concrete masonry, and wood timber) meet this standard. Building 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate Complies Materials 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: Staff finds the proposed materials for the bank building (burgundy brick, cedar shake siding in cedar and grey, natural wood siding, burgundy concrete masonry, wood timber in cedar, grey, white) meet this standard relative to the historic residential building in all 5 aspects. Fenestration 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) Complies 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. Discussion: Staff finds the proposed design meets this standard. Item 4, Page 6 Packet Pg.39 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 Applicable Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis—In General Complies/Does Code Not Comply Standard Design Details 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements Complies (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: Staff finds the proposed design meets this standard. While there was some discussion at LPC's conceptual review of the project about the use of the Craftsman style as inspiration for design of the bank building, there are no code-related concerns regarding that matter and the stylistic similarities more than satisfy the intent of this standard. Visibility of New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining N/A Historic architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features Features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Staff finds no evidence of concern regarding this standard. Item 4, Page 7 Packet Pg.40 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 Applicable I Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis—In General Complies/ Code Does Not Standard i _ Comply Applicable, and the decision maker may grant a modification of Land Use standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not Complies Code 2.8.2 be detrimental to the public good, and that: Modification Review (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the Procedures standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better (H): Step than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a 8(Standards): modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or(4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Staff finds that the applicant has presented sufficient information to justify a modification of standards to allow for the relocation of the historic Craftsman residence based on satisfaction of three of the four criteria (only one is required):the plans to move the building are equal or better than a plan that would leave the building in its current location, due to the additional site and setting constraints that are required to accommodate the northbound right turn lane; that exceptional physical and practical difficulties are presented by the condition of the existing foundation and physical proximity to the required turn lane, and, based on initial LPC conceptual review comments for this project, that the relocation is a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard that would normal require keeping a building in its current location. Item 4, Page 8 Packet Pg.41 Agenda Item 4 Revised 2-16-21 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 Alpine Bank project at College and Prospect, finding that the proposal to move and rehabilitate the historic building complies with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, that the relocation of the building is sufficiently supported by satisfaction of three of four criteria for modification of standards, and that the design of the new bank building complies with all six of the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 (E), Table 1." 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 Alpine Bank project at College and Prospect, based on the following findings: [insert findings] Sample Motion for a Continuance: The Commission may propose a motion to continue the item to a subsequent meeting if insufficient information is available to answer key questions related to the code requirements, based on the following outline: "I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission continue this item to the next meeting in order to seek additional information regarding the following code requirements: [insert] ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation (Updated 2/16/21) 2. Applicant Presentation (Updated 2/16/21) 3. November 18, 2020 LPC Meeting Minutes Excerpt 4. Site Form_1610 S College 5. Remote Hearing Acknowledgement 6. Site Form_1618 S College (Added 2/16/21) 7. Draft Plan of Protection (Added 2/16/21) Item 4, Page 9 Packet Pg.42 I � 1 so '• • • FiCity of Landmark Preservation Commission, February 17,2021 t Collins Mas Alpine Bank (1608-1618 S College)— Development Review Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner LPC Role Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (hearing officer) regarding compliance with SectionI of - land use code 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated on 2-16-21 City of FQr-t Collins `�` I I r c.aaaa-cv s error rfcw m nc cnr�rmr cn-r..rr+s cacnxn ' - 1608 LL e - -_�: .:���- -_ .• -_�, I !— - III 1610 1618 -MEW I IY r F_ - 3 MB1 City of Project Summary F„�t�C1S • Demolish structures at 1608 and 1618 S College • Move Craftsman residence (1610 S College) south; rehabilitate for adaptive reuse • Construct 2-story, 8,242 s.f. bank building with drive-up teller and ATM • Add northbound deceleration lane, tree lawn/detached sidewalk im 1 Packet Pg.44 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated on 2-16-21 Slide 4 MB1 Maren Bzdek,11/3/2020 Packet Pg.45 I 1 Eligibility Assessments • 1608 S College (Lewan Bldg) cleared via recon survey t Eligibility Assessments • Intensive-level surveys: • 1610 S College: Eligible (Criterion C — Craftsman Bungalow) • 1618 S College: Not Eligible � 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated on 2-16-21 History • 1 S College -Constructed 1928 r -I.C. Bradley's Addition: residential on 1600 Blk - List family • • 1s: Blk conversion to commercial after CO287widened Features1948 Craftsman Architectural Original materials, design, workmanship - • Side-gabled roof, wood frame bungalow • Overhanging eaves, exposed beams and rafter tails • Wood shingle cladding of gable faces _ • Open front porch • Multi-light sash-and-transom windows A • Semi-subterranean single-car garage Altered • front porch posts, stairs/railings • two rear windows and garage door „ t replaced Rehab needs: foundation issue — - 1610 South College Avenue,facade,looking east. g Packet Pg.47 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated on 2-16-21 1610 South College Avenue,rear/east elevation,looking west. 1610 South College Avenue,enclosed rear porch vestibule at SE end of dwelling,looking NW. PIP r � (IpettlQi1100 _ - • • • - • I I f❑ I � _J s; i ql au ICON alm oaao��to 1 nnvan I „rlade 17 tlace n 1 } i- h lion lore.Ft.. I _J awn,and �b 10'sioe- II 1 t 1 I�I ♦•� � ,r�t�! f'!0.K 0 T� �* I Or 15 Id I � Ias L _ J WA mta ftecoxmelwbJ 1o�n- II � — tic�d p.oyw.i I 1 t,N htau.ao I ,r, I I I -_-_=- Ext"locaben o I Iamb luing clgnifr 1 V - e wrtt Dulging �010 _ IIP r mwlm Figure 1.1-Site Plan 10 Packet Pg.48 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated on 2-16-21 City of Review Requirements ' 1 SOI Standards (1928 Residence) Modification of Standards criteria: • Plans are equal or better than plan that complies • Plans substantially address important need in City Plan • Exceptional physical conditions and Design Compatibility with 1928 Craftsman practical difficulties residence • Divergence from standards is nominal or inconsequential 11 East/Rear Elevation City of Fort Collins 12 Packet Pg.49 West/Front Elevation Aw- ExISTINO FRONT VORCH WITH NEW I lIAND RAVING 13 North Elevation \y�y ��I � _ - -- _ - ExISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN AS-I5,TVPICAI NFW pASEMENT WINDOWS NORTH ELEVATION 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated on 2-16-21 City of South vv NCIN BRICK*AIN$CC!7 NEW TRIM ACCENT PAINT SALVAGED FROM EX1S1,NC - SOUTH ELEVATION 15 City of LPC Conceptual Comments Fort Collins Building Relocation and Rehabilitation • Relocation helps to maintain integrity: concern for condition of foundation, easier to retain a more residential immediate setting with proposed site plan • Garage door: functionality not required; opening is most important; may require creative solution due to grade change • Foundation: confirm original design; plans (save brick if original, as unique design feature of structure) • Front porch: "as is" okay; in-kind replacement of material as necessary • Landscaping: maximize green space surrounding; simple design okay 16 Packet Pg.51 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated on 2-16-21 City+of LPC Conceptual Comments Design Compatibility (New Bank Building) • Brick or stone base okay • Porch feature is positive massing feature • Craftsman noted as residential style; but use on commercial does provide compatible scale, respect for materials, fenestration, window placement, and residential design vocabulary • Appreciation of welcoming, pedestrian friendly design 17 City of Staff • Key Questions/Staff Findings: • Do revised rehabilitation details meet SOI Standards? Complies • Does the modification request for 3.4.7, relevant to the proposal to move the Craftsman residence, satisfy at least one of the required modification criteria? Meets Criteria 1 , 3, 4 • Does the revised design of the new construction comply with all six of the compatibility standards in 3.4.7(E), Table 1? Complies 18 Packet Pg.52 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 G a• owa GreenwoodS Willow Drive,Suite 320 11 Gree Village,CO 80111 303.770.8884• GallowayUS.com January 25, 2021 Maren Bzdek Senior Historic Preservation Planner City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Alpine Bank at SEC of S. College & E. Prospect 1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Relocation of Architecturally Significant Building Dear Maren, Please find enclosed the following materials in anticipation of a Formal Review by the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)at their regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021. • Project Narrative • Site Plan from Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) response materials dated January 20, 2021. • Exterior Elevations for proposed Alpine Bank from Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) response materials dated January 20, 2021. • Landscape Plan from Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) response materials dated January 20, 2021. • Modification of Standards (revised January 25, 2021) relative to relocation of Architecturally Significant Building Located at 1610 S. College Avenue • Design Compatibility Standards associated with proposed new Alpine Bank located within 200' of Architecturally Significant Building located at 1610 S. College Avenue • Exterior Elevations of Architecturally Significant Building • Contextual Perspectives of both proposed Alpine Bank and Architecturally Significant Building as viewed from College Avenue. Please review the enclosed materials and let us know if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. We look forward to discussing our proposal with you in November. Sincerely, GALLOWAY Zell O. Cantrell Site Development Project Manager Zell Cantrell@GallowayUS.com cc: Glenn Davis, Alpine Bank via Email Ben Van Hoose, Alpine Bank via Email Todd Goulding, GDA via Email Kristoffer Kenton via Email Dana Clark via Email Packet(0a.53 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 G a• owa GreenwoodS Willow age, Suite 320 11 Gree Village,CO 80111 303.770.8884• GallowayUS.com Project Narrative Alpine Bank at SEC of S. College Avenue & E. Prospect Road 1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue — Fort Collins, CO The proposed project anticipates the redevelopment of multiple properties located at the southeast corner of S. College Avenue & E. Prospect Road into an 7,800 +/- square foot branch office of Alpine Bank which would provide banking services both interior to the building as well as through drive-up teller and ATM lanes located on the exterior of the building. Access to and from the site is anticipated to come from a single curb-cut to be located on S. College Avenue as well as from the Alley which borders the eastern edge of the site which allows access from Prospect Road. The existing property consists of multiple lots including three different existing buildings all of which include frontage along S. College Avenue. The northern (1608 S. College) and southern (1618 S. College) most buildings were both constructed in the 1960s and appear to have served a variety of retail and commercial uses since that time. The middle building (1610 S. College) was constructed in the 1920s and served primarily as residential until the late 1970s when it has since been used for commercial purposes. Access to the three existing buildings comes primarily from multiple curb-cuts on College Avenue as well as from the alley which borders the eastern edge of the properties. The referenced alley provides direct access to Prospect Road to the north and Parker Street to the South. Based on two different Concept Review Meetings as well as several follow-up meetings with Development Review Staff we have developed a site plan that includes a two-story, 7,800 +/- square foot branch office for Alpine Bank located on the northern portion of the site with visibility from both S. College as well as E. Prospect. We have consolidated access to site resulting in a single access from S. College and shared access to E. Prospect. Shared access to E. Prospect is the result of discussions with city staff in which it is was determined that direct access from the property is not necessary if we can achieve a shared access scenario through use of the alley which borders the eastern edge of the site. Proposed development would include three drive-through lanes located on the east side of the building away from the S, College frontage. Drive-through will include two teller operated lanes and one ATM accessible lane. Site has been designed to accommodate vehicular parking located at the eastern and southern portions of the site oriented away from both public right-of-ways. We have also incorporated a north bound deceleration/right-hand turn lane into S. College Avenue to better facilitate right-hand turn movements from S. College to Prospect. The proposed deceleration lane and subsequent right-of way dedication is a requirement from the City of Fort Collins. Improvements along S. College also include incorporation of an 8' tree lawn and detached sidewalk consistent with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Addition of the deceleration lane, tree lawn, and detached sidewalk will allow for final build-out of the southeast quadrant of the intersection of S. College Avenue & E. Prospect Road consistent with the other three quadrants. The proposed project as described anticipates the demolition of two of the three existing buildings and on-site relocation of the third building which has been identified as being 'Architecturally Significant' as the result of a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey completed in Packet(0a.54 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 January 2020. The two buildings to be demolished are located at 1608 and 1618 S. College Avenue. Please note that both of these buildings were the subject of separate Colorado Cultural Resource Surveys and were not deemed to be historically significant. The building to be relocated on-site is currently located at 1610 S. College Avenue and would be relocated to the South end of the site to better facilitate redevelopment of the northern portion of the properties into a branch office for Alpine Bank. It is our understanding that the Section 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources of the Land Use Code does not currently include a provision that would allow for the on-site relocation of any building deemed to provide some level of historical significance. Therefore, our application for Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) will include a Request for Modification of Standards intended to justify and hopefully secure a recommendation to approve the on-site relocation of this 'Architecturally Significant' building to better facilitate the proposed development. A copy of this Request for Modification dated January 25, 2021 which includes our justifications for relocation has been attached for your review and consideration. The relocation of the 'Architecturally Significant' building located at 1610 S. College Avenue is intended for the adaptive reuse and preservation of the building only. While future uses of the building are yet to be determined it is anticipated to be used for a low intensity non- nuisance commercial activity such as office space. The scope of work for the relocation is anticipated to be limited to providing a new reinforced concrete foundation and general face- lift to the exterior elevations including paint and minor repairs as needed. It should be noted that while we do plan to relocate the building onto a new foundation, we do not anticipate the new foundation to be a full depth basement as exists today. The new foundation will be designed to include a crawl space only. It should be noted that the new foundation will also incorporate the upper portion of brick visible today as well as a period correct door at the NE corner of the building. While this period correct door will not be functional it will visually preserve one of the unusual features of this building which is garage style access to the basement. The proposed reinforced concrete foundation will also visually incorporate the upper portion of brick that is visible around the majority of the building. During a more detailed structural investigation of the building it became clear that the brick was original to the building as it is visible from both outside and inside the building. It is full depth brick integral to the existing foundation. It is assumed at this time that neither the brick nor the concrete portion of the foundation include any steel reinforcement which might explain the significant cracking in the existing foundation. The brick aspect of the existing building foundation will be incorporated into the new foundation by creating a ledge or mudsill for a single depth brick to be applied to and therefore maintain the visual provided by the existing brick while simultaneously providing a more structurally sound foundation that meets current code. Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg.55 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 Galloway SCHEDULE LEGEND _----L-- EAST PROSPECT �-m v ,�M. " xaro ee nn .....mnxu -_ /\ xxom sst IN RIGHT R WAY VARIES �' coavalcriT ————— — —— - ' —— —If3YE,4I-21 Vse mre,mU rian rd muse xes�'n liae�r �w I.aelg me m , ^j°' ' Exsmn,m�nm m mxl m�,a—_ � xev.evsme emomos•uuvm,vux vw m.wiwx vxm a �•v � waaan,.moos xG� m cmme e�c,vxu mrza� u'•uaa v `"', -- x LOT 13s vm„K Po m xmxoF Im22 ® 21 122 �_9rt ® Imp , II u remv mx mmrmE wxl�k © Emnw rtiaxx N.ui [m,iw xpu a[ra a auom IgN'25'Y Pd8 ' Ix o 'l,0 1 LOT 14 © s,a<,.n,vm,m m,zss xrtE mo 9m,a. ® mx aomm>,osml I s = j xm Q iM o.wixs suu Im.k o PROPOSED o—�z'A .s¢oAuu I3 BANK I .,m. o � �I o I I I mm„mr � �»c smm snxx m•�, IIIa3 L U iimo mT Q a W On q LOT 15 I I Ex=nx� mom to 'I n w � �n� LOUQ o I m i _ 8O srvmf 9�cM m EASEMENT SCHEDULE J a O II .s 8 Imam.Ez m t4 Z = a Z Li I' j L——J 8 .a�`aw.i.omwxs a m = w O z,O LOT 16 o.°i. r"mxcmv`.wcnu�"," u e.ma A mE 0-W 0 V a Z 0 ♦r I; g F-a c o -- -- 4- Zz Ow,x Y CHMARKMm ¢ NO 11 Ipury am�I LOT 17% rt F- 1 $ mm,n�xPmx Ix:, •, BASIS OF BEARING - I' I - m n �I - M 'I x&651 I•. 16 ® HISTORICAL � __ zr ____x_____ • I _ BUILDING z, L LOT 18' o __ — e. REiOCATED II �c. kosp 14 I I _1zw IN'b0 SITE PLAN 5 LOT 19 l i i 7--- 2 I I i I OF n Packet Pg.56 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 III SITE PLANS FOR Galloway ALPINE BANK LOTS 1,2,3,4,5 AND 6 OF THE I.C.BRADLEY'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SITUATED INT HE NW 114 OF SECTION 24,T.7 SL,R.69 2.,OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COUNTY OF LARIMER,STATE OF COLORADO EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE OCTOBER 2020 LABEL MATERIAL fALOR ��oP' I� I� COPYRIGHT °wr NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE SOUTH WEST 3 E. W W Lu Lu z Z All W W C7 W � J � O oxo J O O O z o I L yi U w a U z¢ = CC r - — —oz w O w w o LL Z n a U N F Lu a o 8 O� 2 SOUTH ELEVATION Aa U Q m ri owte IeweNeeolplon 131'Sfi e ® ® All — FRUR = pem BY MmB l —I�I ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS WEST ELEVATION cxo aF li Packet Pg.57 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 III SITE PLANS FOR Galloway ALPINE BANK LOTS 1,2,3,4,5 AND 6 OF THE I.C.BRADLEY'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, —A SITUATED INT HE NW 114 OF SECTION 24,T.7 SL,R.69 2.,OF THE 6TH P.M. pa`aG�o� CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COUNTY OF LARIMER,STATE OF COLORADO ��� 1,01 OCTOBER 2020 Q�Oo��P4o�5 FJ EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE COPYRIGHT IABEL MATERIAL COLOR Exrs cl, ® EEYOxo —.— —. W EEYa o Z W PC Q W � J Of O J 0U w 0aU NORTH ELEVATION z¢ r w z E.ana g w O w w 0 LL Z n a U a o 0 Of n Q m E p Om IuueNeempion _ 11L2 itv[La� ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS LL EAST ELEVATION 4 ie-ia OF 17 Packet Pg.58 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 MATERIAL LEGEND: Galloway F­ IN——­7 =vGG,mul'i o ­ L NT­TOM ­ ­ o <---<---- rn. 0_ COPYRIGHT `D'y 2 11-1 IRINT H,.HEH INIME—N-TH lwl PT U ENLARGED TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN SLOPE1011110TI 110— . TRASH E + -OINIHOPHIGHOPUE.P ­ExtxosuRE­T= -1 A11IM11 EN7 PGP­ I COONEOGE IOU 11—C—PETE.1 zT, III 11UTS IMIID INTO Emir .1TEREOPPI.—HIPE AT"RIERI 11 DETAIL BOLLARD �RENCLQ�SUREFRONTELEVATION To IA1E­N,.B NE, Lu 8 do Lu Lq P. 8 ENLARGED PLAN DETAIL(ED TRASH ENCLOSURE - `°q ­E 0 2�o ­�ENRI 0 IN THO ES z A GUE <.­­ CONTI-1—F—ING LE Ll'I=DEU o Jo LU A- z G-PEPEA-1—IM ,�,ENCLQ�SURESIDEE�LEVATION F- (3D�Z E D REI I P6:PIPE T 1UPALRIINI-111—REF UPUU PE UM, HINGE P_111'1111E U MII q DETAIL @ PRE-CAST CONIC.CAP TWO YARD SLANTNISTABLI�ELIVATIONN \—DOOR-LE­EDEU­ (—I E. PLIW ID ENCLOSURE SIDE ELEVATION CONCHUE "U "UP HINGNEELEIGININ 8P, RE'EZTZ FOR IU1211 =ETEU­ EDGE 11 111E —E.-TO— G_ I-1 _TO_j. ...IT-1- LT 1111—NALE""I" GLIA IN GRADEON — G 11G, GIG I P=T REF GAL —G, H­ 0 H ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS ENCLOSURE BACK XELIVATION TWO YARD D S�LANTELEVAT�10N . GATE HINGE �.CTI�N TRASH ENCLOSURE Packet Pg.59 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 JLL NS STREET TREE NOTE Galloway EAST.PRQSREGT"R-0AD— .— — „xmx. xs xa aE ��eooe°°� \ RIGHT-OF WAY VAR1€S a.x.xoi oExvw.xx„o ux � Q�tp��oeos .E.7OZo� ems EE.ER s<.xo Es �O mxtxnE 5-x III _ u COPYRIGHT o® I LOT 1Ei,_F .���r �•��E.xEE E. E xEE T. EEM ..�.a «aE x - i i:id 1I LOT 1 PUNTING LEGEND PROPOSED -n moc wzm re. O l uT AliEv ra [W.O•lY/L r1nAL1b ..,. im:... l�.E 0 BANK i:.l • - two I} �. 4r¢r I E%l4T►q TpEEr I I I M � - t fill rlrraq illr[10lIFlOGTlD arllE M1W11alCHYft - Eld11.1-1 r ry GOtNDtlE 10l RH1Mto.@ilErtlpiTrNOWIf O OECDUDU6TIEEC I I O �I I J �( 'l a 'G! GtNJAtlrrgM nlJrIlNG1MlA rrX ONI at1UG wI I'm0°i � ® rx�ski r ' LOl r ove ovtrlonioleololcw.scncasc s..nwoarstlr ruLr! rut it E O r ® Q w lLu k— ���••..✓✓✓ EvrRGRUN tnr� K (w7l} I 6 _— — ; url u frlEWeV.METgra xrrN.D___ VM<EIIWafa Warnr•E rMflanW ]rxar ., 1 ZLu ~ a« �l .+v,w w.w:ele.www rnr vr.rlr rarw,ua naanw > W �O Mn + ,4vlw o +w•1 'iIIl L—- \/t;�J -DECrO VDUc.Bn S HRUScus l.orr�,u,.oaamc _ t w.Sc,iv:. lara_rt lra_r_ ro r+ r. U O If " W N 01— DQ J OK °�L0 g J O LL Y U >cn ® YO riwwu.tu,u.uurrw,w wcart aar w. Z = Q Z Z Q Z. ® II ® m <nv wax wm re I. ® rotrmusmnoae.•.coo ouet.rwooT POfLMn4 noon Irar J W Q W O n �} . roa trolrrm.AnlufiCOGlltDrolM uo nrKrollMw. Mart liar W striae D_Z J = m ro W Do 0 Nm �m . ., srth mdxre, :; a I LOT e. sA•L tMllAwrvau w.rcel W�rte tlrW weaNt lwr ry ul rvw ~D- � UO 0 • '"rs` - -_ _____ --` 1 �IW IirnrnPMtlCA ataaaow amwLon rttwc moan Irrr tir nM L fn Q (N LL xA)� I _ 9 _ ,x°nnv EVEROINEN SIaVBr l�ucl � ` cm - ' ivpre a YID! MLTd.tlMrbaaaaOi11a01Nr OplatlOONWWTA Woolf IrW r!' I .rA x N Dan uuelUampton I I ... _ �.. I b W JiM�EnIIriIGIiWrYI VfNDJrI£r npa(I q.IS I! NIE x Inn. I .. _� I ,nnmm,srvovws xrs OOQQI-tlt� r____ raNN. ,rn+mx rzxowvsus a 4DV . (� a aatr mtowrtm.rruAtw aautror tat n.rtmaeirta narrt roar .a N r,rt. — — aE9 x�i - O . v.0 l.arrrloor.ur.ous.o+ vwurarwwvwon! scan lax ru arw•.. __ _ _ HISTORICAL BUILDING O° °__ ________ — L--°-- CF ,a wAo NwOln Aanpralcpwcti cO.sMc'tomoa.awllnLr ncart ISY )t.• l.+ an RELO AL y qIW.ItlNAL SiRAb6f5 ma's •I}. ® euaaroeontatelmraoxatuw•mlrtrr .Nawa®ltrerAtttntlrcoowsi nooxl Isar r x Q —� ntlr xIICiDAOENrtlI.OFNM rY/ANNA Matllf, raN -- — al wa NirrplAttlr!!lA .ipowrrittec mart nr alv x II -�' Ydx uua4 m. sm mmt m. 6 �,y KMIW MIld0U1MMl.M� W WIA YNWW n Calf &'AI•I M I - I I O tl rYE fYfY14tl110Y VINOOIn4' fM.oarM iKtM it Gall lrfW LOT 19 1 as I I 0 2tMtl cn ral rtnaLtvtouarW RrGir _ _ pp ___ _I yy . v 0 0 rraoowvulicaraumllaxrwr assrconn r.®rm.vrw,wnuw rol II} LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 Doer ve000wwuloutlnnara oNN eeonwsrlmeeo..lowoaol•IIeH wcH w __- 0 tatl IIOO�COltrell♦ta1 u•tatrtw M,aM/LL 1Unit M+lrM4.l1 tq.Cx M -u�rtrnecarranw `/� ttrV atR®a.m rloamvla r6lMdlNrnalri ra!! � Ni N. 3 Packet Pg.60 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 G a• owa GreenwoodS Willow Drive,Suite 320 11 Gree Village,CO 80111 303.770.8884• GallowayUS.com January 25, 2021 Maren Bzdek Senior Historic Preservation Planner City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Alpine Bank at SEC of S. College & E. Prospect 1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.4.7—Historic and Cultural Resources of Land Use Code (DRAFT) Background Information Alpine Bank is currently under contract to lease approximately .96 Acres at the Southeast corner of S. College Avenue * E. Prospect Road in Fort Collins. Colorado. Property is more commonly identified as 1608, 1610, and 1618 S. College Avenue. Property consists of multiple lots which include three existing buildings. All three buildings either have been or are currently being used for commercial purposes. Two of the three buildings appear to have been designed for commercial purposes and are believed to have been constructed in the mid-1960s. The remaining building is a residential design and believed to have been constructed in 1928. All three properties are currently zoned General Commercial District (C-G)which allows for a variety of retail and commercial uses including "Offices, Financial Services & Clinics" as defined in the Zoning District Matrix of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The proposed development would be subject to a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP), subsequent Type 1 Review and Public Hearing, and eventually a Final Development Plan (FDP). The decision maker for Type 1 Hearings is an Administrative Hearing Officer which is a land use attorney from outside of Fort Collins. In order to facilitate the proposed project, we anticipate the demolition of two of the three buildings and on-site relocation of the third building which has been identified as being `Architecturally Significant' as the result of a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey completed in January 2020. The two buildings to be demolished are located at 1608 and 1618 S. College Avenue. The building to be relocated on-site is currently located at 1610 S. College Avenue and would be relocated to the South end of the site to better facilitate redevelopment of the northern portion of the property into a branch office for Alpine Bank. While we have not formally submitted our application for PDP, we have had two Concept Review Meetings with the Development Review Team and several follow-up meetings and calls to work through a variety of issues. One of which is the possible relocation of the architecturally significant building located at 1610 S. College Avenue. Based on those discussions and our understanding of Section 3.4.7—Historic and Cultural Resources of the Fort Collins Land Use Code there are no provisions in place for the relocation of structures deemed to be of architectural significance. Modification of Standards Requested We are requesting a Modification of Standard Section 3.4.7—Historic and Cultural Resources of the Fort Collins Land Use Code which would allow for the relocation of a building deemed to be of architectural significance based on the following justifications. Packet(Pa.61 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 Alpine Bank S. College& E. Prospect January 25, 2021 Justifications 1. Proposed deceleration lane creating undesirable proximity of Architecturally Significant Building to College Avenue— Proposed redevelopment will require the addition of a deceleration/right-hand turn lane to north bound College Avenue to Prospect Road. Proposed deceleration lane will require a right-of-way dedication on behalf of the property owner as well as the addition of a detached sidewalk and tree lawn to the College Avenue frontage. Per recommendations found in the Traffic Impact Study by Kimley-Horn dated October 2020 the length of the deceleration lane should be maximized and expected to about 190' which will correspond with the proposed location of the right-in/right-out access. These improvements result in approximately 30' of encroachment into the property vs. existing conditions which will eliminate any existing historical or residential context in and around the building. The proposed on-site relocation would not only allow us to shift to building further south but also to shift the building to the east and allow us to create some separation or buffer between the existing building and College Avenue. \ / \ LASS MlCSFt.C1 RMb • /l _WW Of soy VM_ — 1 i— tar u Row dedication to ntdude 12'decelera- l 1 BW I lion lane.8'tree lawn,and 10'srde- ( ' T lATtO I ItY I I— J tot Recommended loca- tion of proposed I t n t-iry' ht-out - y � N -- ----_ Ewsting lcca6oci of Architecturally s►gnifi- I _.ant building I r' IiStOeral � • Lot%a I '. ttr t>9wF Figure 1.1 —Site Plan Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg.62 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 Alpine Bank S. College& E. Prospect January 25, 2021 2. Spacing of revised access point from College— Right-of-way dedications and addition of a deceleration lane will also require modifications to existing access along College Ave. Per recommendations found in the Traffic Impact Study by Kimley-Horn dated October 2020 the length of the deceleration lane should be maximized and expected to about 190' which will correspond with the proposed location of the right-in/right-out access. It should be noted that the preferred location does take into account spacing between existing access points located further south on S. College Avenue. Please note that proposed access location conflicts with location of existing building to remain. Please see Exhibit 1.1 above for additional details. 3. No Existing Historical Context at Present Location— Existing location on S. College in which the building is flanked on both the north and south sides by buildings constructed nearly four decades later provides no historical context for the building at this time. Referenced buildings are both believed to be constructed in the 1960s a represent a significant departure in architectural style from the building located at 1610 S. College. While it is believed that several similarly styled residential houses were once located along S. College Avenue prior to construction of these two adjacent buildings in the 1960s, those buildings no longer exist making this building the only remaining example of this type of architecture along this stretch of S. College. Since no historical context remains in the existing location, we believe relocation to the south does not represent a significant departure from the current context. We further believe that relocation to the south and possibly to the east away from S. College actually presents an opportunity to provide or enhance the surrounding context to better reflect what might have existed when the building was originally constructed in the 1920s. 4. Integration into overall development in a way that allows for a functional site plan for new use as well as adaptive reuse— Existing location of house essentially bisects the site into one mostly developable area to the north and a mostly undevelopable area to the south. By leaving the building in place we would be trying to redevelop the property around it with a somewhat inconsistent or incompatible use located in the middle of the property. Simply shifting or relocating the building to the south would allow for a more cohesive or contiguous development of the property to the north. We have included two hypothetical site plans below for reference. Note that current location of historically significant building creates two undesirable scenarios for proposed access—one in which stacking for the deceleration lane is too short and the other in which in extends so far south the spacing between additional access points along College is insufficient. Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg.63 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 Alpine Bank S. College& E. Prospect January 25, 2021 � 1 _ii4OSPECT gD. 'F`VPPSPECT AD - s IE...wcencclenT.lwc I wAgar . tee. 6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER p 8'LANDSCAP_E BUFFER , K li pyyq� G e 12'DECELERATONLANE .. ���11�I 0 ••�1'�.7 ` # r!' 1610'9.5 24'5 -�r�` 11�1 10,1019.5'24' 5' 10'SIDEWALK I 10 SIDEWALK' _ , 12'DECELERATION LANE • I I a p n 24' 19' U I 4 I. w rn a Exhibit 4.1 — Hypothetical Exhibit 4.2— Hypothetical The location of the existing building further limits our ability to develop the property in a functional manner by forcing customer parking away from the proposed building. In both hypothetical site plan scenarios customer parking is not at all convenient and therefore not functional for a retail banking facility such as Alpine Bank. 5. Structural Concerns— Based on a preliminary review of the foundation of the existing building there are definitely concerns that will need to be addressed in order to safely reuse. With both ends of the building indicating some form of movement we believe soil movement may be an issue. Not only will the existing foundation need to be repaired, but we will also need to determine the source of the movement and correct if possible. Additionally, a review by a structural engineer suggests that any in place repairs would add additional stresses to the foundation and framing above. For these reasons, we believe relocation of the building onto a new reinforced foundation system at the south end of the site is the best long-term solution for the reuse of this building. See photos below for reference. Additional details regarding our structural investigation can be found in attached letter from Redge Hudson, PE dated January 15, 2021. of foundation wall North East- Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg.64 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 Alpine Bank S. College& E. Prospect January 25, 2021 Exhibit 5.1 Exhibit 5.2 17 ",M�W jr 1 A.(�.5. t4 xEl} ,�;7 {,t ,y'4;''GL t1„S s�,�>���at5•,2a1^.t7f a�sl ,�} I - K, jh i ?. Y ➢C F _ Exhibit 5.3 Exhibit 5.4 Section 2.8.2(H) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code(LUC) provides that "the decision Maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good." Even more than not being detrimental to the public good, the requested modification would benefit the public for the following reasons: (i) allow for the redevelopment of this quadrant of this prominent intersection with a first class community oriented banking service not currently present in the community; and (ii) allow for the preservation and reuse of an existing historical resource in a manner consistent with maintaining historical context, redevelopment into a cohesive and functional site plan, and maintain the future structural integrity of the building; and (iii) allow for improvements along S. College Avenue in a manner that will enhance traffic safety in a manner consistent with the other three quadrants of this intersection. In addition to not being detrimental to the public good, the decision maker must also find, pursuant to Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC, that the modification meets one of four criteria. Within this modification request we believe we have substantiated that we meet the following criteria. Criteria 1 of 4— "The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better that would a plan which complied with the standard for which the modification is requested. The plan as submitted which anticipates the relocation of the existing historical resource will promote the general purpose of the standard by allowing the resource to be preserved, reused, and incorporated into the proposed development in a manner that will not only enhance the overall development but also address public safety. The proposed relocation will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic resources on nearby property because the adjacent properties along S. College have not been deemed of historical significance and the relocated building will not be moved from the property. The relocation will also allow for the design of a site plan compatible with and protect the historical resource by integrating it into the overall site plan in a functional manner. Criteria 2 of 4—"the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg.65 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 Alpine Bank S. College& E. Prospect January 25, 2021 need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible" The plan as submitted will benefit the city by allowing for the redevelopment and subsequent off-site improvements at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of S. College & E. Prospect. The proposed improvements will not only be consistent with recent improvements at the other three quadrants on the intersection but also address an overall community need of improving traffic safety at the intersection through improved design and traffic movement. Criteria 4 of 4—"the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2." We believe the proposed relocation will not diverge from the standards of the LUC except in a nominal, inconsequential way that will likely not be noticed once the redevelopment and relocation are complete. From an overall perspective the relocation creates a significant positive impact on the redevelopment and future use of the building when compared to leaving the building in the original setting. Please review the accompanying materials and let us know if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, GALLOWAY Zell O. Cantrell Site Development Project Manager Zell Cantrell@GallowayUS.com Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg.66 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 G a• owa GreenwoodS.Willow age, Suite 320 11 Gree Village,CO 80111 303.770.8884• GallowayUS.com January 25, 2021 Alpine Bank c/o Todd Golding Goulding Development Advisors PO Box 2308 Edwards, CO 81632 RE:Alpine Bank at SEC of College & Prospect 1610 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Todd: As part of the overall project, Galloway visited the existing building located at 1610 College Avenue in Ft. Collins, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to ascertain the structural integrity of the existing foundation walls as well as the overall building. Zell Cantrell and Redge Hudson performed the site observations. Please note that the inspection was only visual in nature and did not include any type of destructive or non-destructive testing. Based on these visual observations, the foundation system for the building appeared to by two layers of structural brick supporting the floor that extended to grade at the high side of the building. Below grade and exposed as grade sloped down from the west end of the building, a concrete wall supported the structural brick. Due to the age (built in 1928) of the structure, it may be assumed the concrete walls are unreinforced. Galloway's major concern regarding the structure lies with the large stepped crack at the northeast corner of the foundation wall. The crack steps down from the main floor elevation. Then runs diagonally across the concrete foundation wall below grade. The crack's width varies up to approximately 3/8". In addition, the brick offsets at the crack up to 1 inch. Following the north wall to the basement window, another large crack has formed diagonally from the corner of the window frame. From the exterior side of the wall, it appears the wall has been pushed toward the inside of the building. The exterior cracks extend through the foundation walls into the interior basement space. Historic patching of the cracks were visible throughout the basement. Photo 1:Crack in Foundation at NE Corner Photo 2:Interior View of Foundation Crack at North Wall Basement Window Cracking of the multi-whythe (layered) structural brick foundation was also observed on the north and south corners of the front porch. The stepped cracks in the brick varied between 1/8" up to 1" in width. Packet(Pa.6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 Alpine Bank 1610 College Ave. January 25, 2021 The back entrance appeared to be an addition to the original structure. Small vertical cracks were identified at the building interface on the south end of the structure. Galloway did not observe other distresses to the exterior finishes beyond what would be expected based on the buildings age and climate. Plaster cracking of the walls and ceilings was noted throughout all the rooms at the main floor. Cracks range from hairline up to 1/8" in width. At some areas of the ceiling, the plaster appears to be sagging down from the ceiling plane. Photo 3: Cracking and Sagging Plaster at Ceiling Due to the age and nature of the structure, foundation repairs would be nigh impossible due to the offset of the structural brick and concrete foundation walls. This offset indicates either differential movement of the foundations or possible impact stress. Either way, repairs the walls to accommodate the offset of the brick as well as the concave shape of the wall would add additional stresses to the historic foundation and possible additional failure of the framing above the foundation. In order to preserve the structure, Galloway recommends the building be moved to a new foundation. This new foundation will be a reinforced concrete wall. In order to retain the historic significance of the foundation, the existing brick may be placed on a concrete ledge integral with the new wall. The new foundations would only be required to extend to frost depth and not necessarily to the full basement depth. Exterior finishes and historic merits will be preserved with the new foundation design, although in lieu of the basement, a crawlspace may be installed below the existing floor framing. This space will be designed to current code requirements and for floor longevity. More photos and in-depth conclusions may be provided as requested. Galloway appreciates the opportunity to provide our expertise with this challenging and unusual project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(303)770-8884. Sincerely, GALLOWAY Redge Hudson Senior Structural Project Manager RedgeHudson@GallowayUS.com Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg.68 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 G a• owa GreenwoodS.Willow age, Suite 320 11 Gree Village,CO 80111 303.770.8884• GallowayUS.com Design Compatibility Standards 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 massing of the proposed design will integrate a variety of massing strategies to specifically relate to the existing historic structure and the adjacent residential neighborhood. The new structure in addition will provide appropriate scale and massing at the intersection as part of the midtown design standards. 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. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. The building placement, orientation, setbacks along with scale and massing were thought through as they relate to the surrounding block and historical on-site structure. The two-story massing on the new construction is in the northwest portion of the footprint to establish a strong, identifiable presence on the corner of S. College and E. Prospect. The design will then step down to a single-story module to the south as it approached the historic building. The lower, wrap-around porch and planter boxes are intended to aid in creating a strong sense of"human scale" and urban streetscape while providing additional buffer from the busy street. While not historic the surrounding residential neighborhood to the east is treated in a similar fashion with the mass of the building stepping down as it approaches the alley. 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 proposed materials for the new building are intended to be high-quality, durable, materials including brick on the lower level to match the proportion of the brick on the historical building with cedar shakes above. The weathering characteristics of the cedar will add to the authenticity and natural semblance of the fagade, traditional craftsman details are intended to be used throughout the building to add additional unifying characteristics to the building to emphasize its connection to the historic structure 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, and 5) Pattern. 1) The proposed design will incorporate a broad, open porch typical of the Craftsman style and similar in design to the front porch on the existing historic structure. The porch will create a semi-private space functioning as a social interface with the street. This will help establish a Packet g.69 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated on 2/16/21 "pedestrian friendly" quality as well as strengthen the design relationship with the existing structure. In addition, deep roof eaves, columns, exposed beams, and a muted, earthly color palette will establish the connection to the Craftsman era and historical structure. 2) The building will be subdivided into principal modules that will step down as it moves towards the historic structure and the adjoining residential neighborhood. 3) The new building and the historic building while using the same exact color palette will utilize the traditional colors founds on the craftsman style buildings, in addition where applicable the two buildings will be unified in color by materials such as the brick and paint colors. 4) The new building will utilize materials such as brick, wood siding, shake shingle siding, etc., to create a strong residential relationship to the existing craftsman bungalow, all of which will provide a similar three-dimensionality for the materials of the street face of the building. 5) The new building will utilize a similar fenestration pattern and style as the existing historical building to further tie to the two buildings together architecturally. 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) Similar window pattern, 2) Similar window proportion of height to width, and 3) Similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. 1. As mentioned above the fenestration style and pattern is intended to be reflective of the traditional craftsman style of the existing historic building. While the existing building's "pattern" is not existent due to the scale of the building it is our intent to reflect more on the style of the period while providing a pattern relative to the scale of the new building. 2. Similar to above the windows will need to be different in height and width due to the overall scale of the building and it's intended use, i.e. commercial vs. residential so the widows on the new building will be more about relating to proportion rather than exact height and width. 3. Similar to above given the scale of the new building and it's intended commercial use, the solid-to-void pattern will be slightly different than what is found on the history residential building, again our intent is that the new building relates in style and period, not an exact representation. 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. Strong horizontal references will be used including gabled, low-pitched roof forms typical of the Craftsman style on current building on-site. The proportion of materials will also mimic that of the existing structure. Galloway&Company, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg.70 ITEM . ATTACHMENT Updated on • NEW BRICK WAINSCOT AS ti� � � -^`�,� 'i NEW TRIM ACCENT PAINT �f. �-: r1 SALVAGED FROM EXISTING � ��^!• i`--`�` '` ''� SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTINNATION 01 SIDING TO BE _ CLEANED.REPAIRED AS NECESSARY, EXPOSED CONCRETE NEW FAUX �� ' �` ;i�; AND RE-PAINTED FOUNDATION SIMILAR TO GARAGE DOOR ^E �-i :3S EXISTING CONDITIONS EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN AS-IS.TYPICAL NEW BASEMENT WINDOWS NORTH ALPINE BANK Colored Elevationsi; G a • w a y ALPINE BANK et �i • �� ITEM I ATTACHMENT Updated on 2/16/21 -- - - Packet '• ITEM I ATTACHMENT • 2/16/21 �- All, i EL lam-: r iU3 --............ r PacketPg.73 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 City of Landmark Preservation Fort Collins Commission 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 November 18, 2020 Minutes - Excerpt for Alpine Bank • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 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, Nelsen, Wallace, Rose ABSENT: Murray, Michell STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager *** BEGIN EXCERPT*** 3. ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE)—CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 1608, 1610, and 1618 S College for Alpine Bank project, requiring demolition of two non-historic resources and onsite relocation of one historic resource, which would require approval of a modification of standards in section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Development site is in the General Commercial (GC)zone district, and the decision maker for this Type 1 Review will be a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Zell Cantrell, Galloway Ms. Bredehoft recused herself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Landmark Preservation Commission November 18, 2020 Packet Pg.74 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She reviewed the project location at the southeast corner of College and Prospect, noting it was originally developed as a residential block, and discussed surrounding properties at the intersection. She noted the properties at 1608 and 1618 South College are being proposed for demolition and the craftsman-style home at 1610 South College is being proposed to be moved to the south and adaptively reused as part of the development plan. Ms. Bzdek stated the applicant is proposing the construction of a 2-story, 7,800 square-foot bank building with an associated drive-up teller and ATM component. Additionally, improvements to the northbound deceleration lane will be required as will the installation of a tree lawn and detached sidewalk. Regarding the property at 1618, the intensive-level site survey completed by the independent professional surveyor did not show the property rose to the level of individual significance for a Fort Collins Landmark designation and expressed concern about the loss of integrity of the property. Ms. Bzdek stated the property at 1610 South College did receive a determination of eligibility and is being treated under the review process moving forward as a historic resource on the redevelopment site. She discussed the history of the structure and its features and alterations over time. Ms. Bzdek stated there are two primary areas for the Commission to consider for its conceptual review comments: the review following the Secretary of the Interior standards of the proposed treatment for historic resources, and the design compatibility analysis under the Land Use Code requirements in Section 3.4.7. She also noted the applicant has applied for a modification of standard to move the building on the site and discussed how modifications are considered. Applicant Presentation Zell Cantrell, Galloway, introduced the team members in attendance: Ben Van Hoose, Alpine Bank local branch president; Glen Davis, Alpine Bank Chief Retail Officer; and Todd Goulding, development consultant. Mr. Cantrell gave the Applicant presentation and detailed the proposed project and associated intersection and sidewalk improvements. He stated relocating the historic resource not only allows for the site to be redeveloped functionally, but also allows for some historical context to be created and for the formation of a proper foundation for the building. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Rose asked when the house was repainted to the existing colors. Ms. Bzdek replied she would investigate that detail. Mr. Rose commented on the more contemporary color choice. Ms. Nelsen noted the applicant had mentioned complementing the existing colors of the house with the proposed design. Mr. Cantrell replied they are currently working with materials that will both complement the house and work within the Midtown Plan. He asked if the Commission has a preference on materials and colors and whether they are meaningful in this situation. Mr. Rose replied it is significant and commented on the original painting of the structure likely being whitewashed. He stated it would not be inappropriate to revert to the original color scheme. Chair Dunn questioned whether the gable shingles were likely stained wood. Mr. Rose speculated they were likely painted at some point in order to preserve them. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed use of the building after its relocation. Mr. Cantrell replied they have yet to make a final determination on its use, but stated it could continue to be used commercially or be returned to a residential use, though that may not be feasible given the location. Ms. Nelsen asked how the grading will be managed for the relocation. Mr. Cantrell replied the grading across the site is similar from north to south; however,the fall from west to east is less than he originally thought. He stated the team is trying to determine whether the garage can be relocated or incorporated into a new foundation. Chair Dunn commented on the garage door not being original;therefore, a different door could be used, and it does not necessarily need to be operable. Mr. Rose agreed and stated the opening would be the most important part of preserving the garage. Mr. Knierim agreed that is a creative way to keep the integrity of the look and would meet the standards. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 November 18, 2020 Packet Pg.75 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Ms. Nelsen stated that while she likes the idea of showcasing the door, she is not sure it is essential to the overall building and its role in the community. She expressed concern with marked changes to the grading that would change the proportions of the door. Mr. Cantrell stated a non-operational door would be much more conducive to flood control and stated his team could determine a creative solution. Ms. Nelsen stated that is an acceptable solution as long as the proportions of the opening are maintained. Mr. Bello stated he does not see the opening as a character-defining feature and stated it could be eliminated altogether. Mr. Rose stated the interior layout may be critical in knowing if the garage was the original function. Mr. Van Hoose stated he has been inside the structure and he does not recall there being access from the garage structure to the home. Ms. Bzdek noted the intensive-level site form identifies the garage structure as an original feature with an altered opening, though it is not a typical craftsman feature. Ms. Nelsen noted the public is going to have much more interaction with the rear of the building given the proposed site plan, which would be another factor in considering the preservation of the opening. Chair Dunn stated the Commission would definitely want to know how it will be treated if moved. Chair Dunn asked if the brick foundation skirt is original noting it would be an important feature to preserve if so. She asked about the plans for reusing the sandstone at the Lewan and Vern's buildings. Mr. Cantrell replied there is not an option to incorporate it into the new building, however it could be incorporated into some site features such as the plaza to the south. He noted it could be made available for people to salvage to ensure it is not wasted. Chair Dunn requested Commission input regarding the applicant's rationale for the modification of standard that would allow moving the building. Mr. Rose stated there is rationale for moving it for several reasons, particularly as it would encourage rehabilitation by securing the foundation. He stated moving the house further to the south gives it a bit more of a residential setting given the required deceleration lane. Mr. Knierim agreed with Mr. Rose and noted the building would only be moved a short distance. Ms. Wallace commented on the points of integrity, noting the short move helps to maintain integrity. Chair Dunn stated that while it may not be nominal to move a building, it does end up being inconsequential in this case as the setting was already altered and the proposed changes help to retain the setting better than if it were left in the current location. Mr. Rose commented on the need to research how the back porch is configured relative to the house itself, noting it is not of the craftsman style. He also commented on saving the bricks as part of the building's foundation when relocated. Mr. Bello asked if salvaging the brick goes contrary to providing an indication of representing a true craftsman construction type. Mr. Rose replied there is no agreed-upon taxonomy of a craftsman style and stated, if the brick is original, it is a unique part of this structure making it all the more important to save. He stated there is no need to recreate a museum quality craftsman. Chair Dunn commented on the importance of landmarking properties that are uniquely Fort Collins. Chair Dunn stated the porch could remain as is. Ms. Nelsen encouraged replacement in-kind of any damaged stairs or railings. Chair Dunn requested Commission input on landscaping. Mr. Rose supported the placement of as much green space as possible around the relocated home, though stated it does not need to be lavish per the historic photos. Chair Dunn requested Commission input on the new construction. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed materials. Mr. Cantrell replied they are considering a primarily brick or stone base in concert with the Midtown Plan criteria. Chair Dunn noted the sandstone in the other two buildings could potentially be used and the local sandstone is quite hard. She supported the use of the brick, however. Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 November 18, 2020 Packet Pg.76 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Ms. Nelsen supported the use of any sturdy material for the base. She commented on the modern interpretation of the craftsman approach for the new building and stated the porch is nice from a massing standpoint. Mr. Cantrell stated Alpine Bank has yet to build the same building twice and they have been excited about the craftsman style. Mr. Davis commented on the bank's strong historical sensibility and appreciation for craftsman design. He stated Alpine Bank tries to reflect the communities it serves. He commented on the repurposing of buildings for its banks in Snowmass Village and Basalt. Mr. Rose noted the craftsman style is purely residential in America; however, he appreciated the scale, respect for materials, fenestration, window placement, and residential vocabulary. Ms. Bzdek explained the next steps in the process for the applicant noting they will be returning before the Commission for a recommendation. Mr. Cantrell stated this will be a Type I review and he is about two weeks from submitting an initial PDP application. He anticipated coming back before the Commission early in 2021. Chair Dunn stated the proposed design is definitely moving in the right direction and she commended the welcoming, pedestrian-friendly design. Mr. Van Hoose and Mr. Davis thanked the Commission for their time. *** END EXCERPT*** Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 November 18, 2020 Packet Pg.77 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) OAH P1403 Rev.9/98 Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY _ Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Eligible-SR Determined Not Eligible-SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.14742 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: List House 6. Current building name: None 7. Building address: 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Note: Prior to c. 1979,when it was converted from residential to commercial use,the building's address was 1616 South College. 8. Owner name and address: Remington North LLC 1400 South Colorado Blvd., Suite 410 Denver, CO 80222 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W NW%of NW%of NW%of NW%of section 24 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 449664 m E; 493508 m N 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15' 12. Lot(s): 5 Block: 1 Plat: I.C. Bradley Addition Platted: 1925 Parcel Number: Parcel No. 97242-16-005 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97242-16-005, comprising Lot 5 of Block 1 in I.C. Bradley's Addition to Fort Collins. The site boundary encompasses the area associated with its historic residential use. The parcel is 50 ft wide x 160 ft deep, and encompasses the historic dwelling and surrounding yards. No outbuildings or other free-standing structures are presently located on the property. The boundary encompasses the area associated with the building's historic use. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length: 50.5 ft. x Width: 28 ft. Packet Pg.78 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 16. Number of stories: 1.0 17. Primary external wall material(s): Wood—Narrow clapboard siding 18. Roof configuration: Gable—side gable 19. Primary external roof material: Composition shingles 20. Special features: Porch;garage 21. General architectural description: This single-story, wood frame dwelling is a very well preserved/unaltered example of a modest Craftsman-style house, and contains 1,127 ft2 of living space. The house has a full concrete basement with exposed, above-grade red brick (or red brick-veneered)walls penetrated at intervals by small basement windows.Its exterior walls are clad with narrow clapboard siding which may be original. The building's main mass is rectangular in plan, and is covered by a moderately-pitched side gable roof with wide overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. On the gable ends, chamfered square-sided wooden beams extend beneath the eaves. The rear portion of the main mass of the house is end-gabled,with similar eave and gable face details. The facade is asymmetrically arranged,and faces west.A partially recessed/partially projecting open front porch occupies the right/south portion of the fagade. The porch is accessed by (modern) wooden stairs with stained wood balustrade handrails. At the corners of the porch's clapboard-clad closed rails are plain modern wooden posts supporting the low-pitched shed porch roof. The porch retains its original beadboard ceiling,as well as its board floor. The main entry is situated on the facade within the porch, and appears to retain the original Craftsman- style multi-light glazed wooden door. Flanking the entry are identical Craftsman-style 3-over-1 light sash and transom windows, and to the left of the porch on the fagade is a tandem set of similar 3-over-1 light sash and transom windows. The side elevations share common features, such as gable faces that are clad with square-cut wood shingles, which surround centered, small, 1-over-1 double-hung attic-level windows. However, fenestration on the side elevations differs. The north elevation is fitted with three sets of windows, including, near the front of the building, a tandem set of small (fixed?) Craftsman-style windows,each with three narrow lights. Farther back is a tandem set of taller, but small 3-over-1 sash-and transom windows, and near the rear/east end of the building is a solitary 3-over-1 sash and transom window. The south elevation has less space for windows due to the cut-out for the inset front porch. Still, there are six windows on the building's south side, all of which are 3-over-1 sash and transom windows. These include two similar small 3-over-1 sash-and transom windows, three closely spaced taller and narrower 3-over-1 light windows, and a solitary window placed towards the east end of the elevation. Attached to the rear, southeastern end of building is a lower height, small gable-roofed enclosed rear porch or"mud room"which is clad with the same narrow clapboard siding as the main mass of the house. The porch appears to be an original, Craftsman-inspired part of the house, and building permit records do not indicate that it could be an addition built between 1928 and the very early 1950s. Its roof is relative low-pitched. Due to the sloping ground, the porch is elevated. On its south side is an entry that is accessed by a small plain set of wooden steps. The entry is covered by a shallow gabled wooden canopy supported by substantial wooden Craftsman-style knee braces, and an old painted wood panel door is installed. The rear/east end of the porch features two large fixed nearly square windows that may be modern, Packet Pg.79 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 and the north side of the porch is equipped with a solitary small 1-over-1 double-hung window. The remainder of the home's rear (east) elevation is clad and fenestrated similar to the gabled side elevations. On the rear/east end of the building, offset to the north end of the building, is an unusual feature: a semi-subterranean, integral,single car garage that is an original feature of the house. It is equipped with a modern roll-up sheet metal garage door and is accessed via a gently sloping driveway consisting of what appears to be original concrete two-tracks,with the space between the tracks filled in more recently with flagstone. 22. Architectural style/building type: Craftsman/bungalow 23. Landscaping or special setting features: This house stands as an isolated residential building along South College Avenue just south of Prospect Road. From Prospect south, College Avenue (Highway 287) is a busy commercial corridor with a wide variety of commercial buildings of various ages (most post 1960) lining both sides of the highway, including in the 1600 block of South College Avenue. The rectangular lot containing the house contains 7,190 ft' (0.17 acre) and it slopes down toward the east. The parcel is not fenced, and its landscaping includes a cluster of several medium-sized deciduous trees near the lot line by the house's northeast corner.The stump of another tree is located adjacent to the rear porch entry. Several large but low juniper shrubs are established in the front yard, including flanking the front porch stairs. A modern signboard supported by 4x4-inch posts also stands in the front right (south) portion of the front yard. The rear portion of the lot behind the house is devoid of outbuildings or other features. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1928 Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 1976, issued to owner W.M.Weber on March 14, 1928 for construction of a new residence 26. Architect: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 28. Original owner: W.M. Weber Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 1976, issued to owner W.M. Weber on March 14, 1928 for construction of a new residence 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): This handsome, single-story,wood frame Craftsman bungalow was constructed in 1928, after a building permit (Permit No. 1976)was issued by the City of Fort Collins to owner W.M. Weber on March 14, 1928 for construction of a new residence as described below in the building permit log book: "Frame/brick, 28x32, 6 rooms & bath, 10,000 bricks,full basement,shingle roof, brick exterior, oak floors,flue 9x12 inside, house to line up with other buildings:floor joist 2x8 - 16c [16-inch centered?], rafters 2x6,studding 2x4, open roof sheathing,tar paper,wood lath, 1x8 Packet Pg.80 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 boards sub floor, 1,000 brick, double plates and headers, 1x8 boards wall sheathing, ceiling joists 2x4." Owner W.M. Weber is also listed as the builder, and the estimated cost for the work was $3,000. Only one other building permit was found for the property between 1928 and c.the early 1950s(Permit No. 7141), dated October 29, 1942, issued to owner George M. List for "reshingling," estimated to cost$175. When examined in late December 2019,the only other changes noted as compared to photographs on early(retired) Larimer County Assessor's property cards involved the front porch.The October 1948, January 1969 and May 1978 Assessor's photograph shows that the front porch,while partially obscured by shrubbery, appeared to have wooden porch roof support columns that were larger and slightly tapered than at present, and that the current (12/2020) porch supports replaced the original porch posts sometime after May 1978. Nevertheless,the replacement post are generally similar I shape and size to the original posts. Another change to the original property was replacement of the original porch stairs with the current(December 2019) stained wooden (redwood) steps and balustrade handrails. Photographs included on now obsolete Larimer County Assessor's property cards for the parcel indicate that in October 1948 the dwelling was accessed by a set of concrete (?)stairs flanked by low brick masonry walls.The 1948 stairs lacked handrails. In January 2, 1969 photograph clearly show the same concrete steps and brick sidewalls, but it had also been equipped on both sides with wrought-iron balustrade handrails.Thick shrubbery blocks the view of the dwellings front porch steps on the May 1978 Assessor's photograph. The present stairway is entirely wooden, but appears to be about the same size and is in the same place as the original stairway. No other exterior changes to the dwelling were noted. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): N/A V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Residential—Single Family Dwelling (c. 1928-1979) 32. Intermediate use(s): Commercial (c. 1979-1981); Residential-student housing(1982-c. 1987) 33. Current use(s): Non-profit business office (2002-2019) 34. Site type(s): Residential - house 35. Historical background: This handsome Craftsman bungalow was constructed in 1928, and originally had an address of 1616 South College Avenue (this address was changed in 1979 to# 1610, when its use changed from residential to commercial). In 1925, no buildings evidently stood on this block,which lies south of the historic residential area of Fort Collins that extended south from the"Old Town"commercial district to Prospect Road, and near the southeast corner of the Colorado State University campus. However, on March 10, 1925, a new residential area - I.C. Bradley's Addition — was platted, and shortly afterward numerous lots were sold and residential construction commenced. By 1927 no fewer than nine homes had been constructed along the east side of South College Avenue (1600, 1604, 1608, 1612, 1620, 1630, 1634, 1636 and 1644). The following year (1928), W.M. Weber obtained a building permit to construct a primary residence on an empty lot near the north end of the 1600 block;the resulting bungalow had an address of 1616 South College Avenue. The home's architectural style and form — a Craftsman bungalow — was a relatively late but typical example of a widely popular style of Packet Pg.81 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 early twentieth century residential American architecture. In Fort Collins, during the 1920s numerous small Craftsman style dwellings were built throughout the city. They were constructed both in new subdivisons, as well as scattered randomly in the late 19th and early 20th century"Eastside"and "Westside" neighborhood areas (east and west of College Avenue, and north of Prospect Road). It is possible that W.M. Weber did not occupy the house, but that it was sold to the List family. Although the house was constructed in1928, no listing for the address(1616 S. College Avenue) was included in the 1929 Fort Collins city directory. By 1931, however (the next available city directory edition), the home was occupied by George Milton List, chief deputy state entomologist, and his wife Ruth A. List.The List family resided in the bungalow from c. 1930 to c. 1968— nearly four decades. City directories provide different job titles for George List over time; in 1933 he was identified as an instructor at Colorado Agricultural College (CAC), and in 1936 he was employed as "entomologist in charge" at the Colorado State College Experiment Station. In 1938 his position was listed as associate professor at CAC; in 1940 he worked as a "teacher [at the] College of Entomology and Zoology" at CSC, and by 1950 he was a professor and head of the Entomology Department at Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M) College. During their tenure at 1616 South College Avenue, the Lists raised two daughters, including Laura A. List,who in 1936 was attending CSC,and Ruth L. List,who was a student at CSC in 1940. George List retired from Colorado A&M around 1953,and the 1954 city directory indicates that Mr. List had become an emeritus professor. The Lists' daughters had embarked on their own lives sometime in the 1940s,while George and Ruth A. List continued living together at the same address until c. 1959, when George List evidently passed away. His widow continued to live alone in the bungalow until c. 1968, when she was joined by another widow, Mrs. Myrtle J. Geiger,whose occupation was identified in the city directory as"companion." Ruth A. List had moved out of the house in 1969, and passed away on June 19, 1970 at age 84. She was buried next to her husband George List, in Fort Collins' Grandview Cemetery. After the passing of Mrs. List,the dwelling was evidently rented or sold to Eugene G. Schallan, a salesman at the Fort Collins office of Kansas City Life Insurance and his wife Vi. J. Schallan. In 1969 the Schallan family shared the house with their children—daughters Christine(born 1958), Debbie (born 1953), and Vicki, who was then a student at Colorado State University. The Schallans occupied the bungalow from c. 1969 —c. 1972, when they all evidently moved away from Fort Collins. In 1973,the only occupant of 1616 South College Avenue was Dean Goeldner, whose occupation was not listed. By 1975 the home was vacant, but from c. 1976 - c. 1978 it was rented to two CSU students: Geoff Turner and James Walther. Around 1978 the property's use changed from residential to commercial, at a time when many of the homes on the block had been replaced by commercial uses and buildings. According to the 1979 Fort Collins city directory, the bungalow's address was changed from 1616 to 1610 South College Avenue, and it was occupied by three businesses: Alpine Trophies Inc., Farmers Insurance Group, and Golden Pear Catering Service. A man named Fred G. Lee was also listed as an occupant, and he may have been the owner of one of the businesses housed in the building. Packet Pg.82 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 The bungalow's commercial use was short-lived, and by 1981 it served as a residence for a succession of CSU students, housing up to four tenants. Its use as student housing for short- term student renters continued for approximately six (6)years until c. 1987,when a change of ownership likely occurred. From 1987 until c.2002,city directory entries state"no information" for 1610 South College Avenue. During the last phase of the property's history(as of January 2020)—from c. 2002 to 2019—the bungalow has been used to house offices of the Fort Collins-based non-profit youth-focused social services organization called "Realities for Children/ Realities Foundation. According to the organization's website (accessed January 1, 2020), "Realities for Children was incorporated in 1995 and has been funding the unmet needs of Larimer County children who have been abused,neglected or are at-risk since 1996."The non-profit organization closed its office at 1610 South College Avenue c. 2019, and moved to a new location at 308 East County Road 30 in Fort Collins. 36. Sources of information: Beier, Harold 1958 Fort Collins, History and General Character. Research and Survey Report. Prepared by Harold Beier, Community Development Consultant, Fort Collins, Colorado,for the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board,April 1958. Fort Collins City Directories,for the years 1925 through 2019 (with gaps). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Larimer County Assessor 1948 Property Card for 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins(Parcel No. 97242-16-005). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 1969 Property Card for 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins(Parcel No. 97242-16-005). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 1978 Property Card for 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins(Parcel No. 97242-16-005). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 2019 Current (2019) Larimer County Assessor's property record for (Parcel No. 97242-16- 005), available through the Assessor's website (https://www.larimer.org/assessor/). Accessed December 12, 2019. Realities for Children Charities 2020 Website: www.realitiesforchildren.com, accessed January 1, 2020. Simmons,Thomas, and Laurie Simmons. 1992 City of Fort Collins Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture Historic Contexts. Report prepared by Front Range Research Associates for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department. Packet Pg.83 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Not Applicable Designating authority: Not Applicable 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; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: 1928-1978 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility: The single-story, wood frame residence located at 1610 South College Avenue is evaluated as not embodying sufficient significance for association with important historical events, trends, or people; however, it is evaluated as an architecturally significant building. In terms of Criterion A, the home was built in 1928 during a decade when a prosperous economy, growing university, the Wellington oil boom and other factors resulted in a substantial influx of new residents to Fort Collins. Between 1920 and 1930,the city's population grew from 8,755 residents in 1920,to 11,489 in 1930-a 31.2%increase.The home at 1610 South College Avenue was built within (toward the end of) this dynamic decade, along with others along the east side of the 1600 block. However, these houses were located on the sparsely undeveloped fringe of Fort Collins' main, historic residential area lying north of Prospect Road and extending both east and west of College Avenue.While the subject property is a product of the 1920s period of growth in Fort Collins, it is but one of many hundreds of properties that share the same origin. In terms of Criterion B,the property was occupied for approximately forty years,from c. 1930- 1969, by the List family.George M. List was a successful professional entomologist who worked at Colorado Agricultural College (CAC; now CSU) from at least as early as 1931 until his retirement c. 1953. While at CAC, he served variously as "entomologist in charge" at the Colorado State College Experiment Station, associate professor at the College of Entomology and Zoology" at the university, and by 1950 he served as the head of the Entomology Department at Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M; now CSU) College. After his retirement List was honored as an emeritus professor.While George List indeed was a valuable faculty member and expert in his field, he was one of a succession of many professors at CSU (and its predecessors) who advanced the state of their fields of expertise while teaching a steady stream of college students. In spite of his professional success, George List's individual historical significance is evaluated as not extraordinary,and his work was not performed in the Packet Pg.84 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 dwelling he lived in near the university. For these reasons,the residence is not significant for its association with George List nor any other residents who lived there. With respect to Criterion C, this dwelling on this property is an almost entirely unaltered example of a modest side-gabled, wood frame Craftsman-style bungalow in Fort Collins. It displays many diagnostic characteristics of the style, including a side gable roof with wide overhanging eaves with exposed beams and rafter tails,wood shingle cladding of the attic level gable faces;an open front porch, and numerous original multi-light sash-and-transom windows with narrow, vertically oriented lights/panes. The front door is also a distinctively Craftsman- style element. Because it is such an intact and recognizable example of the style and its side- gabled form,as well as for its unusual original semi-subterranean singe car garage,the property is evaluated as eligible for Local Landmark designation under Criterion C. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This house retains outstanding exterior architectural integrity, with very few changes noted. These changes include the apparent replacement of the two front porch roof supports(on the facade)with slightly smaller- dimension wooden roof support posts. Also,the wooden front porch steps and handrails were constructed sometime after may 1978, replacing the original concrete steps(which by 1969 had wrought iron handrails added). Other changes, not visible from the street/sidewalk are on the rear elevation, and include the two fixed windows on the east end of the rear porch, which may be non-original, and the rear elevation garage door,which is modern.These minor alterations are not visible except from the rear of the property. Because of its high level of architectural integrity the dwelling still conveys its significance as an excellent example of modest Craftsman-style domestic architecture. The property was one of a contiguous series of homes built in the 1920s on the east side of the 1600 block of South College Avenue and it is the sole survivor at this time (January 2020). These houses were sited along a busy Fort Collins thoroughfare that also served as a busy state highway, rather than in a "typical" entirely residential neighborhood. While there was a substantial change in setting that occurred when the homes were replaced by commercial buildings in the late 20th century, this development was inevitable and the property has never been part of a residential area that had a truly residential character (or fabric). Therefore, the loss of historic setting does not diminish the property's ability to convey architectural significance. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register (individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not (Individually) Eligible Needs Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X No Undetermined Discuss: A potential historic district analysis was beyond the scope of the investigation; however,this former dwelling is the only remnant of a row of historic homes built in the latter 1920s (after platting of I.C. Bradley's Addition in 1925) on the west side of the 1600 block of South College Avenue. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing _ Noncontributing _ 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing _ Noncontributing _ Not Applicable X Packet Pg.85 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 Vill. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 47. Local Landmark(individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not (Individually) Eligible Need Data IX. RECORDING INFORMATION 48. Photograph numbers: 51-11.14742#1-45 Negatives or digital photo files filed at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center (Current Planning) - Historic Preservation Department, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 49. Report title: Historic and Architectural Assessment for 1610 South College Avenue, Ft. Collins, CO 50. Date(s): January 3, 2020 51. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor 52. Organization: RETROSPECT 53. Address: 332 East Second Street, Loveland, CO 80537 54. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155 History Colorado-Office of Archaeology& Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver,CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 Packet Pg.86 ITEM 4' ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.l4742 ST jORA all 1610 S. College Avenue js Location of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins(5LR.14742), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photonevised 1984). Packet Pg.87 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 � N Alley ---------------- 50 feet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a.. 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Enclosed re*porch ' garage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Front porch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE Sketch map of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (51-R.14742). Packet Pg.88 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 ,r AH80 �fn — _ asc1 1948 view of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor's property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. Packet Pg.89 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 r 1969 view of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins,from old Larimer County Assessor's property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. Packet Pg.90 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 J Il� j i Zbb 1 1978 view of 1610 South College Avenue, Fort Collins,from old Larimer County Assessor's property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. Packet Pg.91 , .V �• 4 NY b If 1 I 1 . ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 1 �C � �I t, — tt - -- - 4 1- y � 1610 South College Avenue, looking northeast. ,sl Ab -r - 1610 South College Avenue, looking northeast. Packet Pg.93 - - - `'�t'.�'jr�'..r��� f, - yam• = s _. _ w1 w+'�71�1 IR i pt, ��.� l- ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 Tz IL Mill- - _ t s. 1610 South College Avenue,front porch steps, looking east. C - _� „�-sum.•, - 1610 South College Avenue,front porch, looking north. Packet Pg.95 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 1♦ i 1610 South College Avenue, main entry and Craftsman-style sash-and-transom window, looking SE. Packet Pg.96 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 i 6i r 1610 South College Avenue, main entry with Craftsman-style glazed front door, looking east. Packet Pg.97 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 F,^ I - - 1610 South College Avenue, window o fagade, looking southeast. Packet Pg.98 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 n 0' z 1610 South College Avenue, another window on facade within front porch, looking northeast. Packet Pg.99 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 I 1610 South College Avenue, painted original beadboard front porch ceiling. VL 1610 South College Avenue, light fixture attached to front porch ceiling. Packet Pg.100 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 j I' 'r e' 1610 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking northeast. r 1610 South College Avenue, south side of front porch, looking north. Packet Pg.101 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 slow 1610 South College Avenue, narrow clapboard siding. Packet Pg.102 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 T 1 I � � -k 1610 South College Avenue, window on south elevation near front porch, looking north. Packet Pg.103 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 1 I � I I i 1610 South College Avenue, side gable on south elevation, looking north. Packet Pg.104 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 7� ILA 1610 South College Avenue, close-up of window on south elevation. Packet Pg.105 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.14742 H >.� two _ - .r. =�mMoo S�r_=fir,Sri 1610 South College Avenue, rear/east portion of south elevation, looking northeast. Packet Pg.106 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 4 I >v' 1610 South College Avenue, looking rear portion of south elevation, looking northeast. Packet Pg.107 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 i p J.. 1610 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking west-northwest. I 1610 South College Avenue, eaves on south elevation. Packet Pg.108 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 �K 1610 South College Avenue, beam supporting projecting gable eave on south elevation. 1 1610 South College Avenue, brick basement wall on south elevation, looking ENE. Packet Pg.109 JL � �'� � �e �'.fq 6�. �•"�� � '�� A�'°i `��®�'3 Est, �`P •• t1. f 1 O 1 f I' 3;7R •.� ?fit � .. 'tip , a�j�- �. � .:. � is ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 1 j i E �Y MF 1610 South College Avenue, close up of basement wall on south elevation near rear vestibule. 1 r \ 1610 South College Avenue, enclosed rear porch vestibule at SE end of dwelling, looking NW. Packet Pg.111 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 r. i 1610 South College Avenue, rear enclosed porch/vestibule, looking northwest. Packet Pg.112 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 f r 1.al- � ii c,7 � t 1 ir a 1610 South College Avenue, south side entry on rear enclosed porch/vestibule, looking northeast. Packet Pg.113 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 h k� J t �T I t I I A i - 1610 South College Avenue, original door on south side of rear enclosed porch/vestibule, looking north. Packet Pg.114 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 � r 1610 South College Avenue, gables canopy over rea vestibule entry, looking NNW. ;r: u t A ti= � t. 1610 South College Avenue, rear/east elevation, looking west. Packet Pg.115 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 i r I 1610 South College Avenue, enclosed rear porch/vestibule, looking southwest. Packet Pg.116 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 010 0 � I i A 1610 South College Avenue, looking enclosed rear porch/vestibule, looking SSW. Packet Pg.117 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 055 gig Egig cam 1610 South College Avenue, rear/east elevation, looking WSW. Packet Pg.118 I 1 1 I - _ .7 f �� .i•j 7 �rN!r r • • • • • • •• ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 4 '.•i Y 1610 South College Avenue, garage on east/rear elevation, looking WSW. MEMO- lstiYio► � Awl r 1610 South College Avenue, garage door, looking WSW Packet Pg.120 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 -01 l 1610 S. College Avenue, looking junction of rear elevation and projecting enclosed rear porch/vestibule. Packet Pg.121 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.14742 1610 South College Avenue,tandem Craftsman-style windows on rear/east elevation. 1. - i � 1 _ w 1� 1610 South College Avenue, rear view, looking southwest. Packet Pg.122 1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 From: Zell Cantrell To: Maren Bzdek Cc: Glenn Davis;"Ben Van Hoose";Todd Goulding;Matt Lewan(mlewan(a integratedprop.net) Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Remote Hearing Acknowledgment--Respond by noon,Wednesday,2/3 Date: Tuesday,February 2,2021 4:05:43 PM Attachments: imaae002.Dna imaae003.Dna imaae019279.Dna imaae181395.Dno Maren— Second reply. I may not have replied correctly to your question. We have spoken with our client and they are aware of the referenced provision. Please procced with the referenced hearing with LPC on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 as noted. Glenn Davis, Ben Van Hoose, and Todd Goulding with Alpine Bank as well as Matt Lewan, Owner have all been copied on this response. Please let us know asap if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you. Galloway Zell Cantrell, CRRP SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER SR.ASSOCIATE 6162 S.Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 O 303.770.8884 C 303.437.4948 ZellCantrell(cDgallowayus.com GallowayUS.com COLORADO I CALIFORNIA I UTAH Nationally Recognized. Locally Preferred. From: Zell Cantrell <ZellCantrell@gallowayus.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 3:46 PM To: 'Maren Bzdek' <mbzdek@fcgov.com> Cc: Glenn Davis <GlennDavis@alpinebank.com>; 'Ben Van Hoose' <BenVanHoose@alpinebank.com>; Todd Goulding<tgoulding@gda-co.com> Subject: RE: Remote Hearing Acknowledgment--Respond by noon, Wednesday, 2/3 Maren— My apologies for the delayed response. I was out of the office all day yesterday and well as most of today. I have copied both our client and well as their representative on this response. By copy of this message to our client I am asking for them their desire to proceed with the remote hearing and also copy the property owner on their response. Packet Pg.124 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Galloway Zell Cantrell, CRRP SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER SR.ASSOCIATE 6162 S.Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 O 303.770.8884 C 303.437.4948 ZellCantrell(@aallowayus.com GallowayUS.com COLORADO I CALIFORNIA I UTAH Nationally Recognized. Locally Preferred. From: Maren Bzdek<mbzdekPfcgov.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 11:33 AM To: Zell Cantrell <ZellCantrellPgallowayus.com> Subject: Remote Hearing Acknowledgment--Respond by noon, Wednesday, 2/3 Importance: High Hi Zell, The City Attorney's Office has reminded staff that we should include a written acknowledgement from each applicant seeking a decision from the LPC that you understand the meeting will be conducted remotely on Zoom and that you are entitled to request that the meeting be delayed until the meeting could be conducted in person. This is required under Council's Ordinance 079 for remote hearings, as follows: Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or commission or an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use Code, shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi- Judicial Hearing using Remote Technology. Such person or applicant shall be entitled to request that the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be conducted in person. Would you please reply immediately to this email, cc'ing the property owner for the Alpine Bank project,that you are aware of this provision and would like to proceed with a remote hearing on Wednesday, February 17?Your response will be included as an attachment in the LPC agenda packet for the meeting. Thank you, MAREN BZDEK She/Her/Hers Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Services 281 North College Avenue 970-221-6206 office mbzdekr@fcaov.com Packet Pg.125 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) OAHP1403 Rev.9/98 Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible-NR Determined Not Eligible-NR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Eligible-SR Determined Not Eligible-SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.10494 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: "Vern's Carpet,Tile and Linoleum;" "Vern's Top Shop" 6. Current building name: None/Vacant 7. Building address: 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 8. Owner name and address: Remington North LLC c/o Integrated Property Services 1400 S. Colorado Blvd.,Suite 410 Denver, CO 80222 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W NW%of NW%of NW%of NW%of section 24 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 4496653 m E; 493500 m N 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15' 12. Lot(s): 6 Block: 1 Plat: I.C. Bradley's Addition Platted: 1925 Parcel Number: Parcel No. 97242-16-006 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97242-16-006, including the commercial building and rear parking area, encompassing the area associated with its historic commercial use. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length: 76 ft. x Width: 48 ft. 16. Number of stories: 1.0 17. Primary external wall material(s): Masonry-concrete block Packet Pg.126 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 18. Roof configuration: Flat 19. Primary external roof material: Unknown 20. Special features: None 21. General architectural description: Located on the east side of the 1600 block of South College Avenue,this single-story masonry commercial building was built in 1965. It is set back from the street, and a small paved parking lot extends from the front of the building to the sidewalk paralleling College Avenue. The building has a rectangular plan, measuring 48 feet wide and 76 feet deep. It has cast concrete block masonry parapet walls and is covered by a flat roof. It is accessed by a centrally- located wide concrete stairway with painted steel balustrade handrails.The facade was created with horizontality as its primary design characteristic - an aesthetic and functional approach tailored to the commercial use of the building.The facade contains a recessed,full-width glazed multi-space storefront,with a narrow concrete walkway along its length.The outer edge of this elevated walkway is enclosed by decorative steel railings with geometric design elements. The facade is symmetrically arranged,with a central main entry equipped with three contiguous glazed metal frame storefront doors.These doors are flanked on both sides with very large 1 x 1 fixed metal-frame storefront windows. Above the storefront is a wide, flat, and flat-topped (parapet) concrete awning structure that forms a wide band for signage. Contrasting multi- colored sandstone ashlar masonry veneer covers the lower walls below the storefront windows, and continues up the edges of the side walls to the awning/signboard structure. Red tabular sandstone sills run along the lower edges of the storefront windows, atop the ashlar veneer- clad lower walls.The same sandstone ashlar was used to construct small planters near the ends of the facade. According to builder Vic Deines, who was interviewed by Cindy Harris in 2001, the stone used for the planters and wall cladding was quarried at Masonville, Colorado. Both side elevations—north and south—are identical in design and construction.They are solid expanses of decorative concrete block masonry, and contain neither any window or door openings (including sealed openings). The front portion (approximately a third the length) of the building has tall side walls to accommodate the extra height of the canopy parapet along the facade, but step downs in height for the remainder of both side elevations.The decorative masonry is relatively subtle and consists of alternating bands of plain, relatively smooth concrete bricks and larger square blocks bearing three-dimensional vertically-elongated diamond elements. The rear (east) elevation has a strictly utilitarian design. A steel stairway with pipe handrails leads to a wide steel landing, also with pipe railings, providing access to two entrances, each with a painted metal door. Between these doors are two small (double-hung?)windows, and a large 1-by-1 window is placed towards the south end of the elevation. The lower level, below these doors and windows, is equipped with an entry with a painted metal door, and two small windows similar to those on the upper floor. On the northern portion of the rear elevation are a basement-level door (also painted metal), and a large garage door opening sealed with a modern roll-up garage door. This integral garage is accessed via a sloping excavated driveway with concrete retaining walls that support pipe safety railings. 22. Architectural style/building type: No style/Commercial building/Specialty store Packet Pg.127 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 23. Landscaping or special setting features: This commercial property is located on the east side of College Avenue, the long-established primary north-south route (and state highway) through Fort Collins. South of Prospect Road (and Colorado State University) —and including the 1600 block—College Avenue is lined almost entirely with commercial properties, most of which were constructed after 1960. The subject commercial building at 1618 South College Avenue is flanked by a large (two lot) commercial property on the south (#1630), and a single story Craftsman bungalow to the north (#1610) that was used over time as a residence, and later briefly to house businesses, followed finally by use as a non-profit social services organization office.The commercial property to the south set back is set back from College Avenue(and the parallel pedestrian sidewalk), which provided an area for an asphalt paved customer parking lot that occupies the entire northern lot of the two-lot property—adjoining the subject parcel at 1618 South College Avenue. Photos on old Assessor's property cards for the subject properties indicate that the large north parking lot for 1630 South College required the removal of a historic two-story dwelling, and occurred sometime between 1966 and 1978. On the adjoining southern lot of 1630 South College stands a two story, masonry walled, flat-roofed commercial building constructed in 1963 and remodeled in 2009. The rear portion of the parcel is also asphalt-paved for likely use by trucks bringing flooring to Vern's Carpet,Tile and Linoleum store,and for store trucks delivering the often heavy and bulky merchandise to customers. No landscaping or trees are located on the property. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1965 Source(s) of information: o Fort Collins City Directories. From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. o Larimer County Assessor's retired property cards for Parcel No. 97242-16-006, dated 1966 and 1979, in collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive, and available through the Fort Collins History Connection website. 26. Architect: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 28. Original owner: Vernon C. and Lois D. Schilling Source(s) of information: 1966 Larimer County Assessor property record 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): According to the Larimer County Assessor's property records for 1618 South College Avenue,this commercial building was constructed in 1965 by local builder Vic Deines, and likely replaced an existing historic residence that was razed. According to the 2010 Architectural Inventory Form prepared by Historitechture for the property, City of Fort Collins issued building permits for several exterior improvements/changes to the building, including installation of two signs in 1970, exterior painting and door replacement in 1998, and Packet Pg.128 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 replacement of exterior stairs and railing in 2008. Based on review of Assessor's photos, photos from the 2001 Architectural Inventory Form prepared by Carolyn Hartl and Cynthia Harris, and direct observation in 2020,the railing and stairs in question are likely those on the front, rather than the rear end of the building; however the replacement stairs and railing appear to have been done virtually in-kind. A significant change to the building's facade occurred sometime between 2001 and 2010— based on review of the photos included on the inventory forms prepared for this property in those years.As originally constructed in 1965,the upper portion of the facade—a projecting concrete block band above the slightly recessed storefront—was covered by an attached full- width "signboard" structure. It was described as it appeared in 2001 by Carolyn Hartl and Cynthia Harris: "An ornamental grille in goldtone metal with a geometric pattern runs the width of the building. It is positioned at the roof line and extends downward approximately four feet.This feature provides a backing for signage."The 2001 photographs show this structure being composed of a row of ten large square elements each containing eight rows of small solid square elements. Narrow vertical spaces separate each panel. Attached to this upper facade grille, and offset to the right/south was a large attached three-dimensional Upper and lower case sign spelling out "Vern's," and it does not appear to have been illuminated by neon or incandescent lights.As noted earlier,the "signboard" or grill spanning the top of the sign, along with the "Vern's" sign,were removed sometime between 2001 and 2010, and more likely between 2005 and 2010,since Vern's Carpet,Tile and Linoleum moved out of the building c. 2005. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): N/A V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Commercial-Specialty Store 32. Intermediate use(s): None 33. Current use(s): Vacant/Not in Use 34. Site type(s): Store/office building 35. Historical background: This masonry-walled commercial building was constructed in 1965,and was one of several commercial properties on the west side of the 1600 block of South College Avenue whose construction required the demolition of a row of historic dwellings constructed in I.C. Bradley's Addition in the 1920s.The only remnant of the row of these 1920s homes is the adjacent Craftsman bungalow at 1610 South College. This building is associated with the commercial development of South College Avenue beginning in the late 1950s and 1960s. As the authors of Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S; The City's Postwar Development, 1945-1969(2011) explain, prior to the late 1950s"locals still considered any address south of Prospect Road to be out in the country;this perception was not surprising since, at the time, both Prospect and Drake were still dirt roads, College Avenue was just two lanes wide in that section, and the area nearby still was farmland." With support from community boosters including the Chamber of Commerce, southward expansion commerce in Fort Collins rapidly followed the establishment of new residential subdivisions in the 1950s and 1960s. The development of College Avenue south of Prospect Road included an ambitious 1.5-2 million dollar development project: the University Shopping Packet Pg.129 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 Center, a multi-business retail plaza on the west side of College Avenue. According to Cindy Harris and Adam Tomas, authors of Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S, commercial development was driven in part by a significant investment made by the State Highway Department, which planned to widen and divide College Avenue (State Highway 287) from Olive Street to Drake Road - the southern city limits - in 1959. With the highway widened and modernized, new businesses sprang up along the South College Avenue, including on the west side of the 1600 block, in the 1960s. Although a thorough review of building construction dates along the corridor was not possible, the commercial property directly south of the subject property, at 1630 South College,was built in 1963,while 1618 was built two years later, in 1965.A common characteristic of commercial properties along South College Avenue is the incorporation of motorist-oriented amenities enabling driving customers to notice and access businesses adjacent to the highway,such as driveways and paved parking lots. 1618 South College Avenue has such features, including a small paved parking lot in front of the building. Constructed by local builder Vic Deines, the building was occupied from c. 1966 - c. 2005 primarily by businesses owned and operated by Vernon C. Schilling. Vernon and his wife Lois were the original owners of the property. Schilling's businesses included "Vern's Carpet, Tile and Linoleum," and "Vern's Top Shop," which operated concurrently. A prosperous economy and homebuilding in the 1960s created demand for all sorts of home construction and decor suppliers, including retail flooring stores. In 1973 the company was owned by four partners: Stan Schilling, Bob Salisbury,Scott Severin,and Don Butler.Other small businesses were housed in the building, which was divided into two office/store spaces, included Arts Unlimited, Inc., an arts and crafts supplies store operated by Frederick R. and Carol W. Josefly (c. 1966-1968); Nationwide Finance Company/ Nationwide Acceptance Company (c. 1972-1975); Western Securities Company (c. 1979); a hair salon called Heads First, operated by partners Debbie Keister, Ida Trujillo and Danielle Derbais from c. 1980-2003; Coit Drapery and Carpet Cleaners (c. 1985-2000); and The Catholic Store (c. 2002-2006). City directories omitted entries for the years 2007-2009; however, from c. 2010-2015, Coit Restoration Services occupied space in the building. In 2010 another business was also listed: A Matter of Time, which may have been a clock shop. However, the building appears to have been vacant from c. 2016 to the present (January 2020). 36. Sources of information: Fort Collins City Directories,for the years 1965 through 2019 (with gaps). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Harris, Cindi and Adam Thomas 2011 Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S; The City's Postwar Development, 1945-1969. Prepared by HISTORITECTURE, L.L.C.,for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department. Larimer County Assessor 1966 Property Card for 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97242-16-006). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 1979 Property Card for 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97242-16-006). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Packet Pg.130 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 2019 Current (2019) Larimer County Assessor's property record for (Parcel No. 97242-16- 006), available through the Assessor's website (https://www.larimer.org/assessor/). Accessed December 12, 2019. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Not Applicable Designating authority: Not Applicable 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable 40. Period of significance: Not Applicable 41. Level of significance: National State Local Not Applicable 42. Statement of significance: Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility: Previous Significance Evaluations: The property at 1618 South College Avenue has been recorded and evaluated for significance twice previously, in 2001 and 2010. The first such assessment was made by Colorado State University historic preservation program students Carolyn Hartl and Cynthia Harris,who prepared a Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (April 15, 2001) for the property, which was assigned site number 5LR.10494 by the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. At that time,the building still housed Vern's Tile and Linoleum retail store. Without elaborating, Hartl and Harris evaluated the property as "not significant based on the National Register Criteria," and that its integrity was intact since the building lacked exterior alterations or additions. The second recording and evaluation of the property was conducted by Adam Thomas of consultant Historitecture, from which an inventory form was completed on July 2, 2010. Thomas evaluated the architectural significance of the building,stating that"Architecturally, it represents a somewhat altered Modern Movements style commercial building." Although the "Modern Movements" classification of postwar commercial architecture is quite broad and varied,Thomas listed the building's character-defining features, and concluded that "The level of significance for this resource is not sufficient for this property to qualify for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. However,this resource qualifies for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark."The 2010 inventory form states that the building"exhibits a moderate level of physical integrity,"and that"The exterior changes detailed in the construction history appear to have been mostly replacement in-kind Packet Pg.131 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 and, therefore, had little impact on the aspects of design, materials, and workmanship." However, the 2010 integrity assessment failed to note the disappearance of the distinctive facade-wide signboard grille which constituted a major decorative and diagnostic element of the building. Removal of the signboard from the facade also included the distinctive and character-defining"Vern's" sign. Current Significance Evaluation (January 2020): The building located at 1618 South College Avenue is associated with post-1960 commercial development along the College Avenue corridor extending south of Prospect Road in Fort Collins. The property was built in 1965 and may be one of the earlier commercial properties established along this corridor from this period of commercial development. Unfortunately, however, insufficient detailed contextual information is available at this time to interpret the chronological pattern of development along College Avenue south of Prospect Road in Fort Collins. The original and long term business housed in the building—a retail flooring company called Vern's Carpet,Tile&Linoleum—is one of numerous and widely varied businesses in Fort Collins that have provided products and services, including flooring, to residents of Fort Collins since its founding, and neither Vern's Carpet,Tile & Linoleum/Vern's Top Shop nor Vernon and Lois Schilling are significant in terms of Fort Collins history. For these reasons, 1618 South College Avenue is evaluated as ineligible for Local Landmark designation under Criteria A or B. This 1965 commercial building is relatively nondescript, but exhibits some interesting aesthetic design attributes associated with commercial architectural design in the 1950s and 1960s, including a ubiquitous postwar modernist emphasis on horizontality, which the Fort Collins E- X-P-A-N-D-S historic context states, was also evident in the design of residences in the 1950s and 1960s. Other postwar commercial architectural design attributes utilized by the architect of 1618 South College Avenue include the flat parapet roof, (subtly) patterned decorative concrete block side walls, the use of sandstone ashlar and decorative steel railings on the facade, a wide glazed storefront, and a small front parking lot serving the driving customer. Small commercial buildings from the 1960s vary greatly in terms of design, and 1618 South College Avenue is evaluated as an understated and relatively plain example of postwar commercial architecture. It also has lost major original design elements from the facade—the decorative, patterned signboard grille that covered the top portion of the building and the attached original distinctive "Vern's" business sign. Because of its undistinguished design and diminished architectural integrity due to the loss of a major original facade design element, the building is evaluated as not qualifying for Local Landmark eligibility under Criterion C. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This 1965 commercial building retains a considerable amount of architectural integrity in terms of its form, lack of additions, unaltered side and rear elevations, and a portion of the facade; however, loss of the original metal signboard grille and "Vern's" sign have removed major character-defining features from the facade. Consequently, its overall integrity is evaluated as fair-good, but is insufficient to support Local Landmark eligibility for architectural significance. Packet Pg.132 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register(individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not (Individually) Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No Undetermined X Discuss:A potential historic district analysis was beyond the scope of the investigation. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing _ Noncontributing_ 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing _Noncontributing _ Not Applicable X Vill. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 47. Local Landmark(individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not (Individually) Eligible X Need Data IX. RECORDING INFORMATION 48. Photograph numbers: 51-11.1049441-37 Negatives or digital photo files filed at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center (Current Planning) - Historic Preservation Department, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins,CO 80524 49. Report title: Historic and Architectural Assessment for 1618 South College Avenue, Ft. Collins, CO 50. Date(s): January 4, 2020 51. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor 52. Organization: RETROSPECT 53. Address: 332 East Second Street, Loveland, CO 80537 54. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155 History Colorado-Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver,CO 80203 (303)866-3395 Packet Pg.133 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 c J ,°�^' ( �� Jar �?r �� r �'r`� .,s`•r-f' ett�i. �{ �"'!r `(7` i�Y�,�. r�. .. ..�.'` ` s: -`._. N_- rORADO SST OW jam- �� 7�,11 <` —_ -.�. � _ - ' I ,( '�� M'ti y ,1,.r:,� ✓ _��• S�. � .S(1YYot.l rl.� -•.tiJ 1618 S. College Avenue +� 5LR.10494 a■ 1 *" '� ;ryl "" ; RWWS ucu� I h a• � �.,. b- s� �r G t swi- 1 Y 3 T N o K i ROAD `.OaJ- _ aS<. - ROArl I Location of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.10494), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984). Packet Pg.134 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 ----------------� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Driveway to below 1 grade garage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 stairs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 stairs 1 1 1 1 Parking lot j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L----------------I SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE Sketch map of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.10494). Packet Pg.135 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 Now 1966 view of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins,from old Larimer County Assessor's property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. Packet Pg.136 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 N 4 /C. - 1969 view of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins,from old Larimer County Assessor's property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. Packet Pg.137 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 [217 7 Fr y � _ 1978 view of 1618 South College Avenue, Fort Collins,from old Larimer County Assessor's property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. Packet Pg.138 w " I'll'1'llllll�.�llisr:mil YYII MUM _. - _ ...... �. w- 0776 OL I.' Al_,14 y. M.wl; -- ���{�.ww��w�wwwwww�w was i � w i=.w rw- _. R•1� _! . . . i 8 : _ _ - ----- - _- - � -; asfA �iii���;j $ENavicl Now- FF �!;�ii► � �! �w� r / , ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 11 t r 1618 Available 970.776.3900 1618 South College Avenue, with partially dismantled sign looking . i 1618 South College Avenue, elevated storefront on facade, looking north. Packet Pg.142 I � � I i ras Ador 101 OAWim _ i ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 r _ � J ; Ope 1618 South College Avenue, northern portion of elevated storefront on facade, looking north. Packet Pg.144 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 'T i i 4wrr 7 7 _ 1 _ — _ e 1618 South College Avenue, multi-color sandstone ashlar masonry pillar, placed at end of fagade, looking NNE. Packet Pg.145 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 00, A." f� .•'fir r .t y1 / ,- _ ` 6- _ �• •�M .. + � .lam i L�xy 1618 South College Avenue, sandstone ashlar masonry veneer beneath storefront windows on facade. Packet Pg.146 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 I' J, >i y i M1 S� � � �,'r 'I �✓ • It 1l1'�A i9 ,e�q�l �. k... %.. � !-_ •. t--_ ��1�y ��.^y' '.-J'� III 1618 South College Avenue, closer view of sandstone ashlar masonry veneer on facade. Packet Pg.147 I � Y , 1 - !I --��`- �-�.� '� Tom•' '�..,��� � - I � � mg.m- Available W0.776.3900 MEMOago Im ■... YA . . ..11 RI Y II Y I I���illl' 1 ►�1� ������w1111u - - . ..nip �•l., � �4 . : . . . .. ... . . . .. . ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 a ti a a 1618 South College Avenue, south elevation made of decoratively patterned concrete blocks, looking SE. 1618 South College Avenue, looking patterned banding on concrete block exterior wall, north elevation. Packet Pg.150 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 JL FT i - 1 _S +- � �- • w + � ray 1618 South College Avenue, detail of concrete block pattern on exterior side walls of 1618 South College Avenue, north elevation, looking south. Packet Pg.151 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.10494 1618 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking northeast. .000 1618 South College Avenue, closer view of south elevation, looking northeast. Packet Pg.152 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 _Ikk 1618 South College Avenue, south elevation, looking northeast. 1618 South College Avenue, close-up of decorative concrete blocks on side elevations. Packet Pg.153 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 I -,. 1618 South College Avenue, concrete block pattern on south elevation looking north. Packet Pg.154 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 • � --. ____-'f- ----_ IIYr`�� ` \.A75 fit, i ti 1618 South College Avenue, south and rear/east elevations, looking northwest. � II 1618 South College Avenue, rear elevation, looking southwest. Packet Pg.155 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 I � Ifi16 I � w --1 1618 South College Avenue, rear/east elevation, looking west. I T� 1618 South College Avenue, rear elevation, looking west-northwest. Packet Pg.156 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 1618 "k t , w 1618 South College Avenue, rear elevation, looking northwest. 1616 OF 1618 South College Avenue, upper level (main floor but sloping terrain) looking southwest. Packet Pg.157 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 P. 1 � 1 Its I 1 1618 South College Avenue, southern portion of rear elevation, looking west. Packet Pg.158 r v � Pik r. 'a 9 4` ■ MOP -------------- L - vow, ® 4V_ I,rI _- - lit -j 4 _ r es ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 � f _ t �L r 3 - fFR 1618 South College Avenue, sloped concrete driveway/ramp leading to semi-subterranean garage on rear elevation, looking northwest. Packet Pg.160 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 2-15-17 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5 LR.10494 4 � f J 1 1618 South College Avenue, lower level windows on rear elevation, looking northwest. 1618 South College Avenue, closer view of lower level rear windows. Packet Pg.161 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Added 2-16-21 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 City of Fort Collins Plan of Protection for Historic Properties Project Title: Alpine Bank at SEC of S. College Avenue& E. Prospect Road Full Property Address: 1608, 1610,and 1618 S. College Avenue—Fort Collins, CO Form Prepared by: Galloway&Company, Elder Construction Please complete the following as applicable. Please answer each question thoroughly, and add additional pages if needed: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Description of project location: The existing property consists of multiple lots including three different existing buildings all of which include frontage along S. College Avenue in the SE quadrant of S. College Avenue and Prospect Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. 1.2 General description of work to be performed, including which firm(s)will be doing the work: The proposed project as described anticipates the demolition of two of the three existing buildings and on-site relocation of the third building which has been identified as being'Architecturally Significant'. Demolition and relocation will make way for a two-story 7,800 SF branch office for Alpine Bank. Proposed development would include three drive-through lanes located on the east side of the building away from the S, College frontage. Drive-through will include two teller operated lanes and one ATM accessible lane. 1.3 Building(s) or portion(s) of designated and eligible buildings within the area of adjacency that will be affected: The northern (1608 S. College) and southern (1618 S. College) most buildings are in relatively close proximity but are not considered designated or eligible buildings. 1.4 Is building adjacent to other buildings or structures, on or off site, and if so, how close?: Building is located 60' south of northern most building (1608 S. College). Located 17' north of southern most building (1618 S. College). 1.5 Are any of these other buildings or structures 50 years old or older(which ones, and what are their dates of construction, if known): The northern (1608 S. College) and southern (1618 S. College) most buildings were both constructed in the 1960s and appear to have served a variety of retail and commercial uses since that time. 2.0 Scope of Work Describe the work, and how it will affect any historic building(s) (both on the subject property and on adjacent properties, if applicable). Provide descriptions on each of the following, as applicable: Packet Pg.162 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Added 2-16-21 2.1 Demolition: Scope of work to include the demolition of the two existing buildings constructed in the 1960s(1608 and 1618 S. College). Demolition would also include the foundation of the existing architecturally significant building at 1610 S. College once the building has been relocated as proposed. 2.2 Site preparation: Grading and demolition as required to relocated existing architecturally significant building and prepare site for new Alpine Bank. 2.3 Excavation: As needed to construct new foundations for both relocated structure as well as proposed new Alpine Bank. 2.4 Utilities: All existing utilities (dry and wet) will be disconnected from existing structures in advance of demolition and relocation. New utilities (dry and wet) will be provided to both the relocated and proposed structures. Service sizes still to be determined. 2.5 New foundation: New reinforced concrete foundation will be provided for both relocated and proposed new structure. We anticipate the reuse of brick from the existing foundation on the new foundation as well. It should be noted that the brick on the existing foundation is part of the structural design and is assumed to not be reinforced. While we do anticipate incorporating the brick into the new foundation design for the relocated building it will not be part of the structural design. It will be used on the exterior of the foundation only to maintain the existing visual look of the brick. 2.6 New construction: TBD 2.7 Parking lot: New asphalt parking lot throughout site. 2.8 Driveways/alleyways: Access to site to be consolidated into a single access point from S. College Avenue and another from Prospect Road. Access from College to be located between relocated structure to the south and Alpine Bank to the north. Access from Prospect will be combined with alley which will then allow for multiple access points into the site. 2.9 Landscaping: New landscaping to be provided throughout project. 2.10 Drainage: Drainage design to include on-site water quality via underground structure to be located behind relocated building. 2.11 Other: n/a at this time. 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities 3.1 Name of person or persons responsible for overseeing the demolition and/or construction activities: Justin Sowell Superintendent 7380 Greendale Road, Suite A Windsor, CO 80550 970.786.0102 Mobile justin.sowell@elderconstructioninc.com 3.2 Will they be on site when that work is occurring? - Yes, full time. 3.3 If not, how may they be contacted if needed when that work is underway?— See contact info above. 3.4 What specific coordination practices will be used to coordinate work activities? -Justin Sowell works with the group of subcontractors as a team. He will be coordinating every aspect of construction between the subcontractors and adjacent building owners during the entire project Packet Pg.163 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Added 2-16-21 duration. Coordination practices to include: Preconstruction Meeting, Job Hazard Analysis, Integrated Work Plan, Daily Safety/Coordination Meeting, Full time Supervision. 4.0 Deconstruction,Salvaging& Recycling Materials 4.1 Which historic materials will be deconstructed and salvaged? -Demo of existing concrete and brick foundation; Bricks may be salvaged for reuse as an accent on the new foundation being constructed. Sandstone from existing buildings to be fully demolished will be removed and made available for recycling by others as reasonable. 4.2 Which historic materials will not be salvaged, and how will they be disposed of?-Existing foundation will be removed and delivered to a local concrete recycling facility. 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property How will you ensure that historic buildings, structures, and surface features will not be damaged during work? What means will be used to protect them? 5.1 Site Conservation-Full Delineation around structure in addition to full jobsite site fence and traffic barricades, Controlled access zone (authorized personnel only), Traffic control as needed, obligatory stop work authorization for all personnel, continuous supervision, and constant observation. 5.2 Demolition of Building-Building is being relocated and set on a new concrete crawl space foundation. Existing foundation to be demolished and removed off-site after building relocation. 5.3 Foundation Stability-Building is being relocated and set on a new concrete crawl space foundation. Existing foundation to be demolished and removed off-site after building relocation. 5.4 Structural-Building is being relocated and set on a new concrete crawl space foundation. 5.5 New Construction -Building is being relocated and set on a new concrete crawl space foundation. 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials-Entire Building to lifted and set on new concrete crawl space foundation. Existing exterior facade and roof materials assumed to remain. 5.7 New Openings-No new openings planned at this point. 5.8 Floor Framing-Floor to be lifted with the building and set on new concrete crawl space foundation. 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing-Roof structure to be lifted with building. 5.10 Structural Loads-New concrete crawl space foundation to be designed to support the building. 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning-New concrete crawl space foundation to be designed to support the building. 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure-Building to be relocated prior to excavations. Packet Pg.164 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Added 2-16-21 5.12.1 Distance of excavation from historic stone foundation (if within XX feet, soil disturbance and vibrations during excavation, construction, backfilling are likely to affect foundation, wall,floor, and even roof) 5.13 Site Cleanup - Continual project clean up around adjacent area of any construction debris that may leave site. 6.0 Documentation for Record 6.1 Does the project include measured drawings and/or photographs? - Yes, Detailed construction documents will be used for permitting and construction of the new foundation. TBD on level of detail that will or can be provided for the existing structure above the foundation. All drawings will be submitted to the building department as part of the building permit process. 6.2 Where will these be stored? - Hard copies and/or digital copies will be available on site. 7 Archeology How will you address archeological resources if they are likely to be present or if you should unexpectedly find them? (e.g., contact the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery; have an archeologist on site to monitor the work; have an archeologist on call.) -No archeological resources are anticipated to be encountered during demolition, construction, and site cleanup. However, in the event any are encountered, the site will be preserved, and we will contact the Museum of Discovery. Packet Pg.165 Agenda Item 5 STAFF REPORT February 17, 2021 Landmark 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) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to the Decision Maker(P&Z Board) LPC'S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker 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 considered 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 REQUESTS The following information that is relevant to the evaluation of compliance with Section 3.4.7 has been added to the applicant's submittal following the Commission's meeting with the applicant on January 20, 2021: • Revised response from applicant re: roofline design and how it responds to area of adjacency(applicant exhibit) Item 5, Page 1 Packet Pg.166 Agenda Item 5 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 Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met Code (Complies/Does Standard Not Comply) Massing 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be Complies and articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic Building resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side Articulation alley. Summary of LPC Comments to Date: The Commission did not identify concerns related to the width of the building. Staff finds that the building design is appropriately reflective of the intent of this standard. Massing 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to Complies and create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story Building above the height of historic resources on the development site, Articulation 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. Summary of LPC Comments to Date: The proposed massing and stepbacks meet this requirement. 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. Item 5, Page 2 Packet Pg.167 Agenda Item 5 Applicable Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met Code (Complies/Does Standard Not Comply) Building 3. The lower story facades until any stepback(required or otherwise) Complies Materials 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. Summary of LPC Comments to Date: The proposed materials of fiber cement lap siding, stone veneer, and aluminum clad wood windows comply with this standard. Building 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate Complies Materials 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. Summary of LPC Comments to Date: 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 but is not visible from the street. Fenestration 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) Complies 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. Summary of LPC Comments to Date: 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. The LPC did not identify concerns about this standard in its January 13, 2021 meeting. Item 5, Page 3 Packet Pg.168 Agenda Item 5 Applicable Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met Code (Complies/Does Standard Not Comply) Design 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such Complies Details as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Summary of LPC Comments to Date: 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. The LPC review of this standard was split: several members felt the design was appropriate, while the other half of the Commission wanted to see a version that included a less complicated set of rooflines, which the applicant has provided for consideration. Staff finds that this solution allows for subtle improvements to the design that have a positive impact on its compatibility with the area of adjacency, and that the design currently meets this standard. Visibility of New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining N/A Historic architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of Features historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Staff finds no evidence of concern regarding this standard, and the LPC did not raise any concerns in the January 2021 meeting. 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. Item 5, Page 4 Packet Pg.169 Agenda Item 5 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. Sample Motion for a Continuance: The Commission may propose a motion to continue the item to a subsequent meeting if insufficient information is available to answer key questions related to the code requirements, based on the following outline: "I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission continue this item to the next meeting in order to seek additional information regarding the following code requirements: [insert]" ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Remote Hearing Acknowledgement Item 5, Page 5 Packet Pg.170 Cit of Landmark Preservation Commission, February 17,2021 Fart Collins ,:oTI Collins ' �N�-�. _ Magnolia Dwellings— Development Review Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Role of LPC Provide recommendation to P&Z Board for proposed development re: compliance with Sect • Table 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 F�of t` Collins i f 3 City of Project • Demolish residence at 335 E Magnolia (Laurel School National a -Al Register District) • Construct 4-unit multifamily building - Review Status (Round 1 PDP) • Complete: survey requirement & conceptual staff review 4 Packet Pg.172 Property Assessment • 335 E Magnolia — Intensive-Level Survey c. 1902-1906 " 2019: Non-contributing to NR I - district Not eligible for FC r SOT Landmark designation 5 Area of Adjacency: 405 Peterson a �i : rvw C)esigrvited Historic Property :� w, Area of Adjacency: 401 Peterson 7 0 � o a - IN�� _ ® .11 -- _ milli— 11 IIIIIII I 4i ism II � �A ��M,- Owl I January 2021 Revised s . e ■ ■ 11 ■11 jj 11 11 e 11 Y 0`li3 1111 111 ■1111 !h II II li 11 li 11 11 - dllllllll e e 3 ■ !! !! If 11■ 1 ■ 11 ■11 jj 11 11 it 11 I`i 11 11 IIIII bI� Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Key Question: Does the revised design of the new construction comply with all six of the compatibility standards in 3.4.7(E), Table 1? 10 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 O toll auraim ro marcx eoovcowx �JV J L_ J _ I ano nniunos cocoaL � O (. ,I xmEsoxEVExEEx uj LL 0 W LLL nWESTELEVATION COLOR LEGEND Z Z UMESTONE VENEER(EDWARDS Q 101-OR1-INDIAYELLOW STONE-CUSTOM BLEND) O asrxairsnirvccfs oxifrvr000 ` COLOR 2-RAILINGS G W c M COLOR 3-BRINIAL M I ASPHALT SHINGLES-DRIFTW000 fasaq/Ounsxs-Mara e°ovmLOx ALLEXPOSED ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS TO BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING lop .10 - 8 rui AODgf55 xumfgai5 O �� .rauurvxxumeExsory 000xs axoxfcrniNoeiNS 4X4 POSTS-COLOR 2 O� .v nv�[xrnr Oa°u cO=Ox= - - BEAD BOARD axo vaunts coLore= I.. RASH RECYCL RASH RECYCLE sO RECYCLE RA FENCE-COLOR2 SH RECYCLE RASH 1O CONCRETESTOOP- aurnimromarzxmorcOL°x SLOPE 1:48 MIN. umfsrox[va[fa 2� n NORTH ELEVATION xA°E°xaoEE� ON n TRASH SCREEN PLAN—TYP. Ig TRASH ELEVATION 1 n TRASH ELEVATION 2 °a.E x° °E a°= �u�E:v.._,,-o. a0= s�LE:v=•-=•x• ao, sULE,�a°.ra• s BUILDING ELEVATIONS o B A01 Packet Pg.176 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 asPxur=xlx�Lfs"alr; foarlsrol=�:�a�sxs ' faxla��rrEa=MarcnaoarcoFoa - =lalx�w"x4 fxaosUaE ca�a. o m ,x x= ,x —— - — �L,aMroMar<xaoorwLoa N Z J J KIR O H coLoaro Mara Boor W 0 w000wwoows 5\0 W W woEa�araurafl�l=x a N "�ar roFoaz � Q 0 0 nE ,raLL"a"x"Mafa�"x000at a.aaaELfx,araooaz E"Eoaa EIMEsloxf�ExEEa Z Z g),!FE:u4�.AST Exa.LEVATION z C7 COLOR LEGEND Q a LIMESTONE VENEER(EDWARDS ` W aFrsnw COLOR I-INDIA YELLOW STONE-CUSTOM BLEND) G M M COLOR 2-RAILINGS u fascin/cUnEas-M _ COLOR 3-BRINIAL IIIIINALIAILASPHALT SHINGLES-DRIFTWOOD IEIGBAC"RF4U PEMFMxr sioluo wrtxa fxvosuac-coFoaz ALL EXPOSED ELECTRIC LAND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS TO BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING m � '—� - WIiH aznENs�16 o.c.roLoax G O rl IL y UNITA UNIT D 2 5915E UNITE UNITC 6� O 9 3 _ 5645E vaao sfreaca auralM ro Marcx morcoFox �O� �oEoaro Mara a�or h snlar caFoaz- NITC 9 U UNIT ]SF ¢{ ol/xNEoxx I n SOUTH ELEVATION w" Urwl���.�.,.a. BUILDING ELEVATIONS o ! A02 Packet Pg.177 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 F f 1 o ILA u —J H W 0 W Lu VIA EW FROM NE VIA EW FROM SE 0 a Z cz7 a � C W c Lm M M I ,II h h h n VIEW FROM NW n VIEW FROM EAST ZO 3D VIEWS o � A03 Packet Pg.178 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 F �o�lsrol=�:�ax�sx Z o LLI o n VIEW FROM NORTH g VIEW FROM SOUTH Q z �J Q Z z rF - a � C W c Lm M ow M h� ' 02 . 1o1 — � h ZO A -WF . RE ovxw�zo n VIEW FROM WEST wI U��A,E 3D VIEWS o � E A04 L J ® Packet Pg.179 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 ogro Al Ims� 0 —= _ C7 z +_ Z o [A]NEW CONSTRUCTION-335 E.MAGNOLIA [B]NEW CONSTRUCTION-VIEW FROM CORNER OF PETERSON AND MAGNOLIA (1)324 E.MAGNOLIA ) ( LJJ W uj N 1 OC _ r t J Z (3) IAI (1) �� 5 a 4 () W i c M VICINITY MAP - "� . (2)401 PETERSON (3)323 E.MAGNOLIA (4)406 PETERSON h ! `o10, ■r r lit m • - ' •►� w. ov0 3 ! •-�iY - _ - i SITE CONTEXT (5)400 PETERSON (6)330 PETERSON A05 Packet Pg.180 A,'►, ►��' =y',r, `�;is fi f', r fi ''"'`i�"'�• ���!!,!� �j rR�y .` �' �.1i11 i',� �` _ �+,,� '' �'P� end •�. I ._ + ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 swa 0 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH •OF BLOCK Lu Lu Lij LM VIEW LOOKING ■n � 71 CONTEXTUAL ELEVATIONS AND 3D VIEWS ■ N11 401 PETERSONMAGNOLIA —XTUAL NORTH ELEVATION FA06 v Packet '• ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning: NCM - Peterson Street Lot area: 9,500 sf/0.218 ac Proposed Use: Multi-Family Residential - Building information: " - Maximum height: 29'-8 1/2" - Total Units: 4 (2 bedroom units) Total Area: 3,781 SF Required vehicle parking spaces: (2) bedroom unit =1.75 space/unit • _ 1 1 1.75 x 4= 7 spaces Iw Provided vehicle parking spaces: u 1 F. Long Term spaces 4 _ _ I , Compact spaces 3 Total spaces 7 spaces N •Y Porch Porch .till", Porch Required bike parking spaces: Porch a]� , 1/bedroom 8 spaces C' Unit -- Unit2 Unit Unit4 1 Parking lot ' p spaces) I ?"' rtA - — , Q' Provided bike parking spaces: withbike Total 8 spaces enclosed - ` in sheds T 1 Trash/I&ycling h/Recycling tt� qlll — 1 1 . . M russe Magnolia Dwellings / MIIIC 2021.01.05 Site Plan Packet Pg.182 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 From: ishuff@alm2s.com To: Maren Bzdek Cc: "Jordan Obermann";"Ian Weber" Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Remote Hearing Acknowledgment--Respond by noon,Wednesday,2/3 Date: Tuesday,February 2,2021 12:12:23 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona Hi Maren, The Owners of Magnolia Dwelling, included on this email, and I acknowledge that the LPC meeting will be conducted remotely on Zoom and we would like to proceed with a remote hearing on Wednesday, February 17, 2021. Please let me know if you have any other related items that you need us to address. Thanks, Ian *Please note: Alm2s is working remotely at this time. If you need to contact me via phone, please call 970-481-6201. Ian Shuff, Principal alm2s 712 Whalers Way, B-100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 From: Maren Bzdek<mbzdek@fcgov.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 11:30 AM To: ishuff@alm2s.com Subject: Remote Hearing Acknowledgment--Respond by noon, Wednesday, 2/3 Importance: High Hi Ian, The City Attorney's Office has reminded staff that we should include a written acknowledgement from each applicant seeking a decision from the LPC that you understand the meeting will be conducted remotely on Zoom and that you are entitled to request that the meeting be delayed until the meeting could be conducted in person. This is required under Council's Ordinance 079 for remote hearings, as follows: Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or commission or an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use Code, shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi- Judicial Hearing using Remote Technology. Such person or applicant shall be entitled to request that the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be conducted in person. Would you please reply immediately to this email, cc'ing the property owner for the Magnolia Dwellings project,that you are aware of this provision and would like to proceed with a remote hearing on Wednesday, February 17?Your response will be included as an attachment in the LPC Packet Pg.183 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 agenda packet for the meeting. Thank you, Maren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAREN BZDEK She/Her/Hers Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Services 281 North College Avenue 970-221-6206 office mbzdek@fcoov.com Fort Collins MlitOrK Twitter I Facebook Tell us about our service, we want to know! "The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those some systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more." COVID19 Resources For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business[ Want to help: https://www.fcgov.com/volunteer/ Recursos COVID-19 Para integrantes de la comunidad:httos://www.fcoov.com/egs/Coronavirus Para empresas:httos://www.fcaov.com/business/ �Quieres ayudar a necesitas ayuda?https://www.fcaov.com/neighborhoodservices/adop Recursos de United Way:httjs:11uwa, Iv c.org[ Packet Pg.184 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Magna��•� Dwellings Packet Landmark Preservation C�mmissi�n February 17, 2021 .• 8, ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Site Plan Proposed I a I I ' I I 1 � � I I I Trash I GI 4 c_Porch Porch stA¢rl9 area I i Porch i. I .o ail' Porch Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 = _ Unit 4 Parking lot �7 (7 spaces)FL ? 'I W _Sh s-with.bike parking ° °5" I rash/Recycling Trash/Recycling I r I 1 v I I -ahm �+ mills • Magnolia Dwellings Q Packet Pg. 184-2 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Landscape Plan -i Kentucky Coffeetree Chanticleer Pear Taylor Juniper Skyrocket Juniper Lodense Privet White Hydrangeas I TL I"e Variety of . :e Hostas N i Pcnch Por h w [ILL i 1 p nn nn Pordl Unit Unit 2 Unit 3 - Unit d \ _ I Parking lot f 17 spaced '__Shads with bike parking- I — aii✓ae�yding --rrrs«ydiny I !� Periwinkle 1 z" Mills Sweet Woodruff I ahm • Magnolia Dwellings I Packet Pg. 184-3 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Site Data Zoning: NCM • Lot area: 9,500 sf / 0.218 a Proposed Use: Multi-Family Residential Building information: Maximum height: 29'-8 1/2" Total Units: 4 (2 bedroom unit: Total Area: 3,781 SF Required vehicle parking spaces: (2) bedroom unit = 1.75 space/unit 1.75 x 4 = 7 spaces Provided_ve_hicleparking spaces: Long Term spaces 4 Compact spaces 3 Total spaces 7 spaces Required bike-parkinq_spaces: 1/bedroom 8 spaces Provided bike parking spaces: mills Total 8 spaces enclos in sheds Magnolia -"wellings Packet Pg. 184-4 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context t c =- Designated HiStonC Property Eligible to be Designated HistonC Not Likely to be Designated Histom mills . Unknown•Unoetermmed- Unevaluated calm • Magnolia Dwellings Q Packet Pg. 184-5 • • • do • • • Context � %� . - � ' *} _, - 1, - '/'„ '�" y'�. a '". tom'• ,K 327 gilt v 30 1 305. E MagnoAir- lia St a n' 1 4 �319 MIRACLE RX a Computer Repair r t �- �- 32 [.�� russe + I PO Mills 4.- �I alum �/ • • . : • . • • • ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context i SITE East block face of Peterson Street looking East FIX SI I I 1 J mills ahm � West block face of Peterson Street looking West Magnolia '�wellings� Packet Pg. 184-7 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Building design ae Io Proposed Design � -�°xexEE��x,ox�Eat z NORTH ELEVATION ^^°I°^°°FMa °" e z o �� u 3uvEnx npxlWFM1EAMSRE'U -� "vxMT sx^YiFs vxIFlYNvv �^x�ax°I,�M^IEnF�.Ee Previous Design 3. — e,kl.xx,nFssx�n.Frw, mills -4UMixUnli.W Ametxs vn vvva enDNJIFX.f�Gllpsl .. eel ixlMly McFUe MIw CUIM . UMESWILAHEEx • .--_. _—_ __—__ SseM-Ep On�Ul NORTH ELEVATIONahm Magnolia swellings Q Packet Pg. 184-8 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Building design Proposed WEST ELEVATION 6-D, ® ® 9 9 9 9 GI 11' It= rfl 11 1 11 � 11 11 !f 11 ollc 1111111111 Proposed Design 11�1111� !1 11 01 11 old_ 1111 9 11 � !1 11 ® !1 11 1111 I. 11 !1 iL 11 (20 I IIIIIIIIII — m� sgE��!LEVATION . . ... Previous Design I� Magnolia Packet .• 8, • EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Building design Proposed COLORUGEND Proposed Design IIII 11�:11_. ^111 IIII -- a 11!1 11 , 11 IIII- 11�M _ ;illill� IIII el 11 E� I_ � � IIIIIIIIII IIII =A11 -JIIn 1!'II' � IIII -- e IIII 11 � 11 IIII ,,EAST ELEVATION l0 S� illl II II �111 � Previous Design Magnolia Packet .• ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Building design .1 Proposed Al I Design CA- ELEVATION Previous Design russell+ wrtnarnrEnea mills SOUTH ELEVATION ahm Magnolia Dwellinc- Packet Pg. 184-11 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Building massing and site placemer East side of building has a 8' 1 he tront north side has a 18' deep step-back deep step-back at the upper from the upper level to the front face of the 1- level interior units story porch. The south side also includes a 11' step-back from the rear porch to the upper level russek 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 at= • Magnolia Packet Pg. 184-12 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Building massing and site placement EXISTING DETNTCHED G-GE-E01 PETERSON(BEYOND) / - _ 1 imw -Ii - -; _ 77 - 1- Street elevation from Magnolia looking South mm russell+ ICI! ■■■ - - = 0 Street perspective from Magnolia looking South ahm • Magnolia Magnolia Dwellinri Packet Pg. 184-13 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Building massing and site placement Street perspective from Peterson/Magnolia intersection looking Southwest mills ---- ahm D Street perspective from Peterson looking Northwest Magnolia Dwellings Q Packet Pg. 184-14 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation Privacy with existing house to the east Upper balcony perspective from Unit 2 and 3 looking East ----------------------------- I ' 11L I —I = —I I' —ii1 1 jIf —jai—I 1-1II—i Il_1 1T—I LII IT II �I I �TT1 1-I MT 7_i TI III III —I �lIff�_ 11 I 1T 1 III— I' I l -11 1T 1 — 1= -1Ii iiI= I�H�I-1 �I I— DTI MT =Tf f f III-1 —I 4 Trl !I l I H I - I� T I — —I I I—III—LLI_ III-11-1 fb �Tn 7 _� � > L-IFIIi �� �i�L I I_1T1 n» 1 � >~�II, �� � 11�1 II Iannl� � i ICI II Z�I I —TI—II IIIJII II -1�1—u1 -1 -11 1 —IT-11 ahm E/W site section looking North Magnolia Dwellings Packet Pg. 184-15 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Privacy with existing house to the east Privacy East Tree Elevation Magnolia Dwellings Packet tit ,.:� �,• , �^,,.,.�a,.a��, , IIIIIII �� �' --- � IIIIII 11 russe + m� s i .• :4 • EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Building height compared to neighborhood context 12 I r 401 301 E Magnolia russe Magnolia DwellingLm Packet m� s .• 184-17 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons a .��.j,�!.��EI �f \tip 't'.�� +M1%� � i • �. �•: 1,�?wIl 1 1 t t� M.w t a 305 E Magnolia St. russe + m� s a Magnolia. Packet .• 184-18 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons 12 12 Cn Magnolia Dwelli Packet � � jl`• •,• ,rya:• russe + m� s .• EXHIBITITEM 5, BuildingUpdated Applicant Presentation Comparisons 29'- ® e ■� �r ••Zr„ 0 CP CO - •':, „ i� i■■ice ;•.��' a ; .,. IIIIII =�■■ ■■I� ' � � . ��IYYYYIYY �••, -- _ 406• Magnolia Dwellinc- russe + III 4 1 • P• 184-20 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons Cli r� r 1 �1 — _ - .1111, _1330 Peterson St. �ao9ie ,~ A "" russe + Magnolia Dwelli Packet .• 184-21 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Building height compared to neighborhood context Comparisons 12 ■ I ICI �� _ _�I ..-_ -- �, �r► Magnolia AWN russe + _ _ m� s MIR Packet .• 184-22 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) — Massing & Bldg. Articulation LUC Standards 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. russe Mills+ Wnn PP _ l I • Magnolia Dwellinr� Q Packet Pg. 184-23 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) — Massing & Bldg. Articulation LUC Standards 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. OF, > - = f mills Jill ahm Magnolia Dwellings Q Packet Pg. 184-24 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) — Building Materials LUC Standards Md, 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 f_ mills ahm [ = • Magnolia Dwellings Q Packet Pg. 184-25 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) — Building Materials LUC Standards 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. mills ahm i Magnolia Dwellings Q Packet Pg. 184-26 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) — Facade Details StandardsLUC 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. mills ahm Magnolia Dwellings Q Packet Pg. 184-27 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Updated Applicant Presentation LUC 3.4.7(E)(2) — Facade Details StandardsLUC 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. Nei mills ahm f : 1 ' � ^� IIIIIIII■�IIIIII Magnolia ^ • �"�nn� Packet Pg. 184-28 EXHIBITITEM 5, Updated Applicant Presentation Magna��•� Dwellings Packet Landmark Preservation C�mmissi�n February 17, 2021 .• 8, • Agenda Item 6 Updated 2-16-21 REPORTSTAFF Landmark PROJECT NAME 421 MATHEWS STREET (TOMLIN-ROBERTS PROPERTY)—NRHP DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Full rehabilitation of property including rear addition, window/door replacement, siding repair, porch repair, and chimney repair. APPLICANT/OWNER: Ryan & Bryan McCarty 421 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Proposal does not meet Standards—Property will no longer be historic ROLE OF LPC: National Register Design Review of single-family properties is an advisory review to encourage use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards)and retain a property's historic designation. Neither staff or the LPC are decision-makers on this review. The LPC's role is to review the project, approve the report (including requesting any modifications), and to make a recommendation on whether the property would remain historic after the project is completed. The LPC may make recommendations for improvement as part of its discussion. The report issued by the LPC is issued to the owner, who may respond and modify the project to improve its consistency with the Standards before applying for a building permit. The report is kept on file with the City's Historic Preservation Services division and may be transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Tomlin-Roberts Property was built in 1900 by master Fort Collins builder Herman Schroeder, who kept his personal residence next door at 419 Mathews Street. The property was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 as part of the Laurel School Historic District. While it is currently, likely, Landmark-eligible, it is not a City Landmark. The project proposes to add a master bedroom suite to the rear/southwest corner of the main house, requiring the demolition of historic-age additions to the house for a laundry space and sunporch. It also proposes repairs to the porch, chimneys, and lapboard siding on the historic house, replacement of all doors and windows, and replacement of the south-facing bay window. While several of these treatments are routine repairs due to moisture damage that meet the Standards, staff's recommendation is that the overall project does not meet the Standards based on the loss of the distinctive bay window, and replacement of all doors and windows. Staff would note the initial version of the project included replacement of all exterior siding that has since been shifted to a more sensitive treatment. Item 6, Page 1 Packet Pg.185 Agenda Item 6 Updated 2-16-21 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The Tomlin-Roberts property is a small Edwardian Cottage in the 400 block of Mathews Street in the Laurel School Historic District, part of the original 1873 Avery plat in Fort Collins. It includes a hipped roof with a centered gablet on the fagade, sided in Iapboard, lapboard siding, wood two-over-two sash windows with decorative surrounds on side and rear elevations, a distinctive Victorian-style canted bay window on the south elevation, two distinctive 6x4 wood casement windows on the facade under the porch, and two distinctive red brick chimneys. The 1980 Laurel School District provides a brief description of the property: • W. V. Roberts House (421 Mathews): c. 1894, single, detached, one story, irregular plan, clapboard, truncated hipped, plain, boxed, cornices, three bays. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1900—construction of main house and a 1.5 story barn along the alley; house was only the front bay with a small rear porch and kitchen addition; house had full-width front porch • c.1906—construction of rear additions to current configuration; front porch was small and only covered entry • 1919—repair and remodel of house • 1919—repair of frame barn (many middle-class homes had rear barns for sheltering a horse and wagon. Most were either modified to become automobile garages between the 1920s-1940s, or were replaced outright). • 1935—repairing (unspecified) • 1937—reshingle porch (likely roof); enclose rear porch • 1948_garage reshingled (likely the roof) (1943 Sanborn shows 1.5 story garage still intact) • 1948—main house insulated • 1949—reshingle house (roof) • 1997—roof replacement • 2014— roof replacement What is unclear in the record is when the front porch was rebuilt to its current, full-width configuration. The 1901 Sanborn shows a full-width porch. The historic photograph provided by the applicant(zoomed in clip from FCMOD photo 4XXMat12) indicates no porch in 1905. Subsequent (1906, 1909, 1917, 1925, and 1943) Sanborns show only a narrow portico covering the entry. Historic survey photographs taken in 1995 show the full-width porch. Based on materials and wear patterns on the front porch, it is possible that the front was added shortly after the 1943 Sanborn in the late-1940s or 1950s—this would align with modifications made to other frame porches in the area. This property does not appear to have undergone any significant Design Review in past. HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: N/A HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A Item 6, Page 2 Packet Pg.186 Agenda Item 6 Updated 2-16-21 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report regarding the following items: 1. Addition onto building's southwest corner and demolition of southwest sunporch/laundry room 2. Full window and door replacement 3. Siding repair 4. South bay window replacement 5. Front porch replacement 6. Reconstruction of the brick chimneys 7. Demolition of shed at southwest corner of lot REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has worked with the applicant to provide the following modifications and information: • Photographs of the existing property exterior • Modification of exterior treatment to retain/repair the lapboard siding and front porch Following the Work Session on February 10, the applicant provided the following clarifications via email: • Surrounds, minus those on the facade, will be reused. • Correction on fagade windows: they are casements (staff confirmed with a site visit 2/12) • Information about the condition of the existing bay window w/ photos Staff also included the 1998 historic survey file for the property—note that the survey is incorrect and newspaper records confirm Herman Schroeder built the property in 1900. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff has provided an analysis of the Standards in the attached report due for issuance from the LPC. Staff considers the following Standards to be of primary concern for this project: • Standard 2— Preserve historic character • Standard 5— Preserve historic features and materials • Standard 6— Repair rather than replace • Standard 9—Additions should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate • Standard 10—Additions should be reversible INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY: N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the proposed rehabilitation of 421 Mathews Street under Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The Tomlins-Robertson Property is a contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. • The proposed rehabilitation of 421 Mathews Street, while including elements that do meet the Standards, overall, does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. • The rehabilitation, as proposed, will render the building ineligible for City Landmark status, and will likely render the property non-contributing to the Laurel School Historic District due to loss of historic integrity. Item 6, Page 3 Packet Pg.187 Agenda Item 6 Updated 2-16-21 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the attached report be issued to the owner, finding that the project does not meet the Standards, and that the property will no longer retain historic status. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPORT: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission issue the report as drafted by staff, finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Tomlins-Roberts Property at 421 Mathews Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and that our findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time. SAMPLE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPORT WITH MODIFICATIONS: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission issue the report as drafted by staff, with the following modifications: • [list modifications to be made by staff to the report] finding that the proposed plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Tomlins-Roberts Property at 421 Mathews Street as presented, DO/DO NOT meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and that our findings shall be conveyed to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the documentation on this property at an appropriate time. SAMPLE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission continue this item to its regular meeting on [date and time of meeting] at which time the Commission can consider additional information as follows: • [list specific information needed to make a decision on the project] and make a decision regarding the report for this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft LPC Report for issuance 2. Design Review Application from Mr. McCarty (updated 2-16-21) 3. Correspondence w/applicant to amend packet 4. Applicant follow-up correspondence from Work Session (added 2-16-21) 5. Historic Survey file for property (added 2-16-21) 6. Staff Presentation (updated 2-16-21) Item 6, Page 4 Packet Pg.188 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Services P.O.ltV of Community Development&Neighborhood Services Collinsorth College Avenue Fort P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preseryation(a)fcgoy.corn fcgov.com/historicpreservation REPORT OF ALTERATIONS TO DESIGNATED RESOURCE Site Number/Address: 421 Mathews Street Laurel School National Register Historic District ISSUED: PENDING—LPC Review @ February 17, 2021 regular mtg Bryan McCarty 421 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. McCarty: This report is to document the summary of effects from proposed alterations to the Tomlin- Roberts Residence at 421 Mathews Street,pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, made by the Landmark Preservation Commission at their February 17, 2021 meeting. A copy of this report may be forwarded to the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. More specifically, the Commission commented on the following work items: I. Addition onto building's southwest corner and demolition of southwest sunporch/laundry room 2. Full window and door replacement 3. Siding repair 4. South bay window replacement 5. Front porch replacement 6. Reconstruction of the brick chimneys 7. Demolition of shed at southwest corner of lot Applicable SummaTf of Code Requirement and Analysis (Rehabilitation) Standard Code Met Standard (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use Y that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials,features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The proper will remain in residential use. SOI#2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. N The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Packet Pg.189 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 This property was constructed in 1900 by master Fort Collins builder Herman Schroeder as a set of three along with 425 Mathews to the south and his personal residence, 419 Mathews, to the north. The three homes together show-cased his craftmanship in carpentry and masonry. The first residents were O.B. and Jennie Tomlin, O.B. being a letter carrier. By 1903,Fort Collins postmaster William Roberts and his wife Mary lived at the dwelling with their two children,Helen and Irving, listed as students. The home's character-defining features include the 1.5 story hipped roof with gablet on the faVade,the shed-roof porch on the faVade with simple lathe-turned posts,wood lapboard siding, two-over-two and 12-over-12 wood sash windows with Victorian-style surrounds, a distinctive canted bay window on the south elevation, and two brick chimneys. While elements of the project are consistent with this Standard,the overall project does not meet this Standard. 1. Addition onto building's southwest corner and demolition of southwest sunporch/laundry room a. The proposed addition is attached to the rear of the home and matches the historic in roof height and overall massing. While some historic elements are being removed to make way for this addition, no character- defining features are being removed. This element appears to meet this Standard. 2. Full window and door replacement a. No comprehensive window study has been completed for this project, but photographs seem to indicate the windows are historic and repairable in most cases. Full replacement does not meet this Standard. While aluminum-clad wood is often a suitable replacement for historic windows, the replacements do not suitably match the historic form and function to meet this Standard. For example, the windows on the fagade, currently 12-over- 12 sash windows indicative of Herman Schroeder's craftsmanship, will be replaced with 2x2 casement windows. This project element does not meet this Standard. 3. Siding repair a. After consultation with Empire Carpentry, the applicant has modified plans to retain as much of the 4"lapboard siding as possible during the rehabilitation of the house. The siding is a character-defining feature and this treatment meets this Standard. - 2 - Packet Pg.190 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 4. South bay window replacement a. The project will remove the distinctive canted bay window on the south elevation and replace it with a boxed bay window. This is a character-defining feature and its removal does not meet this Standard. 5. Front porch replacement a. The history of the front porch is unclear based on primary source documents, however, the existing front porch is compatible with the overall Edwardian/Victorian character of the house. The new proposed front porch removes the entire structure, replaces the lathe-turned posts with squared posts, and replaces the tongue-and-groove decking and reconfigures the decking from perpendicular to parallel with the fagade, ultimately resulting in a porch that is not characteristic of this style of house. This project element does not meet this Standard. 6. Reconstruction of the brick chimneys a. Due to deterioration, the brick chimneys require deconstruction and reconstruction to ensure suitable mortar joints. This is a common repair to neglected masonry chimneys. However, the reconstruction of the prominent chimney on the north elevation is not in-kind and introduces a non-historic stone cap rather than reconstructing to match the existing configuration. This element does not meet this Standard. 7. Demolition of shed at southwest corner of lot a. This shed does not appear on any Sanborn maps through 1943 and may have been salvaged and moved to the property at a later date. It is not considered an historic resource for the purposes of this review. SOI#3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, Y 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. Most project elements are focused on repairing historic elements or altering/adding new elements in ways that are distinguishable as new. While most of those treatments do not meet other Standards,they are generally contemporary treatments to the earl 21'century and do not create a false sense of history. SOI#4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in N their own right will be retained and preserved. There is a sunporch/laundry room addition was likely added later.While of historic age and a common feature on homes from the early 20th century,this section of the house is not - 3 - Packet Pg.191 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 considered character-defining since it does not appear to relate to Herman Schroeder's craftsmanship and is not a defining element of the Edwardian cottage style. The history of the front porch history is unclear, although the existing porch appears to either be historic, or be a compatible porch added in the 1940s (a common period for such modifications in Fort Collins). The removal and replacement of this porch does not appear to meet this Standard. Permit records indicate the following history of alterations: • 1919—repair and remodel of house • 1919—repair of frame barn (many middle-class homes had rear barns for sheltering a horse and wagon. Most were either modified to become automobile garages between the 1920s- 1940s, or were replaced outright). • 1935 —repairing (unspecified) • 1937—reshingle porch (likely roof); enclose rear porch • 1948_garage reshingled (likely the roof) • 1948—main house insulated • 1949—reshingle house (roof) • 1997—roof replacement • 2014—roof replacement SOI#5 Distinctive materials,features,finishes, and construction techniques N or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. While elements of the project are consistent with the Standards, the overall project does not meet this Standard. 1. Addition onto building's southwest corner and demolition of southwest sunporch/laundry room a. While some historic elements are being removed to make way for this addition, no character-defining features are being removed. This element appears to meet this Standard. 2. Full window and door replacement a. No comprehensive window study has been completed for this project, but photographs seem to indicate the windows are historic and repairable in most cases. Full replacement does not meet this Standard. 3. Siding repair a. The original plans have been amended to repair the existing historic 4"lapboard rather than replace it. The lapboard is a defining feature and its repair meets this Standard. - 4 - Packet Pg.192 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 4. South bay window replacement a. The project will remove the distinctive canted bay window on the south elevation and replace it with a boxed bay window. This is a character-defining feature and its removal does not meet this Standard. 5. Front porch replacement a. While the history of the front porch is unclear, the existing porch is typical of historic buildings of this style and period throughout the city, whether added shortly after construction or,frequently, in the 1940s or 1950s. The proposed new porch removes an historic and/or compatible feature and replaces it with a modern element on the buildings primary elevation. This project element does not meet this Standard. 6. Reconstruction of the brick chimneys a. Due to deterioration, the brick chimneys require deconstruction and reconstruction to ensure suitable mortar joints. This is a common repair to neglected masonry chimneys and despite the inappropriate stone cap, appears to meet this Standard. 7. Demolition of shed at southwest corner of lot a. This shed does not appear on any Sanborn maps through 1943 and may have been salvaged and moved to the property at a later date. It is not considered an historic resource for the purposes of this review. SOI#6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. N 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. While elements of the project are consistent with this Standard, the overall project does not meet this Standard. 1. Addition onto building's southwest corner and demolition of southwest sunporch/laundry room a. N/A 2. Full window and door replacement a. No comprehensive window study has been completed for this project, but photographs seem to indicate the windows are historic and repairable in most cases. Full replacement does not necessary, and replacement windows do not replace the existing inform or function. This project element does not meet this Standard. 3. Siding Repair - 5 - Packet Pg.193 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 a. The original project plan has been modified to repair and retain as much of the 4"lapboard on the historic house as possible. The siding is a character-defining feature and this project element does meet this Standard. 4. South bay window replacement a. The project will remove the distinctive canted bay window on the south elevation and replace it with a boxed bay window. This is a character-defining feature and its removal does not meet this Standard. To meet this Standard, repair, stabilization, and addressing water penetration issues would be required. 5. Front porch replacement a. The front porch appears to have only minor wear-and- tear damage that is repairable, otherwise being in sound condition. Replacement does not appear necessary and the replacement proposed does not replicate the existing, or typical historic porches for properties such as this. This element does not meet this Standard. 6. Reconstruction of the brick chimneys b. Due to deterioration, the brick chimneys require deconstruction and reconstruction to ensure suitable mortar joints. This is a common repair to neglected masonry chimneys. However, the reconstruction of the prominent chimney on the north elevation is not in-kind and introduces a non-historic stone cap rather than reconstructing to match the existing configuration. This element does not meet this Standard. 7. Demolition of shed at southwest corner of lot a. This shed does not appear on any Sanborn maps through 447% 1943 and may have been salvaged and moved to the property at a later date. It is not considered an historic 'IN resource for the purposes of this review. SOI#7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken N/A using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. SOI#8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If N/A such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. No major excavation is expected as part of this project. Based on the already-disturbed nature of the property,the likelihood of significant archaeological discoveries being made during the ro'ect is low. SOI#9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction Y shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiatedfrom the old and shall be - 6 - Packet Pg.194 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Overall,the new addition to the southwest corner meets this Standard, although improvements could be made. The new work will be differentiated from the old via a different siding (board-and-batten vs. the historic lapboard), and is generally compatible with the massing and scale of the historic building, being of the same roof height,being located off a rear elevation, and being comparatively small in scale. It could be improved in two key ways 1. Siding: a more suitable siding for early 20th century residential construction, such as a lapboard of a different lap-width than the historic (board-and-batten is generally not appropriate in Fort Collins outside of industrial, agricultural, or working class contexts). 2. Bump-out: It could also be improved by reducing or eliminating the bump-out of the addition from the historic south wall plane and extending to the rear instead. SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be Y 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 rear addition is demolishing some historic-age sections of the home but these are not considered character-defining as noted above. The addition generally inserts into a space already defined by existing historic walls and extends outward from those, making reversibility in the future more feasible. The Commission found that the proposed work, overall, does not meet the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notice of the completion of this report has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. The Commission also finds that as a result of the project, the building will likely no longer qualify as an historic resource as it will no longer qualify as a City Landmark as an example of Herman Schroeder's craftsmanship, and will likely no longer contribute to the Laurel School Historic District. Please note that all ensuing work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming alterations are subject to stop-work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration requirements and penalties. - 7 - Packet Pg.195 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact staff at (970) 416-4250 or preservation(a),fc og v.com. Sincerely, Meg Dunn, Chair Landmark Preservation Commission - 8 - Packet Pg.196 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division 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. Applicant Information Ryan McCarty 970-473-4324 Applicant's Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone 421 Mathews Street Fort Collins CO 80524 Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code rmcrty@gmail.com Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Bryan McCarty 970-568-2906 Owner's Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone 421 Mathews Street Fort Collins CO 80524 Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code bjmcar78@hotmail.com Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. Full Restoration of the home: Replacement of windows, doors, siding, front porch Demolition of laundry room and rear porch Addition of new 1 Bedroom and 2 bathrooms, relocation of laundry room, new roof tie-ins, foundations, etc. New Exterior wall insulation, attic insulation 10-14 Month Schedule The following attachments are REQUIRED: Reminders: Complete application would need in Complete Application for Design Review all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. in Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing in Color photos of existing conditions and proposed. 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). City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Pa e 1 Packet F�g.197 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name:Front Porch Replacement Describe property feature and Describe proposed work on feature: its condition: Full replacement of porch, new columns, beam, deck, Existing added porch onto foundation and roof original house, poor condition. Deteriorating deck floor and north end has fallen 2-3" Feature B Name: Fireplace and Chimney Replacement Describe property feature and Describe proposed work on feature: its condition: fully remove chimney and fireplace and replace in existing Fireplace Chimney is location for a safe and properly functioning fireplace leaning and has grout damage Use Additional Worksheets as needed. City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 Packet Pg.198 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. 0 At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled 0 Photos for each feature as described in the section "Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work". Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. 0 Drawing with dimensions. 0 Product specification sheet(s). 0 Description of materials included in the proposed work. 0 Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. in Partial or full demolition is a part of this project. Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition. y Date:20 S0 2.27 2rt2y 0g41a0T00' CN=Ryan McCarty Ryan McCart 12/2 7/2 02 0 Signature of Applicant Date City of ,fit Collins City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 Packet Pg.199 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 City of Fort Collins Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) [Continuation Sheet] If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide individual costs for each feature. Feature D Name: Window and Door Replacement Describe property feature and Describe proposed work on feature: its condition: All existing windows to be replaced to match new addition All windows and doors are in windows as shown on plans poor condition, leak and cause water damage inside and out Feature D Name:South Elevation Bay Window replacement Describe property feature and Describe proposed work on feature: its condition: Bay window is to be rebuilt per plans with new windows, new Bay Window at dinning room roof line, structure, framing and drywall in over all poor condition. It has fallen roughly 2" and the roof has negative slope at this Bay Use Additional Worksheets as needed. City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Property Name 421 Mathews Extra Worksheet Page 1 Packet Pg.200 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 City of Fort Collins Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) [Continuation Sheet] If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide individual costs for each feature. Feature F Name: Kitchen Update and Addition Describe property feature and Describe proposed work on feature: its condition: Proposed new layout of kitchen island, addition of roughly 5' to Existing Kitchen is in poor the south with new appliances, cabinets, countertops, etc. per shape and needs floor to be plans level with new joists Feature F Name:Full 1 Bedroom and 2Bathroom Additon Describe property feature and Describe proposed work on feature: its condition: New addition of 1 bedroom and 2 bathrooms, new foundation, Existing bathroom in poor framing, roof tie-in, new siding, insulation, etc. See plans for condition details Use Additional Worksheets as needed. City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Property Name 421 Mathews Extra Worksheet Page 2 Packet Pg.201 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 McCarty Remodel Kdealgna 421 Mathews St., Fort Collins, CO .a,eoe°ogee°s=' February 15, 2021 aas�o�E a. m SHEET INDEX _ w elrn'E I - Sheet ---------- _ ------- ---b N------Fln— - — ------n NE.v raoacx I r I Number Sheet Name I ew Nirrvrmvo sr) A-0.0 Cover Page&Project Information I e c xncs I I 3 A-0.1 General Notes I I I A-1.2 Demo Plan&Foundation Plan A-2.1 Floor Plan&Roof Plan I - A3A Elasations PERMIT SET I I I A4.1 Building Sections I I wsnry sosxcs I S-1.1 F—ing&Foundation Plans General (ian srl� I Notes 't t S-2.1 Details I I I, McCarty Remodel I PROJECT INFORMATION I 421 Mathews St., � Fort Collins,CO aEexi I I II Ins Te I Ex�cr�NOExEoro 02/15/2021 I I ro.a,arx iEa.rrc °EnEM°�exEa _ I I I L—u13 sr)---- I ---- --------- ----- - I Fomaxown.co xs zaxxe°s.xcr ---------------- a--- __ �=Z=.T -------- ----- --- °xc°nxE.°ova xrax°.n sere.°xs —__—__—__ s 3MRiEs —INMEEI e wEERa T1 M—s(7 sr) 1.1 a,x.r,r.tta 1.— Cover Page&Project 1 Site Plan " aca�o—A 0P1ON0FE%1anxa Information A-0.0 Packet Pg.202 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �tlesigns ac�reae essza manne.pemm�e®amau.com MAIERJAL.S NBOLJ REFEMITCL S LLVjJI-ll S STANDARDABBREMATIONS E9®6'@66T s�tiovvnL7trt¢earto ___ v rsu c��rzaimFu"± Name se swami CTM sasa� � :�arra..,ema =p,exeva�x F 0 ® 0 101nvcwe.. n. rtEsrn vrirtrr rtnro - ��na� Aso — m (D P E9, PERMIT SET -- F� X.- `ER"11°`" McCarty Remodel 421 Mathews St., 100 —-- Fort Collins,CO 02/15/2021 GENERALN MS -- — — �` '� '��,�` e >•um Prro6n General Notes A-0. 1 Packet Pg.203 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �tlesigns --------------- i�Monae es sza e e maane.panniny®ymaii.wm r --- -- — I I I I I I II I`I I I 0 ------------------ I --�ra — lr________________, (x)a+nwa—E ES—)Mosel O / \> / ry I I I I I I R I�I I. I II _---- (E)cR4mbPAGE I I I I < s 5 1 1 .I'- ...—...—...—... _ __ _(E)Bath (EI Bedroom I"I I I II uuF—�� \O III 101 (E)La dry (D �I II III I I F l E()Porch Ip (El Kkhen e Pxlt I:I II 00 I� L_ wleE—LeRAeEaceEee II — o 6aa ,�/ --d xo. oEscRiRnox onTE EL Cl,. Oz / IhJI E Cll ELI O II© ELH 0 II Os (E)Bedroom II LINE TYPE LEGEND o(E)wnu 0`C °ExolErwaLL PERMIT SET --- xEwww> P x n "cE " (E)Bed— McCarty Remodel i IE)L'rvixoRown � II 421 Mathews St., IEl cr+ww�svncE II Fort Collins,CO rtE l l Demo Note Tag Legend g` 02/15/2021 Tag Description o�lElwoo —NING Q 0 I nrovEis oecn I qO I �IEIRoor neovE I I ovE IRLUMeixc O o�lElwsEwroRRnsov>= I I R:M o'+E IEIF M&ST—RR REµsmucr� L J ouElelco,,,xxe Demo Plan& Foundation Plan Foundation Plan .\ Main Level Demolition Plan .\ A _ I Packet Pg.204 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �tlesigns ® ac 90 ae essza _.P._" _ manne.penm ®email.cwn I el F I ❑ -12 a I Master Mnl cX 112 Elisse Master I °itOt a ka, 109 Hell Betlroa I � m 101 113 m + Ilia I `I mu 1a0 N I I N roe a Fe I �, ricX av ❑ ❑ � I v r --- ---------{i ---- a i I _ IJ b :I ELF- xe¢e I I I 1f/ IBDf 'I LE Pan EI 106 [sca o viioR onh IIII`` _ M1c �w I_se`,m,o„WE 0 EL 104s __cx oaEXiXc ___ I / E Dinin `^ Ra_om Betl ce 102 03 I -01— m PERMIT SET 4512 `� .e \ EI 1LIulna I Fa_art, E r I O� 1m "` McCartyRemodel I I 421 Mathews St., I Fort Collins,CO I �I 02/15/2021 Ie.awD�D�DMna 21 Floor Plan&Roof Plan �l Roof Plan Main Level Floor Plan .\ A—2.1 Packet Pg.205 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �tlesigns I�+f es`v aoo�oae eosz4 nsexursxwc�es ma,��e.ne�nma®amau.� _ \ ,xeFasanacurrea _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ no'ztn•' E Low Raaf Beal 109'-71Iz" eKtz siNNEO wo BEAM siDING nmx (E)Ma n LevN n 100'-0" � N FaunM., scoasOsroxscnv 99'-9314" cnsirvc,rry a xax¢arvruuvsiowc E Fou fi., B—Nnicx(E) 9Y-3314" North Elevation as aex Ex 1xi0F7�10o g n .zvz - — —� E Low ROM Bear vKsioxs. 1os-�12• _Q. � axasrwrvEow000a�uwxa o. oaa�nwr1ox w� o.,ra wI"aax,oarse rBr4 —__— _ _ _ _ _ —_—— ——_ __ _—_�E) i.Levu ___ _ 100'-0• — _ — ———� ——— a xoaizorvra�uv siOixc N Fountlal4 99'-9,i E Fou d-n. 99'-3.4' South Elevation xar�xoeF � PERMIT SET 1 TTT A.�NG- (EMcCarty Remodel 421 Mathews St., l Romeearq� Fort Collins,CO 1f0'-ziT E Low Raat Beaf —- - E Low Roof Beer' 109'-]1" 02/15/2021 M --i—ENSIDING VIM v [raw HELM Le �)Main Level -- ---- _ _ ----- - N100 N99�'o9a31 rvKF�u�ry Elevations E Foundation a xox¢o sioiry ,xs of �(E'Foundation^ �� rvrn,,na c � g 2 West Elevation ;1 East Elevation A—3, 1 Packet Pg.206 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �tlesigns RSBlxsuuTlON � \ i�oMoae eosz4 fm ROOF1ROs3E9 (E)aooF FRnmirve maane.panning®gmaii.wm IE,Rom���ar�� 110'_2112'V E Low Rom Bear 109'-]fl2" wsuunon Ma len° Meaier Master r °HL�a'll" LE) BaN Cbae, I.a Betlroom 10 110 111 1U1 113 xsuun0 an 0 E Ma Levei -_- --�-ice 100'-0' — I— N Fountlmion cONCFax✓ non oNw _ Y mlcRnwLsancE fel cRnwueanca III— E Foundation II I�I 99-334' ill=- I I III III Section D a„ lrvN,,.Rnm�Nsa s' ixsuunoN,To R�aiNsuu]w ej ""TCN1e iarRooFFRnm�Ns tNrRooF.Na55E5 (El ROof Baar —— z'^1 a �E)Rom Bear _ —— . _ IMAM. 112112" — _ _ _ — _ _ _ 110'-2112'E Low Rom Beat109'-]fl2' E K ELJ Clasei n f, °° . o[scxivnON05m102 1032 __ (EI Main _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ——_ (EI Main Level n1tl-0" _ — t 100'-0�'N Fwntla3b4 = N Fountlation99-9314' sis — — 99'_iii 4'IOorvc�Founo=noxwTnE FOundao0n I � E Foundation E CjJ ELLAR E C�ELLAR III=� 99-3314" 99'-33/4'III�� �� III 001 Section C 2 Section114 B L n PERMIT SET R<F NaaunoN - f \~ mj FreRFRwn Ne McCarty Remodel ————— x,R— uo —� � (ElRooreaar 421 Mathews St., _I__E­Roof na-21nB Fort Collins,CO Bear109'-]1T ° °P7 °� °� m02/15/2021 oTA �I ��I"'"'�1I EjMaskr1..11..1 EKItcM1en �1..1 Ra�Li 1c1 owLu1„ ILI LJ 10 L.I LJ 10 LJ mz nN O�] �0 ] (E1 Main Level s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ III_—eI I aI c iIII—1 of0d0a'-o FCAx w 0•' 1 Building Sections314 =I1=I M=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=1 =III=III=III=1 =1'I 1= oo, =III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=1 /1 Section A A—4. 1 Packet Pg.207 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 McCarty Remodel �deeigne 421 Mathews St. , Fort Collins, CO December 9, 2020 10 -------------- RE-t, I w ------ ---—r————— FRE��:Fr— ------ .aE �ge�n SHEET INDEX Ir— ---- -------- — sn as iNC(1 I Sheet axGsr I Number Sheet Name W3 srl° __�;Y I I I I M.g Cover Page&Project Information A-0.1 General Wee A-1.2 Demo Plan&Foundation Plan 98%SET I I A-2.1 Floor Plan&Raot Plan I E— I AJ.1 E1—fione 11 SFI RFS I t A41 Building Sections z I 1, * McCarty Remodel I PROJECT INFORMATION 421 Mathews St., Fort Collins,CO I Ir————————- WIN,— II I l� I a.eeLK11— 12/09/2020 o'mww co w ------------ ---.—--------- ---- DWWT ————— --—— —————— I l J __ ____ ____ _____ m I �; ��"s necKeoaK000coeserrvenoK eu�en(NCB): ea. _ H °a pane ----- F�0Ans. _ rom°owNS.CO SN exam°. 1°00° 10ff„a N Co , Cover Page&Project 1 Spite Pla an, . me�nE"°E. Information A-0.0 Packet Pg.208 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �designa ��nans ssa C�pools eo anna.pmninq®gmau.cwn 1VYTERIAL,S11VWLS EFFRENICE SYNWL4 STANDARDABBREVfATTONS (tlB➢�BlS son sleerwvrtvarts edam M View Name a a _ a IIA I NO - N.O ON s>� 0 - _� - aoom dHOF Name aaonf�'ma visiotas. ® 101 0. orsc 11"ON oasE nutuam m,stt�na sim, vsa mrn�vmc s��xmiwlmcxp _ — _ - _ PdlR IwmovrtoveAuno>almvxMmrtulm�al _ s, s waLL�Ea� NER ® m N07 I_ E ,® sowA 98%SET LT -- e eoe ,: rr am _ ewe.= .e w �e ,m.,, NAI Pao "'�"""°'" aaHt�r�a�mam�,,� McCarty Remodel 421 Mathews St., Fort Collins,CO ra ,a�a 12/09/2020 �,_.,P� r. «,• snna<a,m - �`sema,,. ®a„umro��am.�m GENEPALNUMS CT A. - �` General Notes A-0. 1 Packet Pg.209 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 41 �designa celnans sza C�pools eo anna.pmninq®gmaircwn r. ---� I{?I I: I I I I I I I —�Fa 5 ---------------- -4= ipcw.wrsvacE (EE)C1 O 0 �> rT—i I I:.I II JI —...— Pcaa�ncE I I a a a IE1 Bath III (El Bedroom II -1 r7 N tI� r(' Imo- -------J ---�-- _-� `I \O Ihl r1 I, II `�Jljj �lOsl fEl Leundry �I I: I II III lu O 00 III (E)Porch k I'I I I fEl KMhm I I:I L_ I' —E cnaw�svawnccsss II �-II ++II�� O evisioRs. R I ILJJJ/Q+ II/ --d rvo. oescRianoe Dare ELJ CI°sad L- —JL--_ I I \\� El Betlioom II O I �yl E CELLAR --� O Al II O LEL41nLa9 I Q �I O Room ( I LINE TYPE LEGEND o iElwau O�L :E)—L 98%SET ---oerwiElorxw --- F new wut \\\ O l u n (E)Bedroom II McCarty Remodel O / tE\riviaa Room ' 421 Mathews St., iEicw.w�saacE O`� II Fort Collins,CO n Demo Note Tag Legend \ Q 12/09/2020 Tag I Description wE HEN'. niwil saw O 0 —WHEN'. OElaoor I ov[Islaaurasrzic O I uove EluaEwosaaeovE oveiEineePuce suarsou L J Demo Plan& Foundation Plan U Foundation Plan .\ U Main Level Demolition Plan .\ A- 1 Packet Pg.210 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �designa ------------------ za celnan s a�o�aoesssa I I anna.Penninq®gmau.cwn rl'L Neater — mf a1 2 12' -J tip � - � Master -nl fi Gloeat aadn 110 _ � _ �� I 188 Hall BeEmam ` I Benn�AAgN — 8 ila o ❑ ❑ w a liI _ E(LM"en aeee 1 1o5 -- 1/ a -I ianJI LE Pero cute ne, — — 'I I 185 ,�a _ E _ oao�oRP.a �E ==_7-__ a------ - I IceE Dinln S] � _ 1°2 1°3 II , II r a.,z = ml -r-------- 98%SET - - HIGH'-OPEN'.. E]Livi g Ra_am - - 101 W41 McCarty Remodel I 421 Mathews St., el I Fort Collins,CO 12/09/2020 n l wawocoluraes - Floor Plan&Roof Plan �l Roof Plan .� �l Main Level Floor Plan .\ A—2.1 Packet Pg.211 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �designa celnans ssa n� Asxxursxlxc�ss eo anna.penn®gmail.cwn titxaxascwacunsa Roof Bealgg^ — ---_ _—_— _ — --- 110'-2112 109 W Beal a'xti srurvsowD saAN '/i Arvl2 BOARD& SIDING DEK txxFescw - _ Man Levels E Fwndetlon s�oxaosrorvs cAP 99'-33/4' caswc,rn a xoaizoxrA�ua siowc N Foundation ealcxuATcx T) 99'-21/2' North Elevation USFAsc-G—E a % — �,x,orrscw�—Roof BeaGn 110'-27/z' I E Lox Roof Beal Evislorvs. .—BA—siDlrvc I - - I - - - _ Q ` ax,zarAlrvao.,,�os cur o. o xlxriory Dare z WIN —vox,—N, — ..---- — e --- — —P — --- --- — ,xs—'E1U Levu a xoaizorvruuvsiolrvc E Foundation N Foundation 99'-21/z' South Elevation xarA<xooF 98%SET ASax.Lraxlrva�a ASPx.LraxlrvD�a a McCarty Remodel ,xaFAaDwaoD,rea j - txaFAaIwaot R R 421 Mathews St., Roof Bea�� Fort Collins,CO 110'-2'. 1 — 1f 0'-21YY' - E Low Roof Beef _ E Law Rcof Beal a°A" aIDIrvD - 12/09/2020 NWINDOW—G— MR_ BOARD-- I �ELMein Level/ saxta iussmiu wo cowrwMs ()Main Lavel/� -- — _ — — — — — 1p•V --N - — — 100'-0"V E Foundation E Foundation 97-33/4' 99'-33X' �axAsriA Elevations t � (N'Foundation^ 4xoalxo slolxc ,xs os (N)Foundation�xrutoa g 2 West Elevation East Elevation A-3,1 Packet Pg.212 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 �designa celnan o RtalxsuunoN � tm RooF 11-ING r_ (E) / LL��IN1 —TON Master Master `_' aOL�10„ 0C110 111 107113 N..Ui% _ _ s 100o 1 E FOUMe00n text Faux non axw INICR4wLsvnc[ — — (ElcRnwLsnn ac — — III 99'-33/4'wxr.w�S xsUnnoxnl C: N F Nation �:I --1 III III III 1- -1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 — -I 99'1-21n' Section D �I NO__(E) _ IN.....xussss �"�1 (a1RGOFa"ANIMG Roof�ear -z vr� E Low Roof Beaf E Low Root Beat 109'-]7l2' f09'-71" x� E Kl."' E Close) E-n n13 ooas�R105 104 R BNOif (E)Mall Level _ _ _ _ E Main Level E FouMatlon — — — — — —ll E Four .lon 3 99-3W "wxi'ro xo:nou wu " 'n°E E CEL AR III III III— N 411 Fou Marion d CELIAR —III III III— N Foum ation — 99, III II w w I =III III I�I�I: 99-2112 III III III III —III III III 99.don III III L 001 —III III III—I III-III III III III _I-III= II III-III III III- ^111111-III III- I I 0 Section C Section B 98%SET 71 Rrn�NaGa1K,x —'/ —�,>w FrRLFR,NwG McCarty Remodel Ix�RGGa,xaaaaa '.,a,"oGF.rna^�xa 421 Mathews St., _ _ (El Root Bear n9'-z1nB Fort Collins,CO E Low ROM Bear ms'-7 1n° 12/09/2020 O 1713 17 0 O D E Livin aFnx m Ef_)DiI E Kitchen �� Ree f01m cowxxs iNSGunoN itt III......III 1L„.fft�Il�"O'I�JII 10' I�m 102 ixsuunoN (E)WIN Level n 100'-0"V coxr.R lawsuunorvn T INICRnwL 0 _ _ E RONntlaGon tEl—La 99'-33I6" .NCFGNxa ww — if 1=III=1Re m '""='I —111 11 I I Sectlion Iq I I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1�I I I I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I� 9B, J I=-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I _ 1 _III=--III—III-, --II I N Fotlation Building SectionsLE cELwa 99'-21n' —- -11=I I I A-4.1 Packet Pg.213 ITEM • ATTACHMENT Updated 2-16-21 1 . lop Fagade, facing east r 1 i 1t onto Mathews St. Packet .g ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated2-16-21 f Fag r" •� r J� � 1:1„ `�t�i` . • - looking southwest. Packet Pg.2115 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 f r AIL'_ VE/ 1 North elevation, front section, looking south. I !' I North elevation, hyphen, looking south. Packet Pg.216 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 own 1 �r I I' 1 l Left: North elevation, looking southeast.; Right: North elevation, rear corner of front section, looking southeast. Packet Pg.217 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 -LT_t i - 1 i I 1 Nk Z L M � North elevation, rear section, looking southeast Packet Pg.218 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 r• t� i yr� == l Ir South elevation, showing distinctive bay window, looking northwest. Packet Pg.219 ITEM • ATTACHMENT Updated 2-16-21 i ! N EI s ------------ South •. window Packet Pg.220 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 i . r ti 17.1 • a - - - roy,, 't Base of south bay window r South elevation, rear portion, looking north Packet Pg.221 ITEM • ATTACHMENT Updated 2-16-21 imp Rear � . elevation, • • location of addition, looking northeast. Rear addition (c.1906), looking east. Packet Pg.222 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 2-16-21 -NX-� L 411, ¢Air- 1� 10f. r aT �F <- — Patio and rear garage (c.1940s), looking northwest. Packet Pg.223 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Jim Bertolini From: Ryan McCarty <rmcrty@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:57 PM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:421 Mathews Street - Rehab planning Jim, I apologize for the late response in regards to 421 Mathews St, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Items as discussed are as follows: 1) Existing 4" Lap Siding- I will do my best to restore the existing siding as is in the front of the house. -The new Additions shown on the plans will be the Board and Batt LP Engineered Wood Siding 2) Existing Bay Window-This is not salvageable due to the extreme water damage of the years of improper roofing and foundation work. 3) Front Porch -This is not original to the home and would like to leave this as plans show. 4) Windows- Not all of the windows are original and will be replacing them with a Windsor Alum Clad. Will talk with you tonight. Thanks, Ryan McCarty 3) On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 4:54 PM Jim Bertolini <lbertolini@fcgov.com>wrote: Thanks again for chatting. I've got you in the hopper for LPC review—it looks like January's docket was already full but I've got you on for February and we'll bump you forward to January if something opens up. Regular meetings are on the 3rd Wednesday of the month at 5:30pm, currently virtual-only via Zoom (agendas with Zoom links are posted here a week prior: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php). • February 17t" @ 5:30 p.m. (Work session on Feb. 10 where LPC members ask for more info, if needed; no public/applicant comment). • (if something opens up)January 20t" @ 5:30 p.m. (Work session on Jan. 13) I'll predict that most of the LPC's concern, similar to staffs, will be on the front porch,the historic building siding(can it be repaired or at least replaced with matching lapboard?), and the south bay window (can it be repaired or at least a replacement closer to what's there now?). Most of the rest of the project is fairly well planned/designed. If you have questions or other info in the interim,just let me know.Thanks! i Packet Pg.224 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Added 2-16-21 Jim Bertolini From: Ryan McCarty <rmcrty@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 10:27 AM To: Jim Bertolini Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: FW: Landmark Preservation Commission Agenda Has Been Posted (421 Mathews) Jim, Please see in red below for answers to the comments from the commissioners. Thanks, Ryan McCarty rmcrty@gmail.com (970) 473-4324 On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 6:40 PM Jim Bertolini<]bertolini@fcgov.com>wrote: Ryan, The LPC Work Session wrapped up (short and sweet this week!). For the regular session,there were a few questions from commissioners that they are hoping you can address next Wednesday evening, either through materials to send on before next Monday at 5pm, a presentation to the LPC next week, or verbal comments next week: Are the exterior window surrounds being removed, and if so why?of window surrounds on exterior I will be reusing the Window Surrounds minus the ones at the front windows due to the install of the front porch that were cut down to fit the front porch. I will have to replace the top trim piece as shown on photos 1 and 2. • What is the motivation to change the type of windows?Why the change from sash to casement and why the change in overall glazing pattern? The type of windows are not changing,the demo plan shows existing casement windows and will be installed back as a casement window, not a sash. The change to the front windows for glazing pattern to match the rest of the windows.The front windows are not original window patterns. Based on Photo 3,the 4 square is appropriate for the rest of the existing windows around the house. i Packet Pg.225 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Added 2-16-21 • Regarding the bay window, has the applicant done any substrate exploration to tell if there's actually dry rot or is this just peeled paint? I have explored and peeled the paint away. Please see photos 4,5,6 and 7 of the damage to the bay window. I will be salvaging some of the trim around the windows to use for the new window exterior trim. Keep in mind that this entire bay window has fallen roughly 2" from side of the house to the outside edge of the house.This has to be pulled out and resupported. Photo 1 North Window on West Elevation.JPG Photo 2 South Window on West Elevation.JPG Photo 3 Fort Collins Historic Database 1912.PNG Photo 4 Bay Window.JPG Photo 5 Bay Window.JPG Photo 6 Bay Window.JPG Photo 7 Bay Window.JPG If you have questions, please let me know.Thanks! JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development&Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office iberfolini(aUcgov.com Tell us about our service,we want to know! From:Jim Bertolini Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:24 AM To: 'Ryan McCarty' <rmcrty@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: Landmark Preservation Commission Agenda Has Been Posted (421 Mathews) Ryan, 2 Packet Pg.226 x;• a _i "'�.' � ;`• �` i � jAr ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Added 2-16-21 w t r pawl � ' •� ' wet {, _ 4 Z 09 Packet Pg.229 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Added 2-16-21 •► ----�—�=ems - ML 4. Vm IL �- 1 :s " R• �, Packet Pg.230 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Added 2-16-21 \\ �-\- ` `mil � ` ��\ ` \ .t \a. � V ♦ , 'lR Packet Pg.231 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Added 2-16-21 r.' ,i .00 Packet Pg.232 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Added 2-16-21 jw f 1 I l ti t F[ �:.,�1v��Ci.si•1s:;��.�,c�.�..� .J, ....�ti4i .;�i,,...sr,.1 �. ,:'r..�l,c. i�7l.��Mlf� �.1:':'��' !Z.�.i s,'� �1.�:' _ Packet Pg.233 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 FTC Midtown Historic District r OAHP1403 � COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY SITE NQ.: 5LP2854 Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation y 1300 Broadway Denver,CO 80203 OFFICE USE ONLY Eligible for National Register _yes —no date initials Criteria _A _B _C _D `r HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY Contributes to a potential National Register district _yes _no district name: Eligible for State Register_yes no coui,m: Larimer CITY: Fort Collins date initials — ; Criteria a _b c d e — I Areas of significance: HISTORIC BUILDING NAME: Roberts House Period of significance Needs data date initials CURRENT BUILDING NAME: none LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: [)yes Pq no Date of designation: N/A ADDRESS: 421 Mathews Street Designating authority: N/A Fort Collins, CO 80524 Parcel No. 97123-31-003 P.M.: 6th township: 7N range: 69W S W 'of SE /.of S W%of S W Y. of section 12 OWNER NAME&ADDRESS: G A S Properties, LLC UTM REFERENCE- Zone: 13 220 East Mulberry Street Easting: 493760 m. E Fort Collins, CO 80524 Northing: 4492135 in.N USGS QUAD NAME: Fort Collins,CO Year: 1960(Photorevised 1984) [X]7 5- 15' STYLE: Folk Victorian Bloch: 134 Lot(s): 3 Addition: N/A (original Fort Collins townsite) Year of addition: 1873 BUILDING TYPE Pq original location []moved Date of moves(s): N/A MATERIALS: Concrete foundation, wood frame,clapboard siding, HISTORIC USE:single family dwelling asphalt shingle roof PRESENT USE: rental dwelling STORIES 1 SQUARE FOOTAGE: 1173 DATE OF CONSTRUCTION-estimate: 1875-1894 actual. Source of information. W.C. Willits map of Fort Collins 1894) PLAN SHAPE: ARCHITECT: unknown Source of information: N/A BUILDER/CONTRACTOR: unknown Source of information: N/A ORIGINAL OWNER: unknown rf Source of information: N/A ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS-[X)yes [)no Type: detached garages (2) a Packet Pg.234 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: This historic home is a single story, wood frame eclectic vernacular dwelling with an irregular plan. The main portion of the house is covered by a very low pitched hip roof with a flat crest and boxed eaves; small gables are present on the front and north elevations. The front gable is covered with clapboard, while the face of the north gable is covered with imbricated triangular shingles. The front facade is symmetrically arranged, with a nearly full-width open front porch enclosed by a low balustrade railing set between turned spindle roof support posts. The main entry is nearly centered on the facade, and is framed by a Colonial Revival style wooden surround with a peaked lintel piece containing an elongated diamond element. The door is flanked by unique,tall fixed 24-light windows divided by thin muntins. A similar 24-light window is installed on the south elevation, near the front of the house. These and other windows are framed by Colonial Revival style surrounds with peaked wooden lintels. Another distinguishing feature is an elaborately detailed canted bay window on the south elevation. This bay window is embellished with pairs of ornate scroll-sawn Italianate cornice brackets between each window. The front portion of the house is equipped with two red brick chimneys, including an exterior chimney on the north elevation near the front right comer, and a tall interior chimney that rises from the flat crest of the main hip roof. Both chimneys are relatively tall, and lean away from the vertical. Attached to the rear of the main hipped mass is a narrower,hipped, wood frame wing with an enclosed, shed-roofed rear porch on its south side. Joined to this rear wing is a hipped wing addition that projects well north of the main mass. A deteriorating chimney rises from 1 the flat roof crest of this addition, and attached to its east/front side is an enclosed porch with an entry. The house is in generally good condition, and appears to be largely unmodified except for the northwesternmost rear addition. Two wood frame outbuildings are associated with this dwelling. A large, end-gabled one bay garage with a low pitched roof is located directly behind the home, and is clad with shiplap siding. This garage is equipped with a pair of hinged doors over the vehicle opening. South of this garage is a much smaller structure covered by a hip roof with exposed rafters. This outbuilding is clad with board and batten siding, and appears to represent an older .y automobile garage. Both garages retain sufficient integrity to be considered contributing elements of the property. additional page(s PHOToGRAPHs(include photographs showing each side of building and any associated buildings) Film roll no.: ES-29 Photographer: Jason Marmor Negative no.: 33, 34 Location of negatives: City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department L4CONSTRUCTION HISTORY(include description and dates of major additions.alterations,or demolitions): This modest wood frame house was apparently constructed sometime prior to 1894, since its footprint is depicted on the map produced by W.C. Willits ~ in that year. Sanborn map evidence indicates that the canted bay window on the south side of the dwelling was added between 1901 and 1906. The house was further alter between 1901 and 1906 by addition of a large wing to the northwest comer of the narrower rear wing. The house appears otherwise unaltered. The ages of both detached garages could not be ascertained from Sanborn maps,however, both appear to be of historic age (>50 years old). According to McCormick,Dobrogosz, Shultis, and Massey, a shed on the property(the smaller outbuilding?) was built in 1904. 3 a iti nail a e s . �: _ Packet P . ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 HiSTORICAL BACKGROUND(discuss important persons and events associated with this building): This modest vernacular wood frame dwelling was apparently constructed sometime between 18 2omlin d 1894, and unfortuately, its early ownership history is obscure. The first reported occupants were Oliverr and his wife Jennie, listed at this address in the 1902 city directory. Oliver Tomlin was one of Fort Collins' first mail carriers, who worked at that profession for many years before moving to Helena, Montana. Tomlin was the son of A.B. Tomlin, an early arrival in Fort Collins who operated a general store in the young community. Oliver and Jenny Tomlin had vacated this house by 1908, by which time game warden William V. Roberts and his wife Mary had moved in. The Roberts family retained the home at least until 1913-14. By 1922,Mrs. Mary Sherwood,widow of Frederick W. Sherwood, one of the very earliest settlers of the Cache la Poudre Valley, was living at this address. Mary Moulton had arrived in Larimer County in 1869, and was a schoolteacher in the Timnath district until her marriage to Frederick Sherwood in 1874. She was widowed in February of 1906. By 1927 Mrs. Sherwood had been replaced as the occupant of 421 Mathews Street by J. Raymond Kissock and his wife Margie. Mr. Kissock was co-owner of Johnson-Kissock Chevrolet Co., and early Fort Collins automobile dealership, and was the son of early Fort Collins businessman John A. C. Kissock. J. Raymond Kissock and W. C. Johnson operated thier car dealership from 1918 until 1918, when Kissock entered into a partnership and started an insurance and loan company. By 1940 the Kissocks had moved out of this small house, and in their place was a retired farmer, Samuel W. Moore, and his wife Louisa. As of 1963, the Moores had been supplanted by Henry Martin, owner of the Mountain Fruit Company, and his wife Charlotte. The Martins resided at this address at least until the late 1960s, and by 1973 the dwelling was used as student housing. Since that time, it has been used primarily as a rental property. additional page(s) INFORMATION SOURCES(be specific): 1) Sanborn fire insurance maps, 1901-1948; 2) Fort Collins City Directories, 1902- 1985; 3) Larimer County Assessor property record for 421 Mathews Street; 4) Ansel Watrous, History of Larimer County, Colorado (Fort Collins: Courier Printing & Publishing Co., 1911), pp. 332, , 394-395; 5) Mary McCormick, Mike Dobrogosz, Tammy Schultis, and Rheba Massey,Survey of the 400 Block (East Facing) of Mathews Street With Particular Attention to 409 Mathews The Hammett House. Paper prepared for Colorado State University class HY500C, December 1984, on file at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office; 6) "Centenarian has watched city become different world," (story about J. Raymond Kissock), Fort Collins Coloradoan, n.d.; 7)"Samuel Moore,Retired Farmer, Dies at Age 93,"Fort Collins Coloradoan, January 8, 1967; 8)"Mrs. Moore Dies Here at Age 90,"Fort Collins Coloradoan, July 26, 1963. additional a e s SIGNIFICANCE(check appropriate categories) THEME(S): Architectural significance: Historical significance: O represents the work of a master [J associated with significant person(s) []possess high artistic value []associated with significant event [j represents a type,period,or method of []associated with a pattern of events construction [X]contributes to an historic district National Register eligibility: Individual []yes [X]no Contributes to a potential district: Cntena:[]A (]B []C [J D (X]yes [I no Area(s)of significance: NIA District name: Fort Collins Eastside Historic District Period of si>;nificance: N/A STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE(briefly justify the significance Checked above): This property was considered a contributing element of the Laurel School Historic District that was entered on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. It is not associated with historically important events,patterns of events, or persons, nor does it embody sufficient architectural importance to qualify as individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, the house at 421 Mathews Street is a virtually unaltered and interesting example of modest Folk Victorian in Fort Collins,and merits designation as a Local Landmark. Additionally, the home clearly contributes to the historic architectural character of the area, and would be considered a contributing element of a potential locally designated historic district encompassing the largely residential Eastside neighborhood bounded roughly by Remington Street, E. Mulberry Street,E. Mountain Street, and Riverside Avenue. I nal pagpl(� Packet Pg.236 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 Districz L,« -0 - INVENTORY COMPLETED BY: Jason Marmor �DATE: JUIY98 AFRuAnON: City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department PHONE:(970) 224-6078 ADDRESS: 281 North College Avenue PROJECTNAME: Fort Collins Eastslde Fort Collins, CO 80522 Neighborhood Survey Project I Packet Pg.237 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 Eastside Neighborhood Architectural Survey Eastside Neighborhood Architectural Survey Site 5LR2854 Site 5LR2854 421 Mathews St. 421 Mathews St. July 8, 1997 July 8, 1997 Roll 29,Exp. 34A Roll 29,Exp. 33A View looking SW View looking NW Negative on file at Ft. Collins Planning Dept. Negative on file at Ft. Collins Planning Dept. �I I 0 ti Packet Pg.238 ITEM • ATTACHMENT Added 2-16-21 K �+` �/ a ,% \.� , �' , i a r ,, ••.w5��.� r _ - '�►` ,'-7. �, �} .fin ' ! �> `�. I 1� ■ Mfg Packet Pg • • 1 1 7 r J ! ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 too own l� a iz yam/ `s y Packet Pg.241 • 1 � ti� J,�1• �, 1 � �-� - .1 n are •' � � r � 1• 10 r .r _ • f�S r• � 1 F — ^ . i' Y' a ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 INTENSIVE SURVEY OF EASTSIDE AREA City Directories 421 MATHEW S STREET 1902- O B Tomlin (Jennie), letter carrier, 116. 1908- Wm V Roberts (Mary P), game warden, 124. 1909-10- W U Roberts, Irving W P, meter reader, 125. 1913-14- Irving W Roberts, 77. 1922- Mrs Mary Sherwood, widow F W, owner, 125. 1927- J Raymond Kissock (Margie; Johnson-Kissock Chevrolet Co), 104. 1933- Kissock Raymond J (Margie C), pres-mgr J R Kissock Inc; gasoline and oils 4 mi s of city, owner, 81. 1940- Moore S W (Louisa), retired farmer, owner, 82. 1948-Moore Sand W (Louisa M), owner, (2), 201. 1954- Moore Samuel W (Louisa M), retired, owner, (2), 173. 1959- Moore Sameul W (Louisa M), retired, owner, (2), 279. 1963- Martin Henry (Charlotte), produce salesmn owner, (2), 308. 1968-Martin Henry (Charlotte), owner Mountain Fruit Co, owner, 529. 1973- student housing, 426. 1979- 1985-Marberry M, 490. Packet Pg.243 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 Excerpt from Ansel Watrous,History of Larimer County, 1911 OLIVER B. ToNILIN-. This deservedly poptilar young man, who served as a mail carrier in Fort Collins, for many years, being one of the original ap- pointees, is now a resident of Helena, Montana, and is employed as a draftsman in the office of the sur- veyor-general of that state. His parents came to this state in 1872, and his father, A. B. Tomlin, conducted a general store in Fort Collins for many years. Mr. Tomlin was born in Fort Collins Jan. 4th7 1878. He attended the public schools and High school and graduated from the Colorado Agricul- tural college with distinguished honors. He has a host of friends in his native city, where he has been so favorably known from boyhood, who are warm b admirers of his straightforward disposition and y Ln- manly character. Packet Pg.244 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 rt tt`M 4 ` I wasVA w luc k - all y a, life My t � y d OW mo,Onw",*,d f Ksfotk loaf peA an he 62.ye.narnape of IM nQ+tgt d become different worldworldCentenarian has xvatche city y 11t dedMettd r.anpepen oo•ryte a ne 1>d-M warkt WU wet di l4gry atwn `fit xe as soR s By is fiSA R r� L`1at ettet[:nt4 •bK vrtn OM }tDlt.►)mod� Jae IM4111 IP 1W to DOAL%����f�C�1�7� rw.rft Ct,o,e0­ eneft'b NNtec�vo Sve . —wftt, aR,end Q.Res+K t.dountaln Nat eRaudlalifts J.RaYRWnd Ki*%*Ck aptoavtaaese•tmat•hen 'Mai mom my Soa,rpradb aalat'Irdles.tdessveiasIMJe' Hes La DtVubt&GKRNdrs eltdtw4 tkit Age. ,.�-. (:OR®D+fle tlsN Cefef ptri f°ertD.a 7ereal and Wgr"for a car uIYOCf aa1a.rt kfs rKn RAO-01+e taula wtl "004.:•T TMJ RR Na1Y. Reno t1uP•Naa KlfeOrX no.rwldtw.�L Klssad geld hrG�sn ltddl CasuR lataa� OOR� � ont tnu;erlpnstm)p-radiottfaart9 y�a. -•a: praw* Qtvislet Dreo>A"Arans N4 ad wasdde�Orbfetrot 69 M the aftetstra.lcldts � �- -� K ■ Goo Kyeadt father.Jad tawn.ea ttt�D�.optatse�otyDfa �a �Q" -rhf etratt to a in e a vas fare b 1171 wttn w seam a Qtty t*oAm can es a-s we fAlt Ileebe-• 1ps0 0l:rtt9�els'ra1-'1ey ara: a a S r WW�� 1m fdld "Oh.1;o►td setae can Had tta!lter_at t Ur11m 5"Ity at* eAtt as yt•rs pe Y fry Mlmrttatr.' DwgPor YW, 1Wr and nor Jt b If ran dYropafsna�f aw-I AMM*ow tva 47 A.Aft: r.is rt co7W+e k'1R7tr'r't aad bed co>ot+at0- Mon temJ9 plretapaaa!Naao CM aDb RsdKtiari a tttK It 4Ys, t4'ss b Fad Cd Yn:A4naa1 al r 'N�ffbbm Ns mDtaer. tadey as RNsack fttl Cram Inc. Kts.Wk.s waa Ile nom to•o s and -aft altoffOe 4&F tBald WAn rot of t'nav Sr eeo'ry ISb"'k sae t1�im't- 'seder the eigg,"fl"a11]e10,00 �-y Vela 1.1.rrkr my bw W x nowr"t1MM�kelwer lttae delr .,._-fM.-~speebKY WEE t fats.Awl t twruav mad to me - ptetX eAnrslt'a! as a - Jed and Comm tttsaerf ssWw doSri'VOK __ - n.:s m yOuMg [�.R a dlbo%a'ast !vk tow,:us&lands rayed teret Cs�!d'us - _...�...�.wwr a ateaaara 1 1! o K re MIA"I gma h ft"was rtf1 des n vtr ' zy<ldene wh h ry� Mafni �sAAD need faal_'_ P. .• Sacs Jarry aadldtr po0u elf.1W alAtn weft nor paatleS ,lark and Enema dao Klawk add hr)dd"L Prttt7 wM r�-LM7b@ft retsecl cmn dau6hter: As W"of 1 as.e a�K of fm PW tome!w OEM He""yeid "!had a D'lafd who d'ved rd Ad Ky/suck attended COlarad. StateiWO d,Wa� SMILE WE",aadtk d�el7r�» rw aad� th". .at fa"o r!' ttn7ea rd Ade lav at -wv„Ra���yyrd tma Dam CA'.belt to go#nd h 1W1' St to Unrfrrot�ur twn>"m�mats �• -Ka hU..-Kuaoest WA __ Packet Pg.245 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 ,� .t►� jilhoueftes NIS sock fam il la ed active role Ry Libt:y James It,rry's rnrmary .arches Staff Writer back to a time when his Thkd of a Series father used to drop him off at when Raymond and Mar- tss grandmother's ho:jsc on e Kissock were getting his way to work to await the rady to build their horns at opetng of Rerrmng Lon School .11 1 each morningg In her later ym mid s ino"ier Emma years,EmmaKissockwasno cametoseetheI.and iheybad / fonder of housework than selected-"It'sawfalyfaroat she had even be" r• and of town," she commented ro:.jlinely solicited young "but it's sure pretty" Jerry'saidinmakingherbed Forty two years later Mr each morning, much to h and Mrs John Raymond Kis- displeasure sock still live in Lhe home Jack Kissock is remem they built and raised they bered by those who knew him family in across fruit'. Fort asasiccesslul.hard working Collins High School. businessman who neverthc Although he has travelled less refused to allow labor extensively. Raymond ad- %yrm d Ktasock dominate ha We MIS that "home" has never lays claim to the fort Collins California.Jerry and his wife With his wife Emma he er► been farther away than nine doible• charnpionship with J-unr have three sons,Ketly• yoyed the good tinier as they Marks north at 408 Riming- partrier W C Johnston "1 17, and tw.tts. Tim and 8@1, came to him • but also de- (au Street where he was born neler mildbral himmsing- Il Like his grandfather, voted time and effort to the 1lewa3!helourthchildand les,"Kosockconfides Jerry has served his corn- bettermentdthecommuntity only son burn to JohRA i' and 1t,e-riior Kiiuock became mun,ly on'he city council he called home for so long. Emma Sweeney Kissock involved tit,Alt), and ranc1, Two of his oldei <rstet9.Mr% ing anon alter his arrlva: ,n 1-hirley Andrews of Laguna tow ti.sndin tM-yrarstaconie Hills. Ca and Mrs Ruby was lei toe re►aii and aoetir- Fiobrrts of Denver rurvive arrvb•,mness.and alsoset,rp Mrs.Je+sle K Clark,throld- Cie first ab~tract office in est child• lived all her Ilfr• in Latimer County Fort Collin. )f twxe city Jack Kissock. as he was �It .i)a as resp commonly called came w In tarn g Jou g Fort Collins hen ii was it r rr of pecessit. Poore !han a pioneer settle a cyst Is the K w- rrienl in 1874 The 19 year-old in acmuntan!came West from fine art-bved early busi- Montreal. Canada,seeking a nrss venture was the eitab- climate that would improve lishmenl of a stagecoach his broken health run between Fort Collins and After his first glimpse of Deadwood. .' D Jack in- Fort Collins he wasn't at all vestedintheeoachattheurg- sure that he was going to ng of a friend. but when the stay, but a chance meeting slagr failed to return from its widranoldfrxndwhooffered first nin the friend went to him a place to•Lay helped to South Dakota to investigate convince him that Fort Col- whiletherehewaslulledin lins wasn I .uch a bad place a alining accident but Jack after al! did not learn lets until many In 1881 Jack married years !ater when he was Emma Sweeney who had Iravelling in[he area wtlhhis come to Fort Collins from son Raymond. The Dead- New Vork state loaf tend Cot wood st&V never evencan- orado Agricultural and pitted one round Mechanical Collegr Both 4ck ors W for Kislocks knew how Io enjoy err town life and there 1• little •vi- y Slav derive that they rvrr knew %;I tittle est much about the"hardshipsof A f rpltmeer life"first-haindMt's Kissock ivaa a fun I br ing I rish lass who loved Io n Fort entertain and who dremed elegantly every day of the From 1911 until 1929 w.a•k the looked forward to Raymond K►asock, in part- outlnR�t ne . and visits with nership with W C Johnsto . I11CIZ and ovotd►•d house- had Ute Chevrolet agrr,ry in hold •hour when~v`r pclasi lawn Then followed lour blr years in the whoteaale '•1"m ttw lu.Blest person in -ad In aline bushes/before Mr. it, world-- •eys nlwyn` oa U^1a�eurarscw wd loww,boiM- K1ww.w-♦ ww Ir. i..►+ Irw• ier•,hlsw hIw www 1e..7 rr 11•r Ile y«rrw wt h1.lien w.. i.A.Y iw taw ww..r1 T� Ki...ra Iw Mw�wrai a .�.f rr ..^•ir.'. File wI rk wand �Marpe and ltaynonJ 0111' Cilerrokrr f a it aymord i a 9f orid"let norieds s ock rd t mite' who has two t ll of those days. fir enjoy a tennia as a young rnan and dret and Ibis In Berhaky. Packet Pg.246 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 Samuel Moore' Retired "arer Dies at Age . 93 ' Samuel W. Moore, 03, former- Iy of 421 Mathews Street, died In it Fort Collins nuretog home Monday afternoon. He was a retired f arm er and had lived in the Fort Collins area for 74 years. -Moore was born Dec. lb, 1873, at Tipton, Iowa. lie was raised on a farm there and attended Iowa schools. He came to Colo- rado for health reasons and at- tended Colorado State Unlverai- ty for a year before he began farming. His wile, Louise, died here July 25, 1963. They were mar- ried ou May 2, 1900, in Fort Col. Una. , He w" a member of the-First Metal st Church and served on the church board for 20 years. Hewmember-of the Proneer Aaaociation. ' In 1932 he sold his farm and retired. He lived at 421 Mathews Str ee4 until 1961 when he en- te reed. a nuratng horse. Surviving children are sons David of Greeley and Clarence of MLIfolly Springs, Pa. There are` two grrandchlldren and six great-grandchildren. The Rev. Henry H. Baker will co nduct a 2,30 p..m_Friday eerv- icc At the B1Ythe-COodrlch 3ior. I tuary. l3 uriaL will be at Grand- view Cemetery. >i Al T H A w:::w Packet Pg.247 _�.r_f - - ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 2-16-21 Fort Collins 1—Hearing 'Mrs. Moore Dies ast Slated " ' P` ' Here at Age 90 Iwld rnurt in various torts of the county. replacing the pry-nt jtu- !rs Ament the Younger tire of the peace carts. Mrs. IIouisa Udvina Moore. aloe the timeftht Saga- %r• RYaa also urged that new PkinrrT Fort (boats nrtldenL [.tale Miss Fart Cuaina" }'tdiclal districts be as amall as dled at a local nursing bone !, txmiible for economy reasons, and ore Chosen on�a thnt district judges be given pow- �r in falling health for�, itra•squad game at tbl_ rr over Internal court administra- years. - �_ &L tim, rather than be subject to leg- She was born to Riley cottsty, I !r itlatir+e action in these matters. pod to will panic{- Mr. geltna aald Weld County �'' Jan. 1. 1671. the dang.hter ` be CO°test' nmis three dittrict judges and of Mr. and Urs. Jotm T. Dolly. bw Fred and Fas at K1LZ four county7e family reored to Cdara�io of Denver and Carl . lie ender coact m- front Mlssotal to IM She mar at r arganlratian. lie Also urged elirrt• is tat CoWns automobile rigid Samuel W. Moore, wbo was WL=er of the „V� ination of political rs mt aJan of farming northeast of Fort Col � l rollimk" contest w i 1 I judges and substitution of a sy�s tit rw tern of choice by merit. Ifni, here on May 2, tgoo. s a "tittle Man Color&- The Cac-he Is Poudrr Grata Us Mr. gad Mrs. Were rne!amo4l ;t latrr this summer Ln Ws Assn- proposal calls for sus farming until tlx: when ._LSev Ind d pointment of Conservancy Din-'tneced to 4:1 Mathews Street GAP i testant_s will be kedged trict directors by a group ew*1 M". Moore joined the Matbo• 111111111010 ante in a ley dre-", posed of judQea from each of the diet Church as a young girl a.-4i ,11. prrsonaility and W I was a member at her death- Safe �a +I�r+posed new j,�d�Ws districts t Sunday sch" classes for = i :�hi� will contain of th � bay hi lipstick. rouge• Cmser►•ancy la Oriet i many Sean and was a m=ber s Rh heels, faLse hair. or Under przsrnt taw. Lhe appolrlt• of the WM, serving as the Ft>R that sari a s of looking older or meats are made by the Eighth Collis union serreta-y for cd Isticate(i• Judicial District judges. and in it 4 M will be judged at an'practice by the presiding fudge. For many years the was an contest at the Colarn � -lat ptit Judge William E. eve member of the No. 16 Club 101L s Building at 2 P,ter.J tuck of Bmjder. who is ciCcW and the Pioneer Assn. I from the enure district. Survivors inchsde two sons, Da b a Mists chosen at i h a t gnu to r ropn,4 via Samoel of Greelry and Oar 66 � rompete in the "U A suggested legislative big ence Avery of %1t Hefty Springs >or s>r Collins" finals at 7:is was appended to the propmal Pa.; two hl'tf ors, A1. W. Dea)y � ME the Bronco gum. presented by Mr� Fischer. of Fort Collins and J. W. Deal; r`1a be annrntneed The new proposal points out of Loogmnnt: one !sister. Ain -time of the game that. !riles the law is changed Rebecca Wilkins of Washougal. Foe will present the to piece the aproinu're power to rash.: two grandchikhvc. and and atmoun" the a ba:tc" of judges nPrtxrttin8'� great grandchildren. Another all the new districts. Cbmvsvan- �• Chester Herman, died M ur the event wlll be cy District water users outside L13L rns, .hung Rester„Ue new Eighth District will have The funernl will be conducted rnewo th, and two yet no voice in rlrcdi of the Eighth at 10:30 a.m_ Monday in the District >te Ctrst the can- )sedge. First !lfethatisl Church by flue )ear girt held In Fah Cal- The Proposes is that ore judge Res'. nenry R. Dallier. Burial .,.i' dlex said that betaecn from etkh of the new districts;follow at Gmndview cemetcn !ontestants untally �_ which include Catservancy Dfs- Blythe - Goodrich mortuary an o the sire of port Col- trict territory shall compose tbelnounr_ed. rrouo of fudges to—aonolnt the Packet Pg.248 • 1 1 - 'yam"�`:,. : �,;ti.,ta�• ~d��•�"G�' _ :`'. �� . . 'ti - VVY _ • 4� -�.�s.•,�•�•,��'�. ,«� - �;�� '• . wee, Iva � .• - jr— i- •�- ���...4.•mod � � � '� �' • lit I i ti& _ UAL b.1 �� - • 1 1 IR -- Ak I J riMA - �. - 10 son Landmark Preservation Commission—Item#6 City of Fort Collins February 17,2021 i 3 FI i Ulm Design Review (NRHP)—Alterations to 421 Mathews Commission's Role • Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide additional comments report• Approve or modify findings in draft report • Staff issues on behalf of LPC 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Updated 2-16-21 meow Background ]t Mrinrnr li�', — • 1900—property constructed by Herman Schroeder .Y • During early 1900s, home of postmaster William Roberts and family M, • c.1906—rear additions made to current configuration • 1980: Property(house&garage) listed _ in National Register(contributing to Laurel School Historic District) 3 City of Proposed Alterations Fort Collins 1. Addition onto building's southwest corner and demolition of southwest sunporch/laundry room 2. Full window and door replacement 3. Siding repair 4. South bay window replacement 5. Front porch replacement 6. Reconstruction of the brick chimneys 7. Demolition of shed at southwest corner of lot 4 Packet Pg.253 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Updated 2-16-21 is �` Modifications to • • New Info Modifications to Project Updates from Work Session • Staff encouraged the applicant to 0 New information on porch consider repair rather than including historic photo replacement 0 Photographs to document • Empire Carpentry engaged condition under DAP to consult on carpentry repair • Applicant elected to retain siding as practicable 5 ME y of t Collins Relevant Rehabilitation Standards • Standard 2 — Preserve historic character • Standard 5 — Preserve historic features and materials • Standard 6 — Repair rather than replace • Standard 9 —Additions should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate • Standard 10 —Additions should be reversible ilm i Packet Pg.254 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Updated 2-16-21 Proposed Alterations — Site �.,F�cort Collins i Proposed Alterations — East facade i c City of Fort Collins • Removal of existing porch Replacement of porch with squared-post porch and parallel --°-�-- Q -- decking Replacement of 12-over-12 ~ wood windows with 2x2 casements I Note: Existing lapboard will be retained u� 8 Packet Pg.255 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Updated 2-16-21 Romwproposed �1 South Elevation 11 9 City of Fort Collins `r' Y F GV.J W _ t � C- Nor Etevabon 10 Packet Pg.256 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Updated 2-16-21 Ozzwoproposed Alterations — West Elevation A Wpl Ekvetbnn 11 Staff City of Findings of • The Tomlins-Robertson Property is a contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. • The proposed rehabilitation of 421 Mathews Street, while including elements that do meet the Standards, overall, does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. • The rehabilitation, as proposed, will render the building ineligible for City Landmark status, and will likely render the property non-contributing to the Laurel School Historic District due to loss of historic integrity. 12 Packet Pg.257 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 6 Updated 2-16-21 City of^ Reminder: Commission's Role • Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide additional comments as necessary • Approve or modify findings in draft report • Staff issues report on behalf of LPC 13 Packet Pg.258